Scripture mistaken the ground of Protestants and common plea of all new reformers against the ancient Catholicke religion of England : many texts quite mistaken by Nouelists are lay'd open and redressed in this treatis[e] by Iohn Spenser.

SCRIPTVRE MISTAKEN THE GROVND OF PROTESTANTS , &c.

THE FIRST CONTROVERSIE . Concerning the worship 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 Fili●m 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 re●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 command 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 deuotion . 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 . Leuit. 19. v. 14. 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 , Ps. 31.23 . 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 , commands vs as clearly to worship something beside God , as it commands to feare and loue others beside God , Psalme 99.5 . worship his foorstole . where the very same Hebrew , and Greeke phrase , and words are vsed , which are in this text cited . Mat. 4.10 . Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God ; howsoeuer that text Psal. 99. is mistranslated by Protestants , as I shall shew here after . Ande the Prophete Isay foretels that the enimies of Hierusalem , should worship the steps of her feete , Isay 60.14 . but what soeuer be meant by those steps , certainly it cannot be God , therefore the text of Scripture , cited Mat. 4. commands not , that God only should be worshipped . If any Protestant shoud say , that though the word only , be not ioyned to worship , yet it is ioyned to serue in the text cited , Mat. 4. and him only shalt thou serue , which seemes to be of as much force , as if it were ioyned to worship . I answer , that if the Opponent had framed the Protestant position thus , God only to be serued , therefore neyther Sainct nor Angell , the latter part of the text hauing , and him only shalt thou serue , there might haue beene some shew of proofe , in alledging these words Mat. 4. But seeing the position runs thus , God only to be worshipped , and the text saith not , thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only , but thou shalt worship the Lord thy God , who sees not , that there is noe shew at all of proofe in it ? as when the Scripture sayth , Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God , Deut. 10.20 . and him only shalt thou serue , one might at least seemingly proue from this sentence , that God only , is to be serued , but one shall neuer proue , by the force of those words , that God only is to be feared . If a Protestant should reply , that worship , and serue , seeme to signify the same thing , and soe only being added , to serue , is as much as if it were added to worship . I answer that if wee haue regard to the Greeke text , ( in which only the difference betwixt worship , and serue in Mat. the 4. v. 10. is clearly discouered ) there is a large difference betwixt those two words , the one signifying properly , and by mere force of the word , worship in generall , and soe vsed familiarly in holy Scripture , to signify both rhe worship due to God , and to men , Saincts , and Angells , and the other a seruice due to God only , and neuer applyed to the religious seruice of any creature , which I shall here after make manifest . Beside , serue signifies more largely , then worship , for wee serue God by faith , hope , charitie , obedience , and all good workes done to his honour , but wee worship 〈◊〉 him , only by an act of Religion . As appeares . Hebr. 12.28 . let vs haue grace , wereby we may serue God acceptably with Reuerence and Godly feare .

MISTAKE II. Worship missapplied in this text , Mat. 4.10 .

I Haue allready proued that this text , commands not that God only should be worshipped , because it saies not thou shallte worship the Lord thy God only ; but though it had said soe , yet it were to be vnderstood not to forbid , the exhibiting of all kind of worship to any saue God , but only such worship as is proper to God alone , and which without Sacrilege , and Idolatry cannot be giuen to any but to God . Thus though Saint Paul say , that God only hath immortality , yet that must be vnderstood of a most diuine , infinite , 1. Tim. 6.15 . and vncreated immortali●y proper to God alone , and not of all kinde of immortalities , for then S. Paul would contradict him selfe , when he saith , 1. Cor. 15.54 . Lue. 18.19 that our mortall bodies shall put on imusortality . Thus when our Sauiour said , none is good saue one , that is God , it must only be vnderstood of an essentiall , incomprehensible goodnes , for otherwise , that text would be contrarie , to S. Luke , saying and behould there was a man named Ioseph , which was a counseller , Luc ▪ 2● . 25 . a good man and a iust , and to that of the Acts which speaking of S. Barnabas , saith that he was a good man , and full of the holy Ghost . Acts 11.23 Now as there are different kinds , of Immortalities and goodnesses , the one infinitely perfect , diuine , essentiall , and vncreared , the other , imperfect , humane , accidentall , and created ; soe that the scriptures ascribing the one to God only , and the other to creatures , are easily reconciled , and playnly vnderstood without any shew of contrariety , or contradiction , amongst them selues , or iniury to God , soe are there in Scrtpture different kindes of worships , the one acknowledging , and exhibiting honour to , an Infinite , diuine , vncreated immortality , and goodesse in the Person , which he worships , and the other a creaded and finite ; Thus in the text cited , Mat. 4.10 . Thou shalt worship , the Lord thy God , though the word worship , considered in it selfe , signifie properly both these kinds of worships , yet as it lyes here , it must be taken for the first kinde , of highest and cheifest worship only ; but the very same word , both in hebrew , greeke . latine , and English , in other places of Scripture , must be taken for the Second kinde of lower and inferour worship , acknowledging , and intending only to expresse , an imperfect , limited , and created goodnesse , in the persons , or things worshpped . Thus we read in Genesis , The sones of thy father shall adore , Gen ▪ 49.8 . or worshipp thee Saith Iacob , blessing his sonne Iuda . Gen. 42.6 . And of the btetheren of Ioseph , saluting theyr brother , when his bretheren had worshipped him , and nothing more ordinary in holy hcripture , then worship giuen to persons in dignity , and authority . As therefore this Protestant position , that God only is to be worshipped , being vnderstood ( at it must here by the opponent ) that noe worship at h all is to be giuen to any saue God , playnly contradicts those and the like places of Scripture . Soe the Romaine Catholique position , that some kinde of worship , is to be exhibited to others , then God , is both euidently consonant to these texts , and noe way dissagreeing , from that of Mat. 4.10 . and the like texts , wich command vs to worship God , nay though they should command vs to worship God , only , beecause such commands are all wayes to be vnderstood , of that first , and highest kinde of worship , aboue mentioned ; neyther is there any possible meanes to reconcile , different places of Scripture , which seeme to ascribe to God only , that , which in other places is ascribed to creatures , but by such distinctions , of perfections , or worships , as I haue declared . And this is soe cleare , that it must be , and is confessed , by Protestans themselues , who generally graunt , that Religious worship is to be giuen to God only , but ciuil worship to creatures ; wich distinction being once admitted , the opponent , will neuer be able to conuince any thing against the worship of Saincts and Angels , out of Mat. 4.10 . for if one will terme the worship giuen to Saincts and Angels , a ciuil worship , as I will presently demonstrate Protestants must doe , if they make noe distinction betwixt religious worships , then euen Saincts and Angles may be worshipped at the least with some kinde of ciuil worship , euen according to Protestants , notwithstanding thath text of Mat. 4.10 . which according to them must be vnderstood to forbid only Religious worship to any saue God . But because the common tenet of Catholique Doctours is , that things created may be worshipped with some kinde of Religious worship , I will make it euident out of Scripture , that some Religious worship hath been , and may be lawfully exhibited to creatures , and soe not to God only . Thus wee read in the bookes of kings , that the captaine of 50 men worshipped Elias the Prophete , 2. 4. Reg. 1.13 . 2. 4. Reg. 2.15 . 2. 4. Reg. 4.37 . Exod. 3.5 . Psal. 99.5 . and 50 men together the Prophete Elizeus , and after the Sunamite receiuing her reuiued sone , adored the same Prophete ; Thesame is of Moyses commanded to adore the ground where on God stood , and of Dauid commanding to worship the footstoole of God . And least it should be thought that this manner of worshipping was only in vse in the ould testament , wee haue an expresse president of it in the new , for our Sauiour in the reuelation speakes to the Angell of philadelphia thus . Reu. 3.9 . Behould I wil make them ( that is his enimyes ) come and worship before thy feet .

Now that it may appeare , that these acts of worship , were Religious , and not meerely ciuill , wee must know in generall , that worship is nothing but an humiliation of our selues in acknowledgmēt of some goodnesse , and excellēcie , in that which wee worship . Soe that there are two kinds of worship the one interiour , the other exteriour , the interiour is in the minde , and soul only , the exteriour is that interiour signifeyd by some humiliation of the body , soe that though one may haue the inward of the soule , without any outward or exteriour in the body , yet one can heuer haue a true act of exteriour , or bodily worship without an interiour worship , in the soule , thus the souldiers in the tyme of our Sauiours passion , though they bended their knees to him , which is one part of exteriour worship taken Separately , and absolutely in it selfe , yet because it was not accompanied with the inward humiliation of the soule , it was noe act of worship , but of mockerie . I say it followes , that as the outward corporall humiliation is constitured , an act of true worship , by the inward intention of the minde , Soe are the different kinds of worships distinguished only by the different intentions , and humiliations of the soule ; For the very same , externall comportment and prostration of the body may be vsed both when wee worship God , an Angell , a Saint , an Apostle , a Bishop , a Priest , a King , a Magistrate , a father , a mother , &c. thus the very same hebrew , Exod. 20.4 . Gen. 49.8 . Gen. 42.6 . 2. King . 1.13 . 2. King . 2.15 . 2. King . 4.37 . and greeke word , is vsed in these different worships , ( the same bowing and kneeling is practised to them all as I haue allready proued . But though the same externall gestures of the body may be vsed to all , yet they b●ome different kinds of worships , according to the different humiliations , intentions , and acknowledgments , which he who worships desires to exptesse by those outward deportments of the body . Thus if when I kneele I intend to exhibite worship to the Creatour and maker of all tkings ; that kneeling will be a diuine worship proper to God only ; If I kneele with intention to acknowledge only some ciuil dignity , or morall exccllency in the person before whom I keele , it will bc a meere ciuill worship , but if I kneele before , or to some other thing , or person , with intention to acknowledge in them 'a worth or dignity , neyther infinite nor diuine , but finite and createed , neyther yet ciuil , morall , humane , and naturall , but christian , spirituall , and supernaturall , such a kneeling will neither be an act of diuine worship , proper to God only , nor of ciuill worship , proper to persons or things indued with meare humane , and naturall , excellences , but will be an act of supernaturall , and religious worship taken in a larger sense , as I shall presently declare . Thus wee see that the different intentions of the mynde , make the same externall , kneelings of the body , to be different kinds of worships , by intending there by to acknowledge , a worth in that which is worshipped , diuine , Supernaturall , or ciuill ; soe that all the difficulty in this matter , consists in shewing clearly , that there are these three different worths , or excellencies , to be acknowledged and honored , by an act of worship . Two of these , to witt , diuine , and ciuill excellency , the one found in God alone , the other in the ciuill Magistrate , all Protestans Acknowledge , the difficulty therefore at the last , comes to make it eleare , that there is allso a third worth , and excellency , which is neyther infinite , nor increated , nor diuine , nor yet humane , or naturall , but wholy spirituall , and supernaturall , inspired or communicated , aboue all reach , of naturall force and light , from the holy Ghost , and giuen to men , through the only merits , and by the authority of our Sauiour . These heauenly excellencies I find to be of two sorts the one internall , and iustifying graces and gifts , or at the least giuen freely to men , as other supernaturall things : the other externall powers and authorities : both which I will conuince out of holy Scripture , to be such supernaturall gifts of God as I haue affirmed . S. Iames , speaking of the internall graces saith thus . Iames 1.17 . 1. Ccr. 15. v. 10. Iohn . 15. v. 5. Iohn . 1.10 . Euery best and perfect gift is from aboue , descending from the father of light . And S. Paul by the grace of God I am what I am , and his grace was not voyd in me . and that of our Souiour , without me yee can doe nothing . And S. Iohn . Soe many as receiued him he gaue them the power to become the sones of God , who are not born of blood , nor of the will of the flesh , nor of the will of man but of God . And many like texts , which euidently proue , that all true grace , and Sancttitie , is a free gift of God , aboue the force of mans nature , vnderstanding and will , and this Protestans commonly graunt , and noe Christian can deny , without falling in to Pelagianisme . Concerning the externall authority , dignity , and preheminencie of Ecclesiasticall persones in the true Christian church , they are as euidently ascribed to Christ , and the holy Ghost as the former . Thus S. Paul . And some verily God hath set in the church , 1. Cor. 12. v. 28.29 . first Apostles , secondly Prophetes , thirdly Doctours , next miracles , then graces of doing cures , helps , gouermens , kinds of tongues . Which he ascribes with many other heauenly gifts , to the holy Ghost , towards the begining of this chapter , in the words following . And there are diuisions of graces , but the same spirit . 1. Cor. 12.4.5.6.7.9.10 . And there are diuisions of ministries , but the same Lord . And there are diuisions of workes but the same God who workes all in all ; But to euery one is giuen the manifestation of the spirit to profit . To one by the spirit is giuen the word of wisdome ; but to another the word of knowledge according to the fame spirit : to an an other faith in one spirit : to an other the worke of power , to an other Prophesie , to an other discretion of spirits ; to an other kinds of tongues , to an other interpretation of speeches . All these , workes one an the same spirit diuiding to euery one as he will . And to the Galathians . Gallath . 4.11.12 . And he ( that is our Sauiour ) hath giuen some to be Apostles , others to be Prophets , others to be Euangelists , but others to be Pastours and Doctours , to the consummation of the Saints , into the worke of the ministry to the edifying of the body of Christ , till wee all meete in the vnity of faith , and the acknowledgment of the sone of God , in a perfect man , in the fullnesse of the age of Christ , whence it is eleare , that not only in the Apostles tyme , but through all ages till the end of the world , the dignities in the church were to be guifts of our Sauiour , and not conferred by any authority purely humane , and naturall . And as those testimonies couince , that both inward holinesse , and ecclesiasticall dignities are gifts of the holy Ghost , and conferred by the power and Authority , deriued from Christ ; soe lickewise the worth and excellency of the Saints in heauen , are to be accounted the highest and chiefest supernaturall gifts , and graces of God . Thus S. Paul . Rom. ● . 23 . The grace of God ( Protestants reade the gift of God ) is eternall life , which all the Saints of heauen inioy . And S. Iohn . Be faithfull vntill death , Reuel. 2.10 . Mat. 19.18 . 1 , Cor. 6.2.3.4 . and I will giue the a crowne of life . And S. Mat. Yee shall sit vppon 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 wee shall iudge the Angells , how much more things of this life . And S. Iohn , brings in the 24. Elders , saying , Reu. 5.19 ▪ thou hast made vs a kindome and Priestes and we 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 , Luck 9.26 . Mare . 8.36 . Acts 7.53 . Gen , 19.1 . Luc. 1·11 . 1. Mat. 20. 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 law , 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 , Iosua 5.16 . Exod. 3.5 . 1 King 21.4.6 . Psal. ● . 8 . Ps. 10.4 . Ps. 17.7 . Mat. 23.17.18.19 . Exod. Leui● . Numbers &c. 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 , Num ▪ 19.2 . 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 . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Religious , pious , according to scapula . Deuou● in the pro●estant Bibles . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , According to scapula , amongst Ecclesiasticall Authores , Religious , Pious , the protestants translate i● Deuou● . 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 second larger acception , where a Religious Persone signifies nothing , but a person truly deuout , vertuous , and fairhfull . Thus Acts 2.5 . But there were dwelling in Ierusalem Iewes Religious men of all nations whieh are vnder heauen . And Acts 10.2 . where it is said of Cornelius , that he was Religious , and fearing God with his whole houshould , giuing many almes to the common people , and all wayes 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 . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Religious in protestāt Bibles . 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 our Religion , and tending finally to the acknowledgment of God , and our Sauiours honour , as authour of our faith and Religion . Soe that hauing these references to Gods honour , though those Acts of Religious worship tend immediately to the acknowledgement of some created supernaiurall excellence in that which wee worshipp , by them , yet that hinders not theyr beeing Religious acts in this larger sence . As appeares by these following texts of Scripture ; where Moyses is commaunded to prescribe certaine ceremoniall rites in Sacrifices , & Holocausts , Leuit. 7.6 . amongst which one was , that the brest & right Shoulder of that which was offered in sacrifice , should be giuen to the Priests , as belonging to them by right and ordinance of God , The giuing of these two parts of the thing offered to the priest , was an action done immediately to a pure creature , and not to God , and yet it is called Religion , as appeares by the words . These things God commaunded to be giuen to them ( that is to Aaron , and his ofspring , as it is in the precedent words , ) from the children of Israell , by a perpetuall Religion in theyr generations . Secondly S. Iames. Pure and vndefiled Religion with God , and the father is this , to visite the orphanes , Iames 1.17 . and widowes in theyr tribulation , and to keepe himselfe vnspotted in this life . where a worke of mercy to the pore is called Religion , that is a worke proceeding from Religion , and belongrg to Religion , though done to creatures , such as are orphanes and wedows .

All that I haue cited out of Scripture in the discouery of this second mistake , will , I hope , haue cōuinced the iudicious , and well minded Reader , that there is a Supernaturall created excellency , communicated liberally from Allm : God to some creatures , infinitely below the diuine , excellency of God , and yet far aboue all naturall and ciuill worth , which therefore must deserue honour , and worship seeing that naturall and ciuill excellencies , ( euen according to protestants ) though far inferiour to them , deserue it . which worship seeing it is done in acknowledgment of the Spirituall and supernaturall dignities , which are only proper to Gods true religion , and soe are religious excellencies , may be rightly termed a religious worship in the fore named sense : For seeing the humble acknowledgmēt of diuine perfections , is deseruedly termed diuine worship , and of ciuill , perfections , rightly styled , ciuill worship soe the humble acknowledgment of religious perfections , for the like reason , is to be named Religious worship . which will yet seeme lesse strange , to an indifferent eye if one consider , that the some different degrees may be found in Acts of other vertues , which are here found in worships . I haue allready proued from Scripture that there are different kinds and degrees of feares , and loues . whence it followes , that when one feares the iustice and wrath of some ciuill Prince , or magistrate , it may be called ciuill feare , but when one feares the iustice and authority of an Apostle , a Prophet , &c. whose power is drawn from Religion , it may be named a Religious seare . Gen. 3.10 . Thus the feare of Adam , hiding himselfe from God , was a diuine feare . 1. Kings 1 , Acts ▪ Acts 5 , ● ▪ The feare of Adonias flying from king Salomon , was a ciuill feare : but the feare of the Prim●tiue Christians of S. Peeter , when Ananias fel down dead at his feete , was a Religious feare . And the same distinction is in different ordres of loue . S. Peeter loued our Sauiour as his God and Redcemer , with diuine loue . Ifack loued Esau , with a ciuill loue ; Iohn . 21. ●7 . Gen. 25.28 . Acts 20 , 37. but the Primitiue Christians loued S. Paul , with a Religious loue . And in the same manner , as I haue allready Proued , Moyses worshipped the infinit maiesty of God , with a diuine worship , the children of Iacob worshipped the power and excellency of Ioseph , with a ciuill worship , but rhe Sunamite worshipped Elizeus , and the captaine of fifty men , Elias , ( whose authorities were deriued , known , and acknowledged only from faith , and Religion ) with Religious worship .

And the giuing such a Religious worship as this , which I haue described to a creature is soe far from derogating any thing from the due worship of God , or from ascribing any worship proper to him , to any creature , that it would be an insufferable iniury to God , And horrid Sacriledge , to affirme that he is to be worshipped , with any such worship for that were to acknowledge in him only a created , finite , & imperfect excellencie , which were to make him an Idoll , & a false God . Neyther can his honour be any thing diminished by exhibiting this kinde of Religious worship , to a creature indued with spitituall graces , for his honour cannot be iniured , but by giuing to a creature the wotship proper , and due to him only , seeing therefore this is no worship due to him neyther only nor at all , it cannot be any way a preiudice to his honour . For as ciuill and religious feare , and loue commanded to be giuen to creatures , is no way preiudicious to the diuine feare and loue which we-owe to God ; Soe neyther can ciuill , nor religious worship commaunded to be exhibited to creatures , ( as I haue proued ) be preiudicious to the highest diuine worship which we owe to God . And thus much Allm : God seemes to say by his Ptophet Isay. Isay 42.8 . I am the Lord this is my name , I will not giue my glory to any other , nor my praise to Idols . where he saith not , I will not giue glory to any other , for that would be contrary to the words of the Psalmist , speaking of man in his first creation , Psal. 8.6 . Thou hast crowned him with glory and honour , but I will not giue my glory to an other , that is that infinite glory which properly belongs to God only , wich is specifyed in the precedent words , I am the Lord , this in my name , soe that God wil neuer giue that which is his proper name and title , to be Lord of all things , to an other ; which is yet more expressely set down , by the same Prophet , And I will not giue my glory to an other : heare o Iacob and Israell whom I call . I , Isay 48 . 11.12.1● . I my selfe am the firrst , and I am the last . And my hand also layd tbe foundarions of the earth , and my right hand measured the heauens , &c. This is that glory proper to him alone , of being the eternall God , creator of heauen and earth , which he will not giue to an other : which soe long as he keepes inuiolable to him selfe , all vnder glories limited and created , which are like soe many little motes compared with the infinite extent , and light of his glory , he both liberally giues himselfe , and wills they should respectiuely be giuen to his creatures . If not withstanding all these euidences both of Scripture and Reason , any one should remayne soe strangely willfull , and immouable , by force of education , and continuall custome from his infancie , as to deny all kind of Religious worship in how large a sence soeuer it be taken , to be lawfully exhibited to any saue God alone . I say if any such should be found ; soe long as he yeelds to the thing it selfe , that is , to 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 word 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 . Ephes. 6.7 . 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. Gen· 25.21 . Rom. 9 ▪ 12. 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 consider , 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 Euāgelist . 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 se●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 Sacrament , 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 signifi●es the worship of God . This dubble significa●ion supposed , Hebr. 9.9 . 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 , Heb. 9.9 . 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 , Luc. 2.37 . in S. Luke , where he sayth Anna the Prophetesse was night and day in the Temple . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , seruing , that is doing seruice to God . This text , Luke the 2.37 . The Protestant bible of 1589. with Fulks commentarie translates 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Serued God . And Heb. 9.2 . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , seruings of God , and the later Bibles translate it , diuine feruice . whence it appeares that the absolute significarion of this word , is the seruice of God , or diuine seruice . In the like manner I find it , Acts 7.7 . Rom. 1.9 . and Reuel. 22. taken for the seruice of the true God , and for the seruice of Idoles , or false Gods . Acts 7. v. 41. 1. Cor. 5.1 . and Rom. 22.15 . & in the old Testament 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 , Reuel . 22. ● . 8.9 . 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 .

Gen. 19.7.1 . 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 ground , &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 , Iosua 5. v. 14. 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 . Act. 10. v. 25.26 . 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 . 2. Kings 4. v. 37. Againe he sent a third captaine of fifty men , and fifty men with him ; who , when he was come , bowed his knees toward Elias , and prayed him and said man of God despise not my life and the liues of thy seruants that are with 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 . 4. Kings 4. v. 37. 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 , Reu. 5.4.5 . 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 , Luc. 23.28 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 Protestant 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 , Act. 14. v. 10.11.12.13.14 . 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 . And if they like of this answer , they will giue vs alsoe leaue to apply the same to the passage of S. Iohn . Reu. 22. v. 8.9 . not that S. Iohn committed any Idolatry or false worship , willingly and sinfully , but that the Angell vppon good ground eyther thought , or at least feared , that S. Iohn tooke him to be our Sauiour , & soe gaue him presently the worship due to the Diuine Person which he thought him to be : for though it be wholly improbable , that Cornelius gaue diuine worship to S. Peeter Act. 10. because he was noe heathen , but a true beleeuer , and soe knew that diuine honour , was to be giuen to God only ; and religious and fearing God , as appeares , v. 11. and soe was far from committing Idolatry , and knew well enough that S. Peeter was a man , v. 5. and the 6. and soe could not suppose him , out of ignoranee to be God , and though it seeme as improbable , that S. Peeter conceiued that Cornelius intended to worship him with diuine honour , seeing he was sufficiently informed , that he was a true beleeuer , and Professour of the law of Moises , v. 22. yet many ancient fathers teach that S. Iohn did really thinke that this Angell which appeared to him , was not an Angell , but our Sauiour , or at least it was very incident to the Angel , to conceiue or feare ( being ignorant of S. Iohns intention ) that he tooke him to be our Sauiuor , because the Angel sayd in the precedēt verse behould I come quickly , which was the vsuall phrase & speech which our Sauiour vsed to S. Iohn when he appeared to him , as is manifest chap. 2. v. 6. chap. 3. v. 21. c. 16. v. 15. c. 22. v. 12. and must necessarily haue beene pronounced , eyther by our Sauiour himselfe , or by an Angell in his place , and speaking in his name , because these words , I come quickly ( as is cleare in all the afore cited places , and particularly chap. 22. v. 12. presently following ) can neyther be meant nor verifyed of any one but of our Sauiour : and this to haue been the opinion of S. Iohn , by reason of those next precedent words , Behold I come quicly , may haue some ground in the text it selfe here cited by the opponent , And when I had heard and seene , I fell down to worship , &c. for the seeing of those strange visions , and hearing those precedent words . Behold I come quicly . Soe proper to out Sauiour , gaue this occasion to worship the Angel , as taking him to be our Sauiour : and therefore the Angel presently disabused him , and let him vnderstand that he was not our Sauiour , but a creature and seruant of God , as appeares in this text obiected v. 8. and 9. if it should be obiected that c. 21. v. 9. S. Iohn affirmes , that this very Angell which he worshipped was one of the seauen Angells , who caried the viols filled with the last plagues , and therefore could not thinke that it was our Sauiour . I answer that though in the begining and continuance of this vision he seemed to him to be an Angell , yet when he heard him pronounce words proper to our Sauiour , he might haue sufficient reason to thinke that his former apprehension was amisse , and that whatsoeuer he seemed before , yet it was our Sauiour appearing vnder the forme of that Angell . If it be further obiected that S. Iohn writes expresly that it was one of the Seauen Angells , which appeared to him , and therefore could not after doubt of it , it may be answeared that when the Euangclist writ this he was wholy assured that it was an Angell , because the Angell had , before this was written , determinaetly assured him , that he was not our Sauiuor ; yet whilst the vision happned , before it was eyther written , or the Angell had rectifyed the iudgment of S. Iohn , he had ground inough to thinke it was our Sauiour , when he heard those words proceede from him , behould I come speedily . Neyther is it any wonder that S. Iohn was ignorant of some things , concerning the visions which appeared to him . For he thought that none could be found worthie to open the seauen seales and therefore wept , and was as much forbidden to weepe by the Angell , c. 5. v. 4. as to worship , c. 19. v. 10. Hee aeknowledges alsoe that hee knew not who they weare who appeared in white Stoles . c. 7. v. 13.

Though these answeares may satisfye all that is opposed against them , yet because the matter is in it selfe obscure , and leaues a probability on both sides , I rather sticke to the other answer that though S. Iohn knew it was noe more then an Angell , yet the Angell refused the worship he gaue him , at S. Peeter did that of Cornelius . And yet whatsoeuer may be thought of these two answers , that which is most cleare and vnquestionable is a third answers . That though S. Iohn knew that he who speake to him was an Angel , and not our Sauiour , and soe gaue him , the worship only due to an Angel , yet the Angel being ignorant of S. Iohns intention , might diseruedly feare , or conceiue , that he tooke him to be our Sauiour , and soe gaue him diuine worship , and therefore , he presently dissabused him , telling him that he was one of his fellow seruants , &c. And each of these answers may be equally applyed to the like text , Reu. 22. v. 9.9 . Reu. 19. Reuel. 19. for out of the same ground of Act. 10. it may be sayd that he refused this worship though in it selfe lawfull , as S. Peeter did that of Cornelius : or that he supposed him to be our Sauiour , ( and soe gaue him diuine honour which was no way due to him ) because he there vsed the phrase of our Sauiour , when he sayd scribe , write , as appeares in the three first chapters , and chap. 14. v. 13.14.15 . neyther can it be clearly proued that any one commaunded S. Iohn to write , saying to him , Scribe , write , but our Sauiour , saue only in this place , through the whole Reuelation ; and then it was spoken in the name and person of Christ by the Angell ; soe that S. Iohn had great reason to thinke that it was the voyce of our Sauiour , and therefore gaue him the honour due to our Sauiour , till he was better informed : or according to the third , and clearest answer , the Angel had reason to thinke , that S. Iohn worshipped him , ( when he heard him vse that phrase of our Sauiour ) with diuine worship , as taking him to be our Sauiour , though S. Iohn , knew that he was but an Angel , and soe gaue him only the worship which was due to an Angel . And thus much for the text of S. Iohn .

The text of S. Paul mistaken . Against the worshipping of Angels .

Let no man beguile you of your reward in voluntary humility , and worshipping of Angells , Coloss. 2. v. 18. intruding into those thinges , which he hath not seene , vainly puffed vp in his fleshly minde .

The First mistake . The worshipping of Angells missapplyed .

I Answer , that this text speakes of a worshiping of Angells , wherby they are made equall to Christ , or that Christ is depending of them , which containes 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 , Coll. 2. v. 18. 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 . Col. 2. v. 18. 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 , a a Menander , Saturninus , Cethiani , Caiani . 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 b b Cerinthiani . 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 our Sauiour , witnesses that the holy Apostle S. Paul in this place writes , against these heretikes : S. Epiphanius alsoe witnesses that Simon Mahus excluded our Sauiour from the office of mediatour , and put the Angells in his place , as the Apostle seemes here to say .

The Third mistake . This text is made contrary to other texts of Scripture .

THirdly , the Religion , or worship of Angells here forbidden , cannot be all kinde of worship exhibited to them : for then this place of Scripture would be contrary to the other which I cited before , Gen. 19. v. 1. Iosua 5. v. 14. where Angells were lawfully worshipped : and so this place cannot conclude any thing against vs : for if some worship may be lawfully giuen to Angells notwithstanding this place , it can neuer be proued from hence , that the worship we giue them is forbidden , vnlesse it be first proued to be vnlawfull , which can neuer be deduced from this generall prohibition .

And if any one should obiect here that seeing this word threskeia signifyes religion and worship , thence may be gathered , that all worship appertayning to Religion , or all religius worship is forbidden , to be giuen to Angells . I answer , that if wee take religion and religious worship as it is strictly and presly taken amongst the Doctours in its prime and formall acception , for a vertue whereby due honour is giuen immediately to God ; it is true that all such religion or religious worship is there forbidden to be giuen to Angells : and in this sense noe Catholike teaches that religious worship is to be giuen to Angells , or any creature , but only to the creatour of all things , because he only it true God : but if by religion or religious worship be vnderstood in a larger sense , a vertue or reuerence belonging to religion , and exceeding the bounds of nature and ciuill worship ; then religious worship to Angells is not forbidden in this place . Now that religion may be taken in this larger sense , is cleare as I haue allready shewed out of S. Iames now cited chap 1. v. 26. and 27. If any man amongst you seeme to be religiouus , and bridleth not his tongue , but deceiueth his owne hart , this mans religion is vaine . Pure religion and vndefyled before God and the father , is to visit the fatherlesse , and widowes , in their afflictions , and to keepe himselfe vnspotted from the world .

Where wee see . that actions performed to creatures of piety and mercy , are called religion , and are religious actions : and so this worship , though it be done to creatures , may according to the phrase of Scripture be called religious worship , at least in this large sense , that workes of piety and mercy are called religion , or religious actions here by S. Iames. And thus much for the second place .

Wee are commanded to pray vnto God : therefore no presumption but a bounden duty . Proofes out of Scripture mistaken .

Come vnto me all yee that labour , Matth. 11.2.28 . and are heauy loaden , and I will giue you rest .

When you pray , say our father which art in heauen . And what soeuer yee shall aske the father in my name , Luke 11. v. 2. Iohn ●6 . v. 23. Luke 11. v. 9. he will giue it you .

Aske and yee shall haue : seeke and yee shall finde knocke and it shall be opened vnto you .

If the opponent meane here that wee are to pray to God without all presumption of our selues , or our own workes ( for the words are obscure ) wee most willingly admit this whole obiection , and all the proofes of it , as most consonant with the doctrine of the Romain Church , and only against Pelagian and Semipelagian Heretikes :

For shee teacheth that the good workes of Gods children are truly good , and pleasing to God , and meritorious of the increase of grace and eternall glory , Concil. Trid. sess. can. 1.2.3 ▪ yet she teaches also that all good workes are the free gifts of God , proceeding from his grace , and not to be ascribed to any naturall force of ours left to it self , which is not able to doe any thing at all pleasing to Allmighty God ; and so wee cannot glory in our selues , but in God only , as S. Paul teacheth vs : Againe she teacheth , that though the good workes of God's children be meritorious , Concil. Trid. sess. 6. c. 9 . 16.● can. 13.14.15 . as is declared , where they are ; yet no man can be in this life ( without a particular reuelation ) infallibly assured that he is the child of God , or that he euer did any one worke truly good and pleasing to God ; and so liues and dyes wholy relying vppon the mercies of God , and merits of our deare Sauiours bitter death and Passion , of which he is assured by a firme and stedfast hope , not presumptuously relying vppon his owne workes , whereof he hath no sufficient assurance whereon to found his saluation : and so he is kept in a most humble and low esteeme of himselfe , and all he euer did through his whole life : for it is not the beleeuing that good workes where thy are , are meritorious , but the beleeuing that wee haue such meritorious workes , which can giue any shew of reason to rely vppon them : ( I say beleuing with an infallible faith which Reformers teach ) for wee may and ought to haue a stedfast hope that through the grace of Christ , wee haue done some good workes and meritorious ) as it is not the assurance that the abundance of mony and gould , where it is , is able to purchase great possessions , but the assurance that one hath such an abundance of gould , which makes one confide that he is able to compasse such a purchase : and yet , though a iust man should infallibly know that he had done workes truly pleasing to God , he would not be presumptuous , because he knowes they proceede from the grace of God . If therefore this be all that is intended by this obiection , that wee are commanded to pray to God without all presumption , and vppon bounden duty , wee haue nothing against it : but if hereby be intended , that wee are commaunded to pray to God vppon boundē duty , and therefore it is noe presumption to pray to him , yet so that wee are to pray to him alone , ( as the insuing , obiections and proofes seeme to insinuate ) then wee giue our reasons for the contrary , in the insuing answer : which will be alsoe common to this : only à word or two vnto these fower places cited for proofe of this difficulty thus vnderstood .

The text of Mat. 11. v. 28. mistaken . Come vnro me all yee that labour , Matth. 11. v. 28. and are heauie loaden , and I will giue you rest .

THis text is in the mouth of euery ignorant Protestant , to proue that wee are neither to pray to saint nor Angell , but to Christ alone . Come vnto mee , saith our Sauiour : he bids vs not come vnto Saints , ot Angells , say some illiterate Scripturistes : therefore wee must neither come to Saints nor Angells according to our Sauiours command . But how far this discourse is from common sense , euery vnderstanding person will easily discouer : for , to say that our Sauiour bids vs not here come to Saints or Angells expressly , is most true : but that shewes only that coming to Saints or Angells is not here commanded , which no man makes question of : for though the coming by prayer to them be not commanded here , yet that hinders not but eyther in some other place of Scripture , or by other lawfull authority commended in Scripture , it may be either commanded , or allowed : as if one should argue against Protestants euen out of this place in this manner : our Sauiour sayes Matth 11. v. 28. Come vnto mee all yee that labour &c. Hee sayes not here addresse your prayers expresly , and by name to God the Father , or the oly Ghost , by saying our Father which art in heauen &c. or come holy Ghost eternall God &c. but come vnto mee , therefore it is vnlawfull to vtter such perticular prayers to God the Father or the holy Ghost , expressing them by name , but all must be made to our Sauiour only . who sees not how false and senslesse this reasoning is ? for though our expresse coming to God the Father and the holy Ghost be not commanded here , yet neyther is it forbidden , and is commanded in other places , and practized by the whole church of God , yea and by the Protestants themselues .

Others vrge the Same text in this manner , Come vnto me , sayth our Sauiour , Therefore to mee alone and to no other , and so neyther to Saint nor Angell ; which hath as much force as this ; Come vnto mee , sayth our Sauiour : therefore goe not by name to any other diuine person but to me , and so neyther to God the Father , nor to God the holy Ghost expressly , who are two distinct Persons from him : or as forcible as this , come vnto me all yee that are pore and needy , and I will releeue you , saith some rich charitable person , to the pore of the citty where he dwells ▪ therefore he commands them to come to no other but to him , and forbids them the asking almes of any ●aue himselfe . Or very like to this . Come vnto me &c. sayth our Sauiour : therefore to no other but to him ; and so forbids children to pray to their Parents , or to beseech other Christians yet liuing to pray for them &c. which notwithstanding Protestants dayly practise : for if our Sauiours meaning be to exclude all saue himselfe , when he said , come vnto me &c. then the liuing must be excluded noe lesse , then the Saints and Angels of heauen : and if the Saints yet liuing be not excluded , then our Sauiour did not intend by those words to exclude all , and if not all , then it can neuer be prouued from this text alone , that the coming , as wee doe , to Saints and Angels is forbidden in this text .

I answere therefore , that though our Sauiour in these words command all sinners to come vnto him ; yet he commands them not to come vnto him only ; and so forbids not the comming vnto others , and this answer will , I hope satisfy any considerate person standing precisely in the force of the wotds , and in what by true discourse may be deduced from them .

Yet for a more full satisfaction , all Protestants are to understand , that when Catholikes come by prayr vnto any Saint or Angell , they still performe , what our Sauiour here commands of comming to him : for wee come by their intercession mediately vnto him , when wee beg of them to pray to him for vs , no lesse then Protestants children come mediatly vnto him by the intercession of their parents when they desire them to pray to God to blesse them : and as the Centurian who by one Euangelist is sayd to haue gone to our Sauiour ; and yet by an other , Matth. 8. v. 5.6 , Luk. 7. v. 2.3.4.5 . he only went to some of his friends to speake to our Sauiour for him ; which was to come mediately , or by their meanes to him : especially seeing that when wee pray to any Saint , or Angell , Concil. Trid. sess. 14. wee desire that all theyr praires for vs may be heard through the merits of Christ .

The text of S. Luke mistaken . When you pray , say , our Father which art in heauen . Luk. 11.

THis text if it were only cited to proue , that wee ought to pray to God in this forme , is not against vs , but against those Nouellists who disallow of it . If to proue that wee are to pray in no other words nor forme suaue this ; It concludes as much against Protestants , who vse other formes , as against vs : if to proue that wee are only to pray to God the father , it contradicts the former of comming to God the Sone ; and if to pray to God only and not to Saints , or Angells ; it proues as well that one Christian liuing may not pray to another . So that Protestants must confesse it proues either too much , or nothing . In a word , all that can be drawne from it , is , that it teaches an excellent forme of praying to God , as appeares by the Apostles demand , Lord teach vs to pray , and the scope of our Sauiours doctrine , against the hypocrisy of the Iewes . Matth. 6. v. 7.

The text of S. Iohn mistaken . Whatsoeuer yee shall aske the Father in my name , he will giue it you . Iohn . 16. v. 23.

THis is the constant and vniuersall doctrine , and practise of the Church of Rome : for whether wee pray to any Person of the Blessed Trinity , or to any Saint , or Angell , or to Father or Mother , Concil. Trid. sess. 24. Decret. de Inuoc ▪ &c. suprà cit . or any Christian yet liuing , wee beg all Per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum &c. through our Lord Iesus Christ , or in his name , knowing that nothing is to be demanded or granted in heauen or in earth but for his sake . which I repeate often . because it imports much .

An other text of S. Luke mistaken . Aske and yee shall haue , seeke and yee shall finde knocke , Luke 11. v. 9. and it shall bee opened vnto you .

THis text hath not so much as any shew of proofe against vs : for wee dayly aske , and seeke , and knocke with full hope of what is here promised .

The third Protestant Position .

Christ our Sauiour only mediatour , our Aduocate and intercessour . how dare wee admit of any other ?

This is proued by Scipture mistaken .

For there is one God , and one mediatour betwixt God and man , the man Christ Iesus . 1 , Tim ▪ 15.

The first Proof mistaken . The word mediatour , misapplyed against vs .

THis text speakes of a mediatour of Redemtion only as appeares by the words following v. 6. One mediatour &c. who gaue himselfe a ransome for all , Concil. Trid. sess. 24. cit . which all Romain Catholikes grant to be but only one , to wit , our Sauiour . If any man sin , we haue an Aduocate with the Father , Iesus Christ the righteous : 1. Io. 2. v. 1. & 2. and he is the propitiation for our sins , and not for ours , but also for the sins of the whole world : It is Christ that dyed , yea rather that is risen againe , who is euen at the right hand of God , who also maketh intercession for vs .

The second Proof mistaken . The w●rd Aduocate misvnderstood and misapplyed .

IN this whole text , is not found that Christ only makes intercession for vs ; or , that he only is our aduocate , ( which is to be proued ) all that is sayd here , is , that wee haue an Aduocate with the Father , Christ Iesus &c , and who also waketh intercession for vs ; which hinders not but that there may be other aduocates , and others who make intercession for vs , in an inferiour kinde ; besides , this text , ( as the former ) speakes only of an aduocate , and intercessour , of redemption for sins , as appeares by those words , If any man sin , we haue an aduocate &c. and , he is the propitiation for our sins , and , it is Christ that dyed &c. which wee grant must be only one Thirdly , th●●e two texts speake of an aduocate and intercessour worthy to be heard for himselfe and his owne merits ; which is our Sauiour only , Concil. Trid. sess. 2. Decreto de Innoc . &c. not of other inferiour intercessours and aduocates , who are not worthy to be heard for themserues , or by vertue of any merits proceeding from themselues , considered according to their owne naturall forces , or dignities , but haue only accesse through the dignity & merits of Christ . This appeares by the words now cited , that they speake of an aduocate : worthy to bee heard for himselfe . 1. Timoth. 2. v. 6. Who gaue himselfe a ransome for all . 1. Ioannis 2. v. 1.2 . Hee is the propitiation for our sins , it is Christ that dyed : so that if in the title of this obiection , when it is sayd , Christ our only media●uor , our aduocate , and intercessour , how dare wee admit of any other ? be meant , how dare wee admit of any other mediatour , aduocate , or intercessour of redemption , and propitiation for our sins , and who is worthy to be heard for his own dignity and merits , all Romain Catholikes vnanimously grant that wee dare not admitt of any other saue Christ : but if by the same words , be meant , how dare wee admit of any other mediatuor , aduocate , or intercessour , not of Redemption , but merely of praying to Allmighty God for vs as his seruants , and our friends and fellow seruants , and that to be heard not for themselues , but for Christ ; wee may returne the same question vppon Protestans , and demaund of them , how dare they permit their children euery night to kneele downe and beg of their parēts , that they will pray to God to blesse them : for what is this but to be a mediatour , aduocate , and intercessour , betwixt God and them , not of propitiation , or redemption , but of praying to God for them through the metits of Christ ? The same practise amongst Protestants is , of grand-children , nephewes , god-children &c. nay of all generally amongst them , commending themselues to the praires of others . So that it is euident , that such aduocates as these , euen according to Protestants are not to be excluded by vertue of these texts , vnlesse they will condemne themselues . And this is the very same intercession that wee put amongst the Saints and Angells in heauen ; because both the one and the other pray to God for vs through the merits of Christ ; Concil. Trid. cit . neither imports it for our present question of one sole aduocate , &c. that those to whom wee pray , be in this world or in heauen : for if there be but only one , then no lesse those others on earth , then those in heauen , are excluded : or if the intercession for vs vppon earth be not excluded by force of this text , then Protestants must confesse that they themselues must acknowledge Christ , not so to be our mediatour , aduocate , and intercessour , but that they dare , and doe admit of others , and so are faulty themselues in what they aecuse vs : or if they acknowledge no fault in this , as indeed there is none , then they must cease to accuse vs , and vse the same distinction and explications of the texts , here cited in the obiection , with vs ; to wit , that they admit only one mediatour , or intercessour , and aduocate of Redemption and Saluation , where of the texts speake , but more then one , of praying vnto Allmighty God with vs , and for vs by way of charity , and society , Contra Fanstum Manicheum l. 22 , c. 21 ▪ ( as S. Augustine sayes ) whereof the texts doe not speake : or thus , that there is but one only intercessour which is worthy to be heard for his own dignity and merits ; but more then one , who are made worthy by the merits of Christ , who is that only independent mediatour , and all others depending of him , and his merits . Besides these are mediatours , and intercessours to Christ as he is both God and man , for vs , which Christ cannot be to himselfe , for à mediatour must be bewixt two , as S. Paul saith . Gal. 3.20 .

The Third mistake . It hath beene alwayes the practise of God's Saints in their troubles , and at all tymes , to call vppon him .

When I was in trouble , I called vppon the Lord , Psal. 119.1 and he heard me .

Moyses , and Aaron , and Samuel , Psal. 98.6 ▪ these called vppon the Lord , and he heard them .

And in the night Paul and Silas being in Prison , prayed , and sung prayse to God ; Acts 16. v. 25. so that the prisoners heard them .

The third proof mistaken . These texts are cited to no purposse .

WEe grant all this as nothing at all against our doctrine or practice ; for who can deny that wee both teach , and vse to pray to God in all occasions , and in all our tribulations . But if it be intended that these texts , proue that wee are at all tymes to pray to God , and so at noe time to any creature , to pray to God through Christ for vs , it is a pure mistake , for the texts say noe such matter .

The fourth mistake .

BY all this is playne , that it is the ancientest , the best and the safest way to come only to God in our prayers ; and the contrary doctrine is both new , and absolutely against Gods word .

This mistake discouered .

Noe such mater can be draun , from the texts cited , for by all that I haue answered , appeares , that Protestans themselues , come not only to God in their prayers , but haue recourse oftentymes one to an others prayers , and desire others to pray to God with them , and for them , no lesse nor otherwise then do those of the Romain Church , and therrfore this practice eyther must be ancient and agreeing with Gods word , or the Protestants practice is new , and against Gods word . Here alsoe may be added , as a further satisfaction to these aboue cited mistaken Proofes , that there is an other maine difference betwixt praying to Christ , the Blessed Trinity , or any of the diuine Persons ; and our praying to an Angel , a heauenly Saint , or a good Christian yet liuing . For our praires to God , and Christ as our only Redeemer , are stritly commanded , and are necessary meanes to Saluation , and are acts , belonging to the worship of God properly and primarily , and soe are exercizes appertayning to the vertue of Religion taken presly , and thus the inuocation , or praying , to eyther Angel , Saint , or liuing Chtistian , is neyther vniuersally commanded , nor a meanes absolutly necessary to saluation , ( though it be a very great helpe towards it ) nor an act belonging immediarely , and necessarily to the strict vertue of Religion , or the worship of God ; bur an exercice good and profitable , and necessarily to be esteemed as such , by all true Christians , as I haue allready deduced out of the Council of Trent . Concil. Trid. sess. 24. ci● ▪ which I thought fit to renew in the Readers memory , least the contrary misconceipt amongst Protestants , of our doctrine in this poinct , might alienate his affection from our Religion . If any one desire to haue the inuocation of Saints and Angels , ( thus explicated ) prouued by Scripture , he may please to examine , Iob. 5.1 . Call if there be any which will answer the , and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne ? where the seauenty Interpreters haue it in Greeke , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , & turne the to some of the holy Angels . And Gen. 48. v. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all 〈◊〉 , blesse these Laddes . which is a plaine inuocation of an Angel , as in the former verse 15. the like speech was an inuocation of God . And lastly the first of Samuel , 28. v. 7. to the 22. where the Scripture affirmes expresly . 1. thrice ouer that Samuel himselfe appeared , v. 15.16.20 . 2. that Saul worshipped him , and Samuel did not forbid him , and soe accepted of it , v. 14. 3. that Saul desired Samuel to assist him , and soe inuoked him , v. 15. 4. that Samuel prophesied truly what should become of Saul and the Israelites army under him , as apprares in the next chapter , which was a manifest signe that ▪ he who appeared was not the diuel , but a true Prophete of God , both because the diuel hath noe certaine knowledge of accidentall , and casuall things to come , as those which Samuel foretold were , and because the Prophete Ierem. c. 28. v. 9. giues this for the signc of a true Prophete sent from God , The Prophete which prophesieth of peace , when the word of the Prophete shall come to passe , then shall the Prophete be known , that the Lord hath truly sent him . That he who here appeared to Saul , was Samuel hemselfe , and that he truly prophesied , is witnessed by Ecclesiasticus c. 46. v. 20. And after his death he prophesied , and shewed the king his ende , and lift vp his voyce from the earth in prophesie , to blot out the wickednesse of the people : which booke though it be not accounted canonicall by Protestants , yet they must acknowledge it to be of greater authority , then any they can alleadge of theyr party , to proue that it was not Samuel . neyther concluds the reason , brought commonly by Protestants any thing against this , for though Saul had recourse to that witch to raise him vp Samuel , and she had consented to doe it , yet the text sayes not that her conjuring raised him , or that he was inforced to come by force of her witchcraft , for first Samuel attributes his coming vp not to her , but to Saul , v. 15. why hast thou disquieted me ? secondly , it seemes that soe soone as the woman had consented to Sauls petition , that Samuel ( by the power of God ) preuenting her wicked conjurings , came vp unexpectedly , and suddainly , and in a terrible , and unusuall maner , and therefore the text saies , v. 12. And when the woman saw Samuel , she cried out with a lowd voyce . Thirdly , That woman said not , I raised , but I saw Gods ascending from the earth , where the Hebrew word , Elohim , Gods is vety ordinarily taken for good Spirits , or Angels in the old testament .

These three texts may suffice for the present , it being not my intention to proue , but to defend .

THE SECOND CONTROVERSIE Concerning the making and worshipping of holy Images . The Doctrine of the Romain Chruch , concerning the use and veneration of holy Images , deliuered in the Council of Trent sess. 24.

MAndat sancta Synodus omnibus Episcopis , & caeteris docendi munus curamque sustinentibus , vt — fideles diligenter instruant , docentes eos — Imagines — Christi , Deiparae Virginis , & aliorum Sanctorum , in templis praesertim habendas , & retinendas , eisque debitum honorem , & venerationem impertiendam , non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis diuinitas vel virtus , propter quam sint colendae , vel quod ab eis sit aliquid petendum , vel quod fiducia in Imaginibus sit figenda ; veluti olim fiebat à Gentibus , quae in Idolis spem suam collocabant , sed quoniam honos qui eis exhibetur referrur ad Prototypa , quae illae repraesentant : ita vt per imagines , quas osculamur , & coram quibus caput aperimus , & procumbimus , Christum adoremus , & Sanctos quorum illae similitudinem gerunt veneremur . Id quod conciliorum , praesertim verò secundae Nicenae Synodi decretis contra imaginum oppugnatores est sancitum .

THe holy Council commands all Bishops , and all others who haue the office and care , of teaching , that they diligently instruct faithfull people , teaching them that the Images of Christ , of the Virgin Mother of God , and of other Saincts , are to be had , and reteyned , especially in churches , and that due honour and veneration is to be giuen to them , not that one beleeues that there is any diuinity in them , or power , for which they are to be worshipped , or that one is to asck any thing of them , or that confidence is to be put in them , as anciently the gentiles did , who placed theyr hope in Idoles , but because the honour which is done to them , is referred to those whom they represent . Soe that through the Images which we kisse , and before which we uncouer our heades , and prostrate our selues , we worship Christ and his Saints whose similitudes they are . which doctrine is established by the decrees of Councils , especially of the second Council of Nice .

Seeing therefore here the Council of Trent , expresly commands that all Bishops , and Paslours &c. teach this doctrine to all faithfull Christians , noe Aduersary of the Romain Church , can eyther doubt in prudēce , whether this be her doctrine , nor in charity iudge or affirme vppon a mere coniecturall supposition , without any certaine and particular information , or proof , that Romain Catholicques commonly , and ordinarily pray to pictures , and put theyr confidence , and hope in them , beleeuing that there is power , life , and diuinity in those carued , or panited Images which they haue before them , and soe hoping to be heard and helped by them , as the heathens did by theyr Idoles , this I say , noe man can say , or iudge in charity , because he must eyther iudge that the Prelates , and Pastours of our church , are generally neglecting to teach the faithfull vnder theyr charge , what they are here commanded , which would be to accuse them of a high , and hainous neglect , or he must iudge that faithfull people , beeing sufficiently taught this doctrine by theyr respectiue Pastours are proudly dissobedient to theyr Pastours , and the whol church in doing the quite contrary to what thy are taught , which were to condemne them of a greeuous sinne , and that without any sufficient reason , vppon a mere coniecture , or voluntary and rash iudgement contrary to the expresse command of our Sauiour , Luc. 6.37 . Nolite iudicare , & non iudicabimini . Iudge not , and you shall not be iudged . And as contrary to that of S. Paul , Rom. 14.4 . Tu quis es qui iudicas alienum seruum , domino suo stat aut cadit . Who art thou who iudges an others seruant , he stands , or 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 .

Rom. 3. v. 23. 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 .

Deut· 4. v. 15.16 . 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 , Concil. Trid. cit . the figures wherin he appeared to the ancient Prophets , historically . Dan. 7. v. 9.13.22 . And I beheld till the thrones were cast down ; and the ancient of dayes did sit : whose garmēts were white as snow ; & the hayre of his head like to pure well . This figure here described by the Prophet Daniel we represent : neither is it forbidden in any of the places alleadged , or any other of holy Scripture , to represent the figures wherin Allmighty God hath pleased to represent himselfe : for where is it forbidden to represent by way of history , this vision of Daniel as he describes it , or the vision of other Prophets , and of S. Iohn in the Apocalyps , more then any other historyes of Scripture ? Let any such place be produced : neyther by such representations , do Romain Catholikes more beleeue that God the Father is an old man , then did Daniel the Prophet beleeue he was one , when he saw this vision . For the Roman Church both stedfastly beleeues her selfe , and strictly commands all her Prelats , Pastours , and teachers , to instruct all her children , that God is a pure spirit in himselfe , and hath no body , or figure , at all ; and that such like pictures are not to represent God immediately , but the figures wherin he appeared : And this euen the little children are taught in their catechismes : and if some chance to be ignorant of it , it is not the Churches fault , but the fault of her particular Pastours , who are negligent in instructing their flockes : as also ignorant people may easily fall to thinke as well amongst Protestants , as Catholikes , that God the Father hath a right hand , & consequently a body , because they haue mention of his right hand in their creed : and the like is in many places of Scripture ( read ordinarily by common people in England ) where God is sayd to haue feet , hands , head , face , mouth , eyes , eares , and particularly in this vision of Daniell , and others of S. Iohn in the Reuelations , if these words be not , by negligence of Pastours , or Ministers , well explicated : and yet notwithstanding , as these words , he sits at the right hand of God the Father Allmighty , and the like , are not to be blotted out of the creed , or Scripture , but to be well explicated ; so also those pictures , though some , through their Pastours negligence , may fall into errour by them , are not to be taken away , but explicated and expounded according to the grounds of the Christian faith , and the doctrinc of the Catholicke Chruch . Yet if any one would vrge that some attributes of God may be signifyed by some pictures which are vsed in the Catholicke Church , I answer , that thence followes not that we intend to picture the Diuinity , or nature of God , or to signify that it is a visible , corporall thing like to that picture , but only to make a hieroglyphicall expression of certaine attributes as wee doe when we represent vertues or vices in certaine shapes , of men or weomē , the better to expresse the nature of them , not to signify that they are corporall , or like to those persons . Thus the white haire mentioned by Daniell , signifycs the neuer begining , nor ending eternity of God : the crown , scepter , and world his absolute dominion ouer all things : the light about him , his infinite glory and so of the rest .

Only here I thought fit , to note , that ( according to the Council of Trent aboue cited ) The Church of Rome , hath not commanded , nor ordayned , that the Pictures , which thus represent the apparitions of God the Father or God the holy Ghost , should be had , and reteyned espeacially in churchs , for there the Council mentions only the Images of our Sauiour , and of Saints ; but she only tolerates , or permits that such other pictures may be made , when it is found expedient ; and that only historically .

The second Protestant Position .

Noe Image whatsoeuer ought to be worshipped .

This is proued by Scripture mistaken .

The first Proofe .

Leuit. 26. v. 1. YEe shall make you no Idolls , nor grauen Image● ; neither reare yee vp a standing image : neither shall yee set vp an Image of stone in your Land to bowe downe to it ; for I am the Lord your God .

The first mistake . Noe word in this text , neeessarily signifies Image in the originall which is heere translated Image .

HEre is named Image three tymes , in so few words ; and yet neither the 70. Interpretes in greeke , nor the vulgar translation in Latine , haue so much as once this word Image in the whole verse : neither is there any word in the Hebrew text , which necessarily signifyes Image , in this place , as is cleare out of Pagninus his translation , word for word ; So that this appeares alsoe to be a mistake like the former , Coloss. 2. to deceiue the ignorant reader , by making him abhorre holy Images , seeing them so clearly and often forbidden in his English Bible . I deny therefore that Images are forbidden in this place , or the reuerence due to them : and it belongs to Protestants to proue it , neither will it be inough if they proue that some one of these words may be taken to signify an Image ; for they must shew that it must needs signify an Image , in this very place , if they will conuince any thing against the worship of holy Images , out of it , for it may signify also that which is no Image : and till they proue that it necessarily here signifyes an Image , they effect nothing , especially seeing that though any of these words in the Hebrew mighr signify an Image in some secondary sinification , yet here they doe not : both because the 70. Interpreters , and the ancient vulgar translation , and Pagninus , and almost all ( saue the new Protestant translations ) put it otherwise ; and because the first word , Elilim . Elilim in Hebrew signifyes an Idol or false God , as it is here translated by Protestants , and consequently all the words following must be taken for Idolls to agree with it ; the difference betwixt an Idol , and an Image , I will giue you presently .

The Second Proofe .

Exod. 20. v. 4.5 . THou shall not make to thy selfe any grauen Image , nor the likenesse of any thing that is in heauen , aboue , or in the earth heneath , or in the water vnder the earth : thou shalt not bow down to them , nor worship them .

The Second mistake . The Hebrew , and Greek words here put , Grauen Image are mistranslated .

HEre againe is the word , grauen Image , put in to the English text , contrary both to the Hebrew and Greeke text : the Hebrew word here is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 pesel , which the 70. Interpreters in this place translate in the Greeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , an Idol , or false God , and the Latine , sculptile , which in the eeclesiasticall signification , is always through the whole Scripture taken for an Idol or representation of a false God , when it is forbidden ; as also the Hebrew word pesel , which is neuer taken in a good sense for any Image truly representing anything existent as it is really in it selfe , as carued or grauen curiosityes .

Now the difference betwixt an Image , and an Idol is this : an Image is a representation of a true thing , which either is , or is possible to be , in that very maner wherin he who makes or vses the Image , intends to represent it as the paintings or caruings of trees , of flowers , of beasts , of men , or women , which we ordinarily vse in our houses . Thus the word Image is taken , Gen. 1.26 . and 27. Gen. 5. v. 36. Deut. 4. v. 16. 2. Cor. 4. v. 4. Coloss. 1. v. 15. and in many other places : and in Hebrew it is called tsalem in Greeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , ikon .

But an Idol is a representation of what neither is , nor can possibly be as he who makes , or vsees it , intends to represent it ; and therfore is called Abacuc 2. v. 18. a false phantasie in the 70. Interpreters , and according to the Hebrew , a thing which tells a lye , that is , represēts that to be , which neither is , not can be . And Isay 44. v. 10. an Idol is called vanity , or , profitable for nothing . And S. Paul 1. Cor. 8.4 . we know that an Idol is nothing in the world ; because it represents that to be God , which neither is , nor possibly can be God , because there is but one only true God ; and therefore in Hebrew , Idols are called Elilim , that is vanity , or falsity ; and in Greeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that is , an empty and Idle fiction of the brayne . Hence it comes to passe that the very same materiall representation , may in diuers respects be an Image , and an Idol ; an Image , in regard of that which is truly represented by it ; an Idol , in reference to that which it represents falsly and lyingly . Thus the picture of the Sun is an Image therof , so far as it represents the face , beames , and figure of the visibile sun , and puts vs in remembrance of it : But the very same materiall picture will be an Idol in as much as it is made to represent the sun as a God , and a soueraine diuine power , as the heathens represent it in their Idols ; And hence by different persons , the same materiall picture , or statue may be esteemed and respected as an Image , or as an Idol : for a true Christian seeing the Image of the Sun , will regard only the true representation of the true sun̄e in it ; but the Heathen will esteeme it as conteyning , or representing some diuinity or deity , and so to him it will be an Idol . That which here I exemplify in the Sunnes picture , is to be extended to all other representations of men , or other creatures : for if any one , in an historicall way would represent some reall passage in the life of Mars , Iuno , Iupiter , Saturne , Venus &c. as they were men , or weomen once here liuing vppon earth , and go no further ; those very pictures will be Images only , that is , true representations of that which once was ; but if one intend to draw their pictures , or carue their statues , with designe to represent them as Gods and Goddesses ; it will be in that regard no Image , but a pure Idol , falsly representing that to be God , which neither was , nor can he God .

And the very same different respect is in force in those very pictures which Protestants allow of : for if one should haue the pictures of Queene Elizabeth , or King Iames , merely to represent them as they indeed were , the one true King , the other true Queen of England , the would be Images only ; but if a Heathen should make a God of each of them ( as they vsed to doe of their ancient Kings and Queenes ) and intend to acknowledge them , by that picture , as such , those very pictures would become Idols , falsly representing , what neither was , is , nor can be . And the same rule is to be verifyed in the Catholike pictures of Saints : for if they be only represented as holy persons , as Martyrs , as Virgins , as glorious in heauen with their and our God , then their pictures are only true Images , as truly representing the Saints as they are .

But if any one through ignorance , or malice , should attribute any diuine power , or any thing proper to God , to them , or account them Gods , or Goddesses , to such the pictures of Saints would be no Images , but Idols .

This therefore supposed as necessary to distinguish , betweene an Image and an Idol , I answer to the text of Exodus cited in the obiection , Exod. 2. v. 4. d. that both according to the hebrew 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 pesel , and the greeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , idolum , and the ancient Latin sculptile , that which is here forbidden , is an Idol , and not an Image , as the Protestants English Translation falsly hath it ; and consequently the other word following Temounach , which in hebrew signifies an Idol also , which represents any creature falsely as a God ; it being only a deelaration of the former word pesel , and so signifying the very same thing which pesel signifyes , that is an Idol ; which the cōiunction ve ( and in English ) not obscurely declares to such as are skilfull in the hebrew tongue , which ioynes two words togeather , in the same signification for greater explication : and yet this is made wholy out of doubt Deut. 5. v. 8. as it stands in the hebrew Lo tegase lecha , pesel , col temounach &c. where the very same words of Exodus 20. are repeated , thou shalt not make to thy selfe an Idol , all the likenesses in heauen : where the sense is nothing but this , thou shalt not make to thy selfe an Idol , that is any likenesse or figure in heauen : so that all the likenesses forbidden in the 20. of Exodus , are the same which are forbidden here Deut. 5. that is , such as are pesel , Idolls , or representations of false Gods . And this is further confirmed out of Exod. 20. v. 33. where God himselfe explicates those former words in the same chapter . v. 4. you shall not make to your selues Gods of siluer : nor you shall nor make to your selues Gods of gould , which are pesel , and temounach , Exod. 20. v. 4. and yet lastly that pesel put there in the Hebrew , signifyes the same with el , a God , is most cleare out of Esay 44. v. 10. who hath formed a God , or molten a grauen Image which is profitable for nothing . in hebrew the word here is pesel ; and though the Protestant English translation haue it , grauen Image falsely , as I noted before , yet certayne it is , that euen according to your owne translation , it here signifyes the same with a false God , as is cleare out of the words , and yet much clearer in the 17. verse , and of the risidue of it he maketh a God , euen his grauen Image , saith your translation ; where the same peece of wood carued , is called a God of the heathens , and a grauen Image , in hebrew , lephislo , his Idol , or grauen representation of a false God , and yet to shew vnanswearably that this word pesel , euen by Reformes ought to be translated Idol , or at least is capable of that signification , let any Protestant read his more ancient translations , and he shall find that which is called grauen Image , in the later translations , to be called Idol , or his Idol , v. 17. of the 44. of Isay in theyr more ancient , which in Hebrew is Phesel Phiselo , which in this 20. of Exodi v. 4. they alwayes translate grauen Image . ( See the Bibles printed , in King Edwards tyme , and others of the most ancient Protestant Prints , ) comimg of the word pesel so often cited .

Hauing therefore demonstraded , that in the two places cited in the obiection , Exod. 20 v 4 , and Leuiticus the 26. v. 1. no other picture , representation , or likenesse of any creature is forbidden , but only such as are intended , to represent them , by way of Idolatry , as Gods , and deityes , ( which they neither are , nor can be ) and not as creatures , Saints , Angells , &c. which they truly are . The second poynt propounded in the obiection , about the worship of pictures , or Images , of our Sauiour , or Saints , &c. will easily be determined : for it must be a worship , ( which is forbidden in the forenamed places ) proportionate or correspondent to the thing which those Idols represent ▪ which is a God ; and that can be nothing else but a diuine worship , or an homage giuen to a diuine power : and this is so cleare , that none who vnderstand it , can doubt of it . Yet because I intend , as much as may be , to confirme euery thing I say , by cleare texts of holy Scripture , we must first note , that the foolish Idolatry of the Heathens condemned in holy Scripture ( almost throughout ) is that they did adore , worship , and pray to that very materiall grauen , or paynted thing ( which they had before theyr eyes ) as a God : This is so euident out the 44. of Esay , v. 17. iust now cited , that it puts the matter out of question , euen as it stands in your owne Bible : And the residue therof he maketh a God , euen a grauen Image ; he falleth downe vnto it , and worshippeth it , and prayeth vnto it , and saith , deliuer me , for thou art my God . So also is this matter clearly set downe in the booke of wisdome , chapters 13. and 14. in many verses at large which , though Protestants receiue not as Canonicall Scripture , yet they put it in their Bibles , and therefore esteeme it not to be a lying fable , especially agreeing so well in this matter with other parts of Canonicall Scripture . So also Ieremy 2. v. 28. and 16. v. 20. Dan. 3. v. 12.14.18 . and the 5. v. 4 . 23· Oseas 8. v. 6. Psal. 133. v. 4. and many other places which I omit for breuitys sake : where it appeares clearly that the Heathens , and Idolaters esteemed that visible picture befote them to be a God , and to haue power to heare their prayers , and to helpe them , and so they bowed vnto it , worshipped it with diuine honour , prayed to it , and put their hope in it . This supposed as certaine , it will presently be thought most reasonable to vnderstand that worship of pictures , or resemblances of things to be forbidden , Leuit. 26. v. 1. and Exod. 20. v. 4. which is generally explicated in so many other passages of holy Scripture ; for by clearer places the more obscure are to be explicated and expounded , euen according to Protestants : Seeing therefore , the word bowing downe , and worshipping in the Protestants translation is set downe in the two sayd places , generally and without clearly expressing what kind of worship is meant , we must gather the further explication of it out of other places of holy Scripture , where it is more distinctly and clearly deliuered : and indeed , though the text in the 20. of Exod. be obscure , and generall in Protestants translations in these words , thou shalt not bow downe to them , nor worship them , yet in hebrew , and the 70. in greeke there is light enough giuen to direct vs in the true vnderstanding of them , namely , that it is a diuine worship alone , which is forbidden ; for the hebrew words ve lo tagauethen● signify , and you shall not serue them ; which word shewes an homage or seruice done to those Idols , as to things capable of such offices done vnto them , and endued with knowledge , vnderstanding ▪ power , and diuinity : for no man is strictly and properly sayd to serue that which is wholy voyd of knowledge to exact or accept of that seruice : and hence appeares , that if the Protestants had followed closely the first and ordinary signification of this word in the originall ( as they professe to do ) and translated it thus , thou shalt not bow down to them , nor serue them , the word serue would haue giuen occasion of vnderstanding a right the word bow down , that is such a bowing down as is vsed to those whom wee serue , who are only in the proper & ordinary vnderstanding of seruice , such as we esteeme to be endued with knowledge understanding , and power , able to receiue our seruice , and assist vs in our petitions . And to demonstrate that this translation of yours is not without partiality and dubble dealing , of putting worship for serue , the word worship being put in of purpose to bring the ignorant people from the reuerence of holy Images , as they are reuerenced amongst Romain Catholikes ; you must know , that in a hundred other places of Scripture where Moyses , Caleb , Iosua , Dauid , and others are called seruants of God , in your translation , not worshippers , the hebrew hath the very same word gauedy my seruant , which is vsed here in the 20. of Exodus ; end yet further the fraud appeares more clearly Hier. 13. v. 10. the 16. v. 11. and 22. v. 9. where the two very same words put in hebrew , which are in Exod. 20. now cited , and applyed to false Gods , are alwayes translated adore , and serue , because it serued not their purpose to translate it otherwise ; only in Exod. 20. and the like to breed a hatred of the worship of holy Images , in the common peoples minds , it must be translated fall down and worship : and yet more clearly by their owne translation they conuince themselues of partiality ; for in the Psalme 96. aliter the 97. v. 7. they haue these words ; confounded be all those who serue grauen Images , who boost themselues of Idols : where in the Hebrew , the same words are , which are Exod. 20. gauthe ' , pesel● where also may be gathered , that , that which they please falsly to translate grauen Image , is the very same with a heathen Idol , as being ioyned with it as the same thing in signification . And to vrge an other place , this partiality is clearly conuinced out of the first text cited by the person who writ it : Matth. 4. v. 10. It is written , thou shalt worship the Lord by God , and him only shalt thou serue : where the 6. of Deut. v. 13. ( from which that of S. Matthew is taken ) hath the very same hebrew word gauedth , which is here translated worship in the 20. of Exodus , and there serue . But to put all out of question , and to bring an vndeniable discouery of their fraud and falhood in the translating of this hebrew word gauedh worship , not serue , it is to be noted , that in their more ancient translations of these words . Exod. 20. v. 4. they translated it , thou shalt not bow down vnto them , nor worship them , as appeares by the text here cited in the obiection , and by the Bibles themselues : but in their later impressions and translations of the yeare 1638. and somwhat before , and since , they haue corrected this errour , and put it , thou shalt not bouw down vnto them , nor serue them , both in Eod. and Leuiticus : yet because they had taught all the common people to say it after the ancient erroneous manner , it is still in the cate●hisme set down in the common prayre booke , thou shalt not bow down vnto them , nor worship them , least if they should haue changed it there , the people might haue discouered that they had beene taught their commandements amisse , and that in the ancient editions of the common prayer , the commandements were otherwise then in the latter : Exod. 20. v. 4. but the correction in the Bible might more easily be admitted , because few of the common people read the commandements as they stand there . But that at one view may be seene the manifold tricks and diuises , frauds , and deceits vsed in the sophisticating and falsifying of this text in their translations , I will briefly set them all down together : First therefore , contrary to both hebrew and greeke , and Latin , and all antiquity , they translate , pesel , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , sculptile ; grauen Image . Secondly , they ad the word any ; thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image ; which is not in the hebrew , but thus , thou shalt not make to thy selue an Idol : or if the Protestant translation of pesel were true , it should haue beene a grauen Image , not , any grauen Image . And this they seeme to adde , therby to make the ignorant beleeue that all sorts of Images whatsoeuer , euen of our Sauiour , and of his Saints , are here forbidden by this generall clause , thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image ▪ Thirdly , to make the text yet more to sound against vs , in the eares of the vulgar , they make it say , nor the likenesse of any thing that is in heauen aboue &c. when it should be according to the hebrew , col tegumach asher , nor any likenesse which is in heauen , or verbatim thus , or all and euery likenesse which is in heauen , not of any thing which is in heauen , these words any thing being added vnto the hebrew text ; therby to perswade the vnlearned , that the likenesse of all things in heauen and consequently of our Sauiour , the Angells , and Saints , are here prohibited : wher as the direct meaning of the text is , to forbidde these likenesses to be made which appeare visibly in the materiall heauen to the corporeall eys , as the sunne , moone , slarrs &c. as is cleare Deut. 4. v. 19. which agrees well with the hebrew text , any likenesse which is in heauen ; for at that time , when this commandement was giuen , there was nothing in the imperiall heauen , which had any visible figure , or could be immediatly expressed by any visible picture , as a true Image of it , for there was nothing then in heauen but God and his holy Angels . But the English translation , the likenesse of any thing which is in heauen , is subiect to giue occasion to the simple reader ( who being taught that our Sauiour with his Saints are in heauen , and that they are forbidden in this commandement to make the likenesse of any thing which is in heauen , to thinke that they are clearly forbidden to make the likenesses or Images , of our Sauiour , & the Saints : and thus the common people of our nation ordinarily vnderstand it , and their ministers , and teachers , nuzzle them vp in this errour . Fourthly , yet further to extend the words of this commandement to all sorts of holy likenesses , and similitudes , though in the little catechisme contayned in their common prayer-booke , they put the commandement thus , nor the likenesse of any thing mhich is in heauen aboue &c. which was lesse intolerable , yet in their Translations from the yeare 1638. they adde another any to the text , thus , nor any likenesse of any thing , that they may be sure to include all . And though in their later Translations , they put the word any , any Image , any thing , in a different letter , to signify to the more learned , that it is not in the originall ; yet in theyr little Catechisme they are still put in the very same letter with the rest , as if they were no lesse in the originall then the other words ; which may be noted for an other fraud : and I finde these words of Exodus thus translated , in a booke called the confession of faith , reprinted at London for the Compaignie of Stationers , 1652. all the words being in the same leter : pag. 167. Thou shalt not make vnto thee any grauen Image , nor any likenesse of any thing . Lastly , for serue , they haue put worship , as I haue now declared . So that in these few words , thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image , nor any likenesse of any thing &c. thou shalt not bow down vnto them , nor worship them , are six mistakes , corruptions , or additions to the text . And though some of these , in themselues , may be iudged to be of no great moment , and might passe amongst such as with a sincere meaning should admit some of them in their translation , yet in our new Reformists , who labour all they can to presse this text to common people aboue all others , against vs , and about the meaning wherof wee are in great Controuersy : and who professe , reiecting all other Translations , to stand closely and strictly to the hebrew text , they are wholy inexcusable . Now if any illitterate Protestant much deuoted to his ministers , and teachers , and confident of their sincerity in Translating God's word , should not be brought by what I haue yet sayd , to beleeue that they would put Image , in the place of Idol , and adde other words to the text , which are not in the originall , thereby deceiuing the people : for a cleare and vndeniable proofe of their partiality and deceit in this particular , let him examin the 11. chapter to the Romans , v. 4. and the first of the Kings , c. 19. v. 18. and his own eyes will tell him that they haue added the word Image to the text : for he shall find in the Translations of the yeare 1648. and about that tyme , these words , Rom. 11. v. 4. who haue not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal : where these three words , the Image of , are added to the text , being neither in the greeke , Latin , nor hehrew for it should be , who haue not bowed the knee to Baal . Not as they haue it , to the Image of Baal , the word Image being added of putpose ( as it seemes ) to create a hatred in the harts of the common people , against the vse of holy Images , seeing them so expresly forbidden in their Bibles , euen in the new Testament . Now that it may vnanswerably appeare , that this word Image is added to the text , looke into this very text cited by S. Paul , out of the first of the Kings , c. 19. v. 18. in their own Bible , and you shall find it thus , all the knees which haue not bowed vnto Baal , without these words , Rom. 11 ▪ v. 4. the Image of Baal . And that they may vndoubtedly know that these words are added to the text in those later Translations , let them peruse this place in the more ancient Translations , of King Edwards , or Queene Elizabeths tyme , and they mill find this text to the Rom. c. 11. v. 4. without this addition , thus ; which haue not bowed the knee to Baal , as indeed it should be . And though in the latter Translations , those words the Image be put a different print , or letter , which may signify to such as are learned , that they are not in the originall , yet this may reasonably be called into question , because the word of , which hath a necessary relation to the two fotmer words the Image , is put in the same print or letter with Baal , and the rest of the text , which is in the originall ; thus , which haue not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal ; and for what belonges to the vnlearned , who are most in danger to be seduced by such shifts as these , they are commonly ignorant of the reason why some words are in different or lesse letters , and all they find in the text , they take to be equally Scripture , and the word of God , as I haue had experience of about a hundred togeather , who all esteemed the words the Image to be no lesse Scripture , then the rest of that text , yea I found one who very eagerly and strongly vrged this text , against Images , telling me , and glorying in it , that Images were condemned expresly in the new Testament by these words of S. Paul . Neither can it stand with the rules of true and sincere Translatours , to adde when they please , and when it makes for theyr aduantage , and indangers the deceiuing of the vnlearned in matters of Religion ; ( as here it doth ) by adding certaine words , which are neither found in the hebrew , greeke , nor Latin , ( as these are not ) though it be in a different letter . In the Bibles printed , 1648. at London , by Robert Barker , I find the said words in the same letter with the rest , thus , which haue not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal , by which the vnlearned Readers cannot iudge but that these words , the Image of , are as much the word of God as the rest , seeing them all in the same print and leter , with the other words of the text , especially when they marke , that in a hundred other places , the words which are not in the originall are printed in a different leter , from the others in that very Bible . which makes it probable in a high degree , if not certaine , that the maner of printing in this text , is a mere corrupt dealing of our aduersaries , and a wilfull adding to the word of God , to incense the ignorant against Images .

M. Fulck , in his English translation , and commentaries vppon the new Testament . Printed at London by the deputies of Christopher Barker , 1589. exuses this addition by alleadging that in the greeke text here in S. Paul , Rom. 11.4 . the article is of the feminine gender , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . & therefore must agree with 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , image , beeing also of the feminine gender , which word though it be not expressed in the greeke , yet saith Fulck , it is to be vnderstood , and soe might lawfully be expressed in the English translation . But that this answer is a mere euasion , grounded vppon a false principle , I will presently make manifest for first it is not the custome of Greeke authours , speaking of the statues , or Idols of theyr Gods , to expresse them in the feminine , as referred to 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 but in the masculine article , as referred to the God , whose name that statua beares .

Secondly Acts 19.35 . those words which M. Fulck and other Protestants vnderstand , of the statua , or Image of Diana , are not put in greek with the feminine , but with the masculine or newter gender , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , whereby is manifest , that when the greeks speake of theyr Idols , and statuas , they referre them , not to 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 & the feminine , but rather to 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , of the newter gender , or some such like word .

Thirdly , in the 1. of Kings 19.18 . whence this text of Rom. 11.4 . is taken , the Septuagint haue it in the masculine gender , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . and yet both this place , and that of S. Paul must necessarily be vnderstood to speake of the same thing , and in the same sence , which seeing the Protestants will haue to be only , the statua , or picture of Baal , it must needs follow , that the reason why S. Paul hath it in the feminine gender , is not because it speakes of that visible , and artificiall Idol , for 1. Kings 19.18 . speaking also of that , hath it in the masculine gender 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . This therefore is not the Reason , but S. Paul puts it in the feminine and the Septuagint in the masculine gender , because Baal was a common name to the Idols of the heathens , which weare adored by the Iews , thus nothing is more familiar in the old Testament , then to put that word in the plurall number , Baalim , because it was common to many false Gods , which weare comprised in that name - now those Gods some were males , and some femalls , and soe of both genders ; amongst which Astarthes Queene , and Goddesse of Sidonia , was the most famous , where of familiar mention is made in the old Testament , speaking of Baalim , and Asteroth . Seeing therefore that both S. Paul , 1. Kings 11.5.33 . 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 ha●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 Reade● 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 texts● 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 , Isa. 44.15.17 . Luc. 19.3 . Oseae 11.2 . 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 trāflations haue , a worshipper of Images . And Coll. 3.5 . where the greek hath Idolatry , they haue worshipping of Images , and the like is Gal. 5.20 . 1. Ioan. 5.21 . for Idoles in greeke they translate Images , in the Bible printed , 1562. and though in Fulks testament it be translated Idoles in the text ; yet in the margent he puts , or Images . Now how great a difference there is betwixt an Idol , and an Image , I haue all ready declared , and M. Fulk acknowledges , fol. 456. that the vse of our English speach hath made the name of Idol odious , and of Image indifferent . whence follows necessarily , that the word Image according to him may signifie noe lesse a good then a bad representation , but the word Idol allways a bad , soe that the word Image , or Images cannot be put absolutly in those places of Scripture , where they are vniuersally to be vnderstood of things bad , or vnlawful ; thus therefore , 1. Iohn 5.2 . where the Apostle saith , Babes keepe your selues from Idoles , being an indefinite , and soe an vniuersall precept he commands Christians to keepe themselues from all kinde of Idoles what soeuer , and soe is fitly , and truly expressed , by the word Idoles , because that word is alwayes taken in our language ( euen according to M. Fulk ) in an odious , and bad signification : but it can neyther fitly , nor truly , be expressed by the word Images put absolutly , and with our any adjunct , as it is in those first ttanslations of English Protestants , babes keepe your selues from Images , for then the precept could not be indefinitly , and vniuersally vnderstood , as it must be , to keepe themselues from all Images whatsoeuer , for all Christians should be here commanded , to keepe themselues from all monie , Mar. 32.16 . Gen. 1.27 . 2. Cor. 4.4 , 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 indifferent 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 , 1. Pet. 2.12 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 ( di●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 aua●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 Trāslaters 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 latin̄ 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 grauē , & a molten Image , v. 24. is called Gods , & in the Protestant 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 ; ● . Par. 18.2 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 Protestants 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 cōpleat 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 me●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 commandements . 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 , Item Lutherus impr . Ienae 1589. pag. 117. Et Hus Norinbergae 1558. pag. 30. 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 forbid one capitall sin , nor one , two sinnes . This our diuision strictly obserues , but that of our aducrsaryes , not so : for their two first commandements forbid only the sin of Idolatry , as being the capitall sin forbidden in them both , and so can be but one commandement , as we put them : and their last prohibites two maine distinct sinnes , the desire of adultery , thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife , and the desire of theft , thou shalt not couet thy neighbours goods &c. which are as different in thought , as adultery and stealing are in act : if therefore , as they acknowledge , there be two commandements to forbid them ; in all reason there must be two to forbid the desires of them ; and this reason is pressed by S. Augustin in the place alleadged .

It is further most manifest , that these which are made two commandements by the Protestants , can be noe more then one and the same commandement , for in the 2. of Kings 17. v. 35. the whole substance , of that which Protestants call the second commandement is put in one single sentence , togeather with the first in these words , you shall not feare strange Gods , neyther shal you worship them , neyther shall you serue them , neyther shall sacrifize to them . now , what is meant by those strange Gods , is declared , v. 40. and the 41. How be it they did not harken but they did after theyr former maner , soe these nations feared the Lord , and serued theyr grauen Images . whence it is euident , that that which is called strange Gods , v. 35. is called grauen Images , v. 41. and soe to forbid the seruice , and worship of strange Gods , which is in the Protestants first commandement , and to forbid the seruice , and worship of grauen Images , is the same command , as forbidding the same thing . Hence also appeares , that the word Phesel , vsed Exod. 20.4 . and is also vsed here v. 41. signifies an Idol , or a strange God , as I haue often said : and noe lesse is manifest from these words , th●t the seruice which is here mentioned , to those grauen Images , Pheselim , v. 41. was to feare them , and sacrifice to them , as strange Gods , v. 35. And , moreouer thus these which are here called strange Gods , v. 35. were materiall Idoles , or as Protestants terme them grauen Images , is most cleare , v. 33. They feared the Lord , and serued theyr own Gods after the maner of the nations , whom they carried away from thence , for they could not carry with them , any other Gods , saue such as these , from one place to an other .

That nothing may me wanting to the full satisfaction of the Reader , I haue here adioyned , the hebrew words as they stand in the originall of this text which is so violently , and frequently pressed against vs .

Exod. 20. v. 4.

〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉

Deut. 5. v. 5.

〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉

Which words out of what I haue allready alleadged , may be thus translated .

Thou shalt not make to thy s●lfe , an Ido● , any figure which is in heauen aboue , or in the earth beneath or in the water vnder the earth , thou shalt not bow , down to them , nor serue them . or thus·

Thou shalt not make to thy selfe an Idol , of any figure which is in heauen aboue , Bible 1629. for the Protestants themselues , giue the like translation to the like phrase , Deut. 4. v. 16. and Pagninus giues for the first signification , of Moun , or Temounach , figuram , a figure , not only artificiall , but naturall , or apparent , as when angels appeare , in the figures of men . Deut. 4.15 . Psal. 17.15 . I shal be satified when I awake with thy likenesse , Temounacb , which is nothing but the substance , and essence of God , conceiued clearly in our vnderstanding , as we commonly say in our language , let him appeare in his likenesse , that is in his own shape , figure , or persone .

Soe that the meaning of these words as they ly in the 20. of Exod. and 5. of Deutronomy compared with the 2. of Kings 17. where a strange God , & a grauen Image are the same thing , as I shewed iust now , can only haue this sence , that Allmighty God here forbids , that we should haue any strange Gods before him , that is , that we should not make an Idol , according to any visible figure which wee see eyther in the materiall heauens , or in the earth , or in the waters , worshipping , and seruing , that is , fearing those very Idoles , and sacrifizing to them , as to things indewed , with life , power , vnderstanding , & diuinity . which horrible Idolatry is as farre from the doctrine of the Romain Church , ( which in the beginning of this controuersie , I cited out of the cleare words of the Council of Trent ) as darckenesse is from light .

To correspond to the desire of other Readers , I haue also thought it conuenient to cite the Greeke text , of the 70. Interpreres .

Exodus 20. v. 4.

〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

Where they doe not only translate it serue , but shew that it is a seruice proper to God , which is here forbidden , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and thou shalt not serue them with a diuine or highest seruice , as I shewed in the begining out of Scripture to be vnderstood by the greeke word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and S. Augustin q. 61. vppon Genesis confirmes the same .

Now that the difference betwixt worshipping , and seruing , may be better vnderstood ; and that worship , may in some true sence be attributed to things inanimate and without knowledge , but not seruice ; the Protestants themselues grant that ciuill worship may be giuen to te chayre of state , or picture , of a temporall King ; but seruice only to his Royall person , not to his picture ; so that no man can be rightly sayd to serue the Kings chayre of state or his picture , but to serue the Kinge , and yet they may be , and are sayd truly , to worship or honour , by some externall signe , his chayre of state , &c. In the very same manner with proportion , one may truly be sayd to worship or reuerence the picture of our Sauiour , or his Saints , as things known and esteemed to be ( as indeed they are ) wholy dead , and inanimate , without any power att all , in themselues , to heare vs , or helpe vs , merely because they represent those holy persons whose pictures they are ▪ but we cannot be sayd in any true or proper sence , to serue them , so long as we make only this esteeme of them . And hence it is , that the reuerence or worship wich we yeeld to holy Images , is not intended to them , or to begge any fauour of them , or thinke that any help can be conferred vppon vs by any power in them , Concil. Trid. sess. 24. c. 2. and no Romain Catholike is to doe otherwise . But we pray before them , that we hauing them before our eyes , may better and more attentiuely thinke of those whom they represent , and the reuerence and honour which we giue to them , is in a double respect ; first we giue them that reuerence which is due to holy things , dedicated , and consecrated , or tending to the worship of God , as are altars , holy vessells , and such like ; and in this respect we giue them no more honour , nor worship , then the Protestants vse to doe to Churches in England , by keeping their hats of , kneeling &c. for as they doe that to such places , rather then to theyr own houses , because they are the houses of God ; so doe we reuerence holy Images , because they are holy things , putting vs in remembrance of God , and heauenly things . Neither doe we this without warrant of holy Scripture : for Iosue 5. v. 15. an Exod. 3. v. 9. Iosue and Moyses are commanded to put of their shoes because the earth was holy wheron they stood ; which was nothing but a reuerence vnto that earth made holy by the presence of God , or an Angell : and if a piece of ground must haue beene re●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 communion , which is only a resemblance or likenesse of our Sauiours Passion with them ? and so giuing the reuerence of kneeling to it , they properly worship an Image , or similitude , or remembrance , of our Sauiours death . And if any should answer that they worship not the bread and wine in the Lords supper , nor kneele to them , but only to God when they receiue them , I demand presently , whether they exhibite any kind of reuerence to the bread and wine as a representation of our Lords Passion , or no ? if they answer that they giue none at all to them : why then doe they make an exteriour shew , and that by way of command and obligation , of exhibiting reuerence and respect to those signes , seeing that in the exteriour , none who see them , can iudge that they giue not some reuerence euen to them ? againe , if they giue no reuerence at all to them , what greater respect doe they beare to the Lords supper , then they doe to their own in their houses ? so that if a zealous brother would kneele to God at the same tyme when he eates his supper , he whould shew as much respect to a brown loafe , as he does to the Lords supper when he kneeles only to God , in receiuing it . And yet further , if one who goes to their communion , had no maw to adore God at that tyme , but should put it of to some other , when he found himselfe more moued by the spirit , why could not he receiue sitting , or standing , and that without any externall reuerence at all , to what he receiues visibly ?

Nay how could he in conscience receiue kneeling ' or shewing any externall reuerence ? If they answer that they exhibit some reuerence , to the externall signes , as representations of our Lords death ; I demand , whether it be a ciuill or a religious reuerence : to say it is a ciuil reuerence , were absurd : for that is in matters of state and ciuill authority only ; and this is in matter of Religion . If they say that it is a religious reuerence , then I haue my intent , that euen Protestants doe exhibite Religious reuerence to signes , figures . and representations of our Sauiour , no lesse then Catholikes : and then I demand further , by what externall signe they make profession of such a reuerence to the signes of their communion : certainly they will find no other which shewes it more clearly and fully , then their kneeling ; or whatsoeuer they name , it is an externall exhibition of religious reuerence , which is nothing but worship in a true and Christian sense : whence appeares that Protestants themselues are guilty of what they accuse vs , that is , of giuing woiship to an Image or figure , of our Sauiour dying vppon the crosse for vs . That which I haue answered to the 20. of Exodus , is in like manner applyable to the 26. of Leuiticus , v. 1. and to the 6. v. 73. for they speak only of Idols , and false Gods : from which , all Roman Catholikes abhorre far more then Protestants .

It is not my intention here to enter into any schoole questions , which can neyther easily be made plaine enough to be rightly conceiued , by all those whom I intend to informe in this treatis , nor are they necessary to be known by all Catholicques , nor if they were known , is it necessary to beleeue them . So long therefore , as the doctrine of the Council of Trent cited in the beginning of this controuersie is beleeued and obserued , noe more will or can be required , ( for soe much as belongs to this point ) of any one who eyther is , or intends to be , a Child of the Roman Church . which doctrine is not only without all danger , but euen without all possibility of Idolatrie : for seeing an Idolatrous worship must acknowledge a diuine power , and vertu in that which it worships , and the Council expressely theaches that noe such diuine power is to be acknowledged in any Image , it is impossible to follow this doctrine , and to commit Idolatrie in the worship we giue to any Image , all therefore which is required to vnite a Protestant in this particular to the doctrine of the Roman Church , is only this , that he beleeue noe more that there is eyher life , vertu , or diuinity in any Image , then he now beleeues there is in the name of IESVS spoaken or written ; that he put noe more confidence , nor hope in the picture , then he now puts in the name , that he pray noe more to the picture , then he now prayes to that name , if kneeling before the name of IESVS grauen vppon some stone , he pray to our Sauiour : but as he now puts of his hat and boweth his knee or body , when he sees or heares that name , he hold it lawfull to exhibit the same reuerence when one sees the picture of our Sauiour , and as he may now kisse that sacred name in deuotion to our Sauiour , soe he hold it lawfull to kisse our Sauiours picture in deuotion to him , or in his regard .

If a Protestant should demande , whether there be as cleare proofs of Scripture for the worship of Images , as there are for the worshipping the name of IESVS , I answer there are . That some Images may be lawfully made , is cleare in the Brrazon serpent , Num. 21.8.9 . That they may lawfully be put in places dedicated to the seruice of God , is euident in the two cherubins of gould , Exod. 25.18 . That they may haue a reference to diuine seruice , and be ordinances helonging to it , is manifest Hebr. 9.1.5 . That it is lawfull to exhibite some worship to them , is all ready proued , Ps. 99.5 . Adore his footstoole . That the worship which is done to the Image of another , tends as much to his honour whose Image it is , as the worship done to his name , tends to the honour of him-whose name it is , is vndeniably prouued , Reu. 13. v. 15.16.17 . And he had power to giue life to the Image of the beast , that the Image of the beast should both speake , and cause that as many as would not worship the Image of the beast should be killed ; and he causeth all both small and greate , rich and pore , free and bond , to receiue a marke in theyr right hand , or in theyr foreheads : and that noe man might buy or sall , saue he who had the marke or the name of the beast , or the number of his name . whence is manifest , that the worship of the Image , of this accursed creature , tended to his honour , otherwise he would neuer haue compelled men to worship it , and that he was honored noe lese in this , if not more , then in carijng his marke , and his name . which can be deduced from no other principle then this , that all worship done proportionally to the Image , is an honour to him who is represented by it , and consequently , that in this our Sauiour and the Saints are honoured as truly as any other in theyr Images .

If any Protestant , demand farther whether there be any expresse command in the new Testament , to worship holy Images . I answer there is noe expresse command . If it should be replied , that nothing is to be held , or practized by Christians which is not set down in expresse words in the new Testament . I answer that that is manifestly vntrue , and must be confessed to be soe euen by Protestants themselues , for they can neuer find any expresse mention in the new Testament : that nothing is to be beleeued , or practized lawfully by Christians , saue that which is expressed in the new Testament , 2. that any churches were made or to be made amongst Christians , distinct from dwelling houses , 3. that fonts for baptisme were put in those churches , 4. that childeren were euer actually baptised in those fonts , 5. that God-fathers , and God-mothers were to be vsed in Baptisme of childeren , 6. that any spirituall kindred arises by vertu of Baptisme , betwixt those God-fathers , and God-mothers , on the one side , and the childeren Baptized , & theyr Parents respectiuely on the other . If therefore none of those can be found mentioned expressely in the new Testament , with what shew of reason , can Protestants demand , that the worship of Images , should be mentioned in the new Testament , seeing they practice these particulars , noe lesse , then we the worship of Images ? But in these , and such like religious practices , it is sufficient ( euen according to the Protestant Principle of sole Sctipture ) that eyther there be expresse mention made of them , eyther commanding or allowing them in the old Testament , which is neuer reuoked or dissallowed in the new ( as is that of the worship of Images ) or at least , that the lawfullnesse of them , can be deduced , from the old , or new Testament , by a good consequence , drawn according to the rules of right reason , as the worship of Images is manifestly , from the 13. of the Reuel . now cited , for if the worship of the Image tend to the honour of him who is represented by it , ( as is there euident ) and that it is lawfull to doe all that which tends to the honour of our Sauiour , then it follows ineuitably , that the worship of his Image , is lawfull , and the like is of the Images of Saints .

Thus haue I indeauored to discouer the different mistakes of Protestants , in the texts of Scripture cited by them against the vse of holy Images , taught , and peactized in the Romane Church , and with all the strange mistranslations inuented by them , to make holy Scripture speake to the vulgar , against the doctrine , and practice of the Romane Church in this particular . and this may sfuffice for the second Controuersie .

THE THIRD CONTROVERSIE Concerning Iustification .

The Doctrine of the Roman Church deliuered in the Council of Trent , touching this Point .

Sess. 6. can. 1.

SI quis dixerit , hominem suis operibus , quae vel per humanae naturae vires , vel per legis doctrinam fiunt , absque diuina per Iesum Christum gratiâ , posse iustificari coram Deo ; Anathema sit .

It any one shall say , that a man can be iustified by his workes , which are done by the force of humaine nature , or by the doctrine of the law , without diuine grace through our Lord Iesus Christ ; let him be accursed .

Ibidem . can. 2.

Si quis dixerit ad hoc solùm diuinam gratiam per Iesum Christum dari , vt facilius homo iustè viuere ac vitam aeternam promereri possit ; quasi per liberum arbitrium vtrumque , sed aegrè tamen & difficulter possit ; anathema sit .

If any one shall say that diuine grace through Iesus Christ is giuen only to this end , that a man may more easily liue iustly , and deserue eternal life , as if he could doe both , though with labour and difficulty , by his freewill ; let him be accursed .

Ibidem . can. 3.

Si quis dixerit , sine praeuenien●e Spiritus sancti inspiratione , atque eius adiutorio , hominem credere , sperare , diligere , aut poenitere posse sicut oportet , vt ei iustificationis gratiâ conferatur ; anathema sit .

If any one shall say , that without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost , and his assistance , a man can beleeue , hope , loue , and repent , as he should doe to haue the grace of iustification bestowd vppon him ; let him be accursed .

Here I demand vppon what ground the 13 of the 39 English Protestant Articles , speakes thus of the scoole men of the Roman Church , Workes done before the grace of Christ , and the inspiration of his spirit are not pleasant to God , for as much as they spring not of faith in Iesu Christ , neyther doe they make men meet to recriue grace , or ( as the schoole Authors say ) deserue grace of Congruity . I would gladly haue those schoole Authours named and cited , who affirme , contrary to the expresse words of the Council of Trent , so great a semi-Pelagian Heresie , as this is whereof they are here accused . And if none attall can be produced , how great an vntruth is conteyned in this article , where it is said , not as some of the schoole Authours , but , as the schoole Authours say , that is , eyther vniuersally , or commonly affirme ; whence may clearly be collected , that those new Prelates and Doctours , who composed those 39 articles , which haue been ( euer since they were composed ) esteemed the summe and substance of the Protestant Religion , and faith in England , were eyther grosly ignorant , in the doctrine of the schoole Authours , and exceeding temerarious in affirming that of them , which they neuer vnderstood , or insufferably deceiptfull , and malitious , in accusing them ( against theyr own knowledge and conscience ) of holding generally an errour , which not soe much as any one of them euer held , but the quite contrary .

Conc. Trid. ibidem cap. 8.

Cùm verò Apostolus dicit iustificari hominem per fidem & gratis , Rom. 8. ea verba in eo sensu intelligenda sunt , quem perpetuus Ecclesiae Catholicae consensus tenuit , & expressit ; vt scilicet per fidem ideo iustificari dicamur , quia fides est humanae salutis initium , fundamentum , & radix omnis iustificationis : sine quâ impossibile est placere Deo , & ad filiorum eius consortium peruenire : Hebr. 11. gratis autem iustificari ideo dicamur ; quia nihil eorum quae iustificationem praecedunt , siue fides , siue opera , ipsam iustificationis gratiam promeretur ; si enim gratia est , Rom. 11. Ephes. 2. Tit. 5. iam non ex operibus , alioquin , vt idem Apostolus inquit , gratia iam non est gratia .

When the Apostle saith that a man is iustified by fayth and gratis , or freely , those words are to be vnderstood in that sence , which the perpetuall consent of the Catholicque Church allwayes held , and expressed ; to wit , that we are said to be iustified by faith , because faith is the begin̄ing of mans saluation , the foundation , and roote of all iustifieation : without which it is impossible to please God , and to come into the number , of his childeren . But we are said to be iustified gratis , because none of these things which goe before iustification , whether it be faith , or workes , deserue the grace of iustification ; for if it be grace , it is not of workes , otherwise , as the same Apostle says , grace would not be grace .

Conc. Trid. ibidem . cap. 10.

Sic ergo iustificati , & amici Dei , Psal. 83. ac domestici facti , euntes de virtute in virtutem , renouantur , vt Apostolus inquit , de die in diem , 2. Cor. 4. Coll. 3. Rom. 6. & 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 . Apo● . vl● ▪

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 acc●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 , Iames 2 ▪ v. 24. 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 men● ; 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 , Rom. 4. v. 1.2.3 . 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 same iustification which is mentioned by S. Paul to the Romanes which they mainly contend to be a true iustification in the sight of God : or if they will haue it here a iustification only before men , they must acknowledge that the same mentioned to the Romanes is no other then before men ; and so , by endeauoring by such shifts to weaken the force of this text against themselues , they take away all force from that of Rom. 4. to conclude any thing against vs . Besides , this iustification of Abraham here mentioned by S. Iames , can be no other then that which is true and interuall before God : for , as it followes in the text , he was called a friend of God ; and that truly , for he was indeede , as he was called , a friend of God : and hence it follows ineuitably , that the iustification which S. Iames deduces from that of Abraham , by works , and not by faith only , as appeares by the word then , wee see then &c. is a true intrinsecall iustification in the sight of God ; for no other , saue that , could be rightly inferred from the former . And indeed though we had none of the foresayd euidences , to conuince the true meaning of S. Iames , yet what man of iudgment can imagine that this holy Apostle would labour so much to proue that Christians are iustifyed by their good works before men , when that is a matter too cleare and known , to need proofe , and too light and friuolous to deserue it ? or what considerate man can thinke that this Blessed Apostle or the holy Ghost by whose inspiration he writ this , would so earnestly exhort Christians to abound in good works , to the end that they may be iustifyed before men ? seeing corrupt human nature is too too prone to doe good workes for such by endes as these , and hath more need of a bridle then a spurre in this particular , and rather to be deterred from it , then put vppon it , as our Sauiour did the Stribes and Pharisees , who did their works to be seene , and consequently to be praysed and iustifyed before men . This text therefore hauing been demonstrated to be meant of iustification before Allmighty God by works , and not by faith only ; seeing S. Paul inspired by the same holy Spirit , in what is cited out of him in the insuing text , cannot possibly contradict S. Iames here , as he must needs be thought to haue done if he sayd ( as Protestants would haue it ) that we are iustifyed in the sight of God by faith only , and not by good works , working with faith and perfecting it , informing and vinificating it , as S. Iames describes them here . we will now see in what sense S. Paul's words are to be vnderstood , Iames 2. v. 22.26 . and reconcile them with this text of S. Iames.

The Protestant Position . Iustification by faith only . This is proued by Scripture mistaken .

Therefore wee conclude , that a man is iustifyed by faith . Rom. 3. v. 28. without the works of the law .

Being iustifyed by faith , we haue peace with God , through our Lord Iesus Christ . Rom. 5.1 .

For therein is the righteousnesse of God reuealed , from faith to faith , Rom. 1.17 as it is written , the iust shall liue by faith .

Gal. 2.16 . Knowing this , that a man is not iustifyed by the works of the law , but by the faith of Christ Iesus : that we might be iustifyed by Iesus Christ , and not by the works of the law : for by the works of the law shall no liuing flesh be iustifeyd .

The first mistake . The word only , is not found in any of these texts .

In all these texts is not once the words faith only , to be found ; which is put in this Protestant Position & was to be proued by them . Neither i● i● consequent : a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law ; therefore a man is iustifyed by faith only : no more then this follows , a man is nourished by bread , without the grasse of the field ; therefore a man is nourished by bread only . for though the grasse of the feeld do not nourish vs , yet many other things besides bread de nourish vs . in like manner , though the woreks done by force of the grace of God , and not by force of the law , do iustify vs , and so we are not iustifyed by saith only , nor at all by the works of the law ; but by faith and good works done by the grace of Iesus Christ , and not by the k●owledge of rhe law .

The Second mistake . The workes of the law misunderstood .

That S. Paul here vnderstands only by works of the law , such works as are done by force and knowledge of the law , before the faith of Christ infused into a soul , or that it is inlightned and assisted by his grace : and by this law is vnderstood the law written in the books of Moyses , both morall in the ten Commandements , and ceremoniall , as circumcision , and other rites and ceremonyes of the Iewes .

That by works of the law , I say , are vnderstood by S. Paul , only such works as are done by force of knowledge of the law , befotc the inlightning of the faith , and grace of Christ , is euident out of this chapter , Rom. 3. v. 14. Now we know , that what things soeuer the law sayth , it sayth to thcm that are vnder the law ; that euery mouth may be stopped , and all the world may become guilty before God . Here he speakes of the law , speaking or teaching what is to be done according to it : and then adds presently , as a conclusion from that knowledge got by the law , v. 10. therefore by tbe deeds of the law no flesh shall be iustifyed in his sight : for by the law is the knowledge of sin . The reason why the deeds of the law iustify not , is , because they come from the knowledge of the law , & by the law is the knowledge of sin . wherunto he opposes the tighteousnesse of God , which is by faith of Iesus Christ vnto all , in the first texts following verses 21. but now the righteousnetre of God without the law is manifested , being witnessed by the law and Prophets : v. 22. euen the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all , and vppon all them that beleeue ; for there is no difference . This is the known doctrine of all Roman Catholikes against the Pelagians , that no worke can iustify which comes only by doctrine and light of the written law ; but all iustifying works must come from the faith and grace of Christ so that we all confesse and conclude with S. Paul , that a man is iustifyed by faith without the workes of the law , that is , wirhout such works as are meerly of and from the law , as are opposed here by S. Paul to the grace and faith of Christ .

Secondly , by the law in this place is vnderstood , both the motall law written by Moyses in the ten Commandements ; and the ceremoniall , conteyned in the bookes of Leuiticus , Deuteronomij &c. for the morall law , Protestants themselues , doubt not that the Apostle speakes of it , and that the ceremonial is here meant is euident in the two next following Verses , speaking of Iewes and Circumcision , v. 24. Is he God of the Iewes only , and not also of rhe Gentils : yea , of the Gentils also . v. 30. Seeing it is one God which shall iustify circumcision by faith , and vncircumcision through fayth . and ● . 1. What aduantage then hath the Iew , or what profit is there of circumcision ? and the seauen last verses of the second chapter make it yet clearer ; seeing that the Apostle's intent is there to proue , that iustification did not only belong to the Iewes , but to the Gentils also , and therefore the Iewes : were not to thinke that iustification came by the obseruance of their ceremoniall law which Moyses had giuen them : and whereby they were chiefly distinguished from the Gentiles , who had knowledge of the morall law , and esteemed themselues obliged to obserue it . Which is the present doctrine of Roman̄e Catholikes .

The Third mistake . The word Iustifie missapplied .

Thirdly , by Iustification here , is vnderstood , only the fitst Iustification from sinne to iustice , wherby a beleeuer is made of a child of the deuil , the child of God . this is cleare v. 23. For all haue sinned , and come short of the glory of God , v. 23. being iustifyed freely by his grace , through the redemption which is in Iesu Christ . v. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation trough faith in his bloud , to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sinnes that are past , through the forbearante of God . And in this all agree that the first iustification of a sinner is a worke of the mercy and grace of God , through the merirs of our dearest Sauiour ; Concil. Trid. siss . ● . ● , 8. and cannot be condignly merited by any works precedent . But the Apostle makes here no mention at all of the second iustification , or increase of that iustice and grace which is giuen vs in the first iustification , and wherof S. Ihon speakes Reu. 22. v. 11. Qui iustus est , iustificetur adhuc , he that is righteous , let him be righteous still , saith your English text , which signifyes only a perseuerance in that righteousnesse or iustice which was first receiued ; when it should be , he that is righteous , let him be made righteous still : as the latin hath it , iustificetur adhuc : and all the other phrases adioyned , shew not only a perseuerance , butsalso an increase , of that wickednesse , or holynesse wherin they were before : or , let him worke righteousnesse , or iustice still , as the greeke hath it , wich comes all to the same purpose . Now the question betweene vs and Protestants , is only of the second iustification , or increace of iustice acquired in the first ; which we only affirme to be augmented by good works done in and through the grace of Iesus Christ .

The fourth mistake . The word faith misconstu●ed .

Fourthly , by faith is not to be vnderstood a bare , sole , act of Christian faith ; and much lesse of particular confidence , and application of Christ merits to our selues , ( whereof the Apostle speakes not one word in this place ) where on P●otestants rely soe much ; but a faith viuificated , informed , and animated with charity , and other Christian vertus ioyned with it . This is cleate chap. 4. v. 1.2.3 . where the faith of Abraham is brought in by the Apostle in proofe of what he had sayd . Now who can deny but this faith was viuificated with charity ? seeing S. Iames , c. 2. v. 22. now cited , affirmcs , that his faith wrought with his works , and by works his faith was made perfect . And Galat. 5. v. 6. where the Apostle treates of the same iustification by faith , maketh this matter out of question : for in Iesus Christ neither circumcision auayleth any thing , nor incircumcision ; but faith , which worketh by loue , or charity . This truth is imbraced by all Romane Catholikes , though it be not , as they hold , our formall iustification , nor a condigne merit of our first iustification ; but only a congruous , and yet sure disposition to it , through the mercifull and faithfull promise of God , and through the only merits of our Sauiour . By all these particulars duly pondered , appeares , that this text of the Apostle , Rom. 3. v. 28. therefore we conclude that a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law , sayes nothing but what is taught by Romane Catholikes vniuersally . But if Protestants would conclude any thing against vs , they must produce a text which sayes , good workes of such as are iustifyed already , done by vertue of the grace of Christ , and not by the bare knowledge of the law , do not iustify , ( and this only is in question betwixt vs ) that is , augment and in●crease that righteousnesse or iustice already acquired , and make vs more iust . The former answer is likewise to be applyed to the other texts , Rom. 5. v. 1. Rom. 1. v. 17. Galat. 2. v. 17. for the Apostles meaning is the same in them all .

Yet because I intend to giue full satisfaction to each text obiected against vs , I will adde a word or two to these seuerall texts .

The second text . Rom. 5. v. 1. Being iustified by faith , we haue peace with God , through out Lord Iesus Christ .

This text is mistaken .

Here S. Paul speakes of the fitst iustification , wherby a sinner is made a seruant and friend of God ( agreably to Romane Catholiks now deliuered ) as appeares , v. 8. But God commendeth his loue to vs in that while we were yet sinners , Christ dyed for vs , and v. 10. for if while we were enemyes , we were reconciled to God , by the death of Christ , much more being reconciled , we shall be saued by his life : and the whole sequell of the chapter shewes euidently that his maine discourse is of the first iustification and attonement of sinners and enemyes to God through the death of Christ : yea euen the text it selfe v. 1. here obiected , declares it selfe sufficiently to be meant of the first iustification , Therefote being iustifyed by faith , we haue peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ , sayth the text ; for this hauing peace with God by iustification , argues that before that iustification , we had not peace , but ●mnity with God , and so were in state of sinne and damnation ; which is only true of the first iustification ; for before the second iustification or increace of iustice we haue that peace with God , and so receiue not peace by reason of it . And though there were no other answer saue this , that , of whatsoeuer iustification this text speakes , Rom. 5. v. 1. yet iustification by faith only , ( for proofe of which it is alleadged , will neuer be proued from it ; for it sayth , being iustifyed by feith , but no newes here of faith only .

The third text . Rom. 1. v. 17. For therin is the righteousnesse of God reuealed from faith to faith , as it is written , the iust liueth by faith .

This text is mistaken .

These words prooue nothing at all for iustification by faith only , no more then this proposition , the iust man liues by breath , proues that the iust man liues by breath only : for as his liuing corporally by breath . hinders not his liuing by meat , and drinke , so his liuing spiritually by faith hinders not his liuing by good works : for as breath , meate , and drinke concurre to his temporall ; so faith an good works concurre to his spirituall life . and euen Protestants themselues must confesse that this text , the iust man liueth by fatih , cannot possibly inferre that he liueth by faith only : for S. Paul saith , Rom. 3.24 . being iustifyed freely by his grace : and v. 18. euen so by the righteousnesse of one , the free gift came vppon all men to the iustification of life . So that according to S. Paul , the iust liues by grace , and by the righteousnsse of Christ , as well as by faith ; and so not by faith only . Neyther can it bee answeared , that faith it self is that grace where of the Apostle speakes , and consequently this objection of myne is to noe purpose , for though faith be a gift and grace of God , yet there are many more gifts and graces besides it , signified by the word grace , and particularly that preuentinge grace , or diuine light , and inspiration , which the holy Ghost infuses into mans hart as the principles , and causes of diuine faith in vs , which is bestowed vppon vs , purely gratis , and out of mere mercy .

The 4. text , Gal. 2. v. 11. Knowing that a man is not iustifyed by the works of the law , but by the faith of Iesus Christ , that wee might be iustifyed by the faith of Christ , and not by the workes of the law : for by the works of the law shall no flesh be iustifyed .

This text is mistaken .

These words prooue as little as any of the former , that is , nothing at all for iustification by faith only . For , as it is most manifest by the whol precedent context in the chapter , the whol matter there handled , is about Circumcision and obseruation of the ceremoniall law of the Iewes , as different from the life and practice of the Gentills : see v. 2.3.5.7.8.12.14 . and chap. 4. v. 10. Yee obserue dayes , and monthes , and tymes , and yeares , saith S. Paul reprehending the Christians for returning to those empty elements of the ceremoniall law , v. 6. and the like chap. 5. v. 1.2.3 . about circumcision , stand , and be not held in againe with the yoke of seruitude , behold I Paul tell you , that if yee be circumcised , Christ shall profit you nothing ; and I testify again to euery man circumcising himselfe , that he is a debtour to the whol law .

Now neither Romane Catholike , nor English Protestant beleeue that they are iustifyed by the ceremoniall law of the Iewes , which only is touched in this chapter . And it is no lesse cleare that there mention is made of the first iustification wherby a sinner becoms a child of God , v. 10. We sinners by nature Iewes , and not of the Gentiles . Nay the text it selfe obiected , Gal. 2. v. 16. speakes clearly of the first iustification of a sinner to the state of grace , for by the workes of the law shall no flesh be iustified ; the word flesh signifijng most familiarly in S. Pauls Epistles , that which is not yet spirituall , but carnall , vnder the guilt of sin , and corruption of nature . For though such as are already iustified , retayne the concupiscenses of the flesh in them , yet because they resist and subdue them , so long as they remaine iustified . they are not called flesh , by S. Paul , but rather spirituall men .

And that he speakes of the law as known by its own force , light , and doctrine is euident also v. 16. For if by the law be righteousnesse , then Christ is dead in vayne . which is most true if we speake of the law as known to vs , and working in vs by its owne force , wholy independent of the grace and illumination of Christ ; but can haue no true sense if we speake of the law as iustifying by the grace of Christ : for then Christ will not haue dyed in vaine ; because by his death he merited that grace and light by vertu of which only the law iustifyes . And chapter 3. v. 2. Haue yee receaued the Spirit by the works of the law , or by the hearing of faith ? wherby is manifest , both that he speakes of the workes of the law , as working before the receiuing the holy Ghost , and of the first iustification , or receiuing of the Spirit , by the faith of Christ . and v. 18. For if a law were giuen wich could viuificate , righteousnesse were truly from the law . which shewes euidently , that the Apostle speakes of the law as considered in it selfe , and its proper force : for if we consider it as illuminated by faith , and the grace of Christ , it is able to viuificate , and consequently to iustify , as the Apostle here plainly affirmes . And that he speakes of the law as preceding the faith of Christ , is out of all question v. 23. Before faith came , we were concluded vnder the law , into that faith which was to be reuealed . Therefore the law was our schoolmaster in Christ , that we might be iustifyed from faith .

THE FOVRTH CONTROVERSIE Of the merit of Good workes .

The Doctrine of the Roman Church deliuered by the Council of Trent in this Point . Sessione 6.

THe Couneil of Trent hauing deliuered ( as appeares in the former Controuersie ) that noe worke truly pleasing to God ( which only we vnderstand by good workes esteemed by vs meritorious ) can possibly be done eyther by the force of nature , or of the law , without the inspiration of the holy Ghost ; nor that any good motion of the will , assisted , by such Inspirations , can merit the grace of our first Iustification , the Council supposes that none can produce any good worke truly meritorious of heauenly blessings , but such as are allready iustified , and in state of grace : and soe deliuers the insuing doctrine . Sessione 6. c. 16.

Bene operantibus vsque in finem , & in Deo sperantibus , proponenda est vita aeterna , & tanquam gratia filiis per Christum Iesum misericorditer promissa , & tanquam merces ex ipsius Dei promissione , bonis ipsorum operibus ac meritis fideliter reddenda .

Eternall life is to be propounded to those who doe well , and hope in God , both as a grace mercifully promised through IESVS Christ to childeren , and as a reward faithfully to be rendered through the promesse of God , to theyr good workes and merits .

And yet the Council giues an other ground of Christian merits . Ibidem c. 26.

Si quis dixerit , iustos non debere pro bonis operibus , quae in Deo fuerint facta , expectare & sperare aeternam retributionem à Deo per eius misericordiam , & IESV Christi meritum ●i bene agendo , & diuina mandata custodiendo , vsque in finem perseuerauerint ; anatheme sit .

If any one shall say , that iust men are not to expect and hope for an eternall recompence for theyr good workes , which were done in God , through the mercy of God , and the merits of Christ , if they perseuer , to the ende in doing well , and keeping Gods , commandements ; let him be accursed .

And the full reason of this doctrine is gi●en , Sess. 6. c. 16.

Cùm enim ille ipse Christus IESVS tanquam caput in membra , & tanquam vitis in palmites , in ipsos iustificatos iugiter virtutem influat ; quae virtus bona eorum opera semper antecedit , & comitatur , & subsequitur , & sine quam nullo pacto Deo grata , & meritoria esse possunt : nihil ipsis iustificatis ampliùs deesse credendum est , quo minùs plenè illis operibus , quae in Deo sunt facta , diuinae legi pro huius vitae statu satisfecisse , & vitam aeternam suo etiam tempore , si tamen in gratiâ discesserint , consequendam , verè promeruisse censeantur .

For seeing Christ himselfe , infuses vertu continually into persones allready iustified , as the head into the parts , and the vine into the branches , wich vertu always precedes and accompanies , and follows theyr good workes , and without which they could not by any meanes be gratefull to God , and meritorious ; it is to be beleeued that nothing else is wanting to them , but that by those workes , which are done in God , they may be thought to haue satisfied the diuine law , proportionably to the condition of this present life , and truly to haue merited eternall life , which is here af●er to be rendered to them , if not withstanding they dy in the state of grace .

And to shew , that this doctrine , hinders not the humility of a Christian , the Council , giues this admonition .

Absit tamen vt Christianus homo in seipso vel confidat , vel glorietur , & non in Domino : cuius tanta est erga homines bonitas , vt eorum velit esse merita , quae sunt ipsius dona .

Farre be it notwithstanding that a Christian should eyther confide , or glory in himselfe , and not in our Lord : whose goodnesse to men is soe greate , that he wills that those which are his gifrs , should be our merits .

And lastly to shew what it is , which iust men ▪ merit by theyr good workes , the Council deliuers this doctrine . can. 32.

Si quis dixerit — ipsum iustificatum bonis operibus , quae ab eo pcr Dei gratiam , & IESV Christi meritum , cuius viuum membrum est , fiunt , non verè mereri augmentum gratiae , vitam aeternam , & ipsius vitae aeternae , si tamen in gratiâ discesserit , consecutionem , & gloriae augmentum ; anathema sit .

If any one shall say — that a iust persone , merits not truly by his good workes , which are done by the grace of God and merit of Christ , increace of grace , eternall life ; and the attayning eternall life , if he depart hence in state of grace , and the increace of gloey ; let him be accursed .

From these definitions of the Council , is cleare , 1. that none saue persons allready iustified can haue these meritorious workes . 2. That they must all be done by force and vertu of the gtace of Christ . 3. To make euen such workes which proceed from grace compleatly , and truly meritorious is required the free and mercifull promesse of God , wheron all merit is grounded . 4. That this Promesse of God , to reward such workes , and the acceptation of those workes to be merits , are grounded in the sole merits of Christ most sacred passion . 5. That the things which are merited through such promises , and merits of Christ , are increace of internall grace , eternall life , the obteyning of eternall life , and the increase of glory in heauen . amongst which seeing the Council puts not actuall grace , that is the inlightning of our vnderstanding by heauenly thoughts , and the inflaming of our will by pious affections , it giues free liber for all Christians to beleeue , that noe iust persone , can by his good workes or merits , deserue to haue such actuall graces , but that they all proceed from the free grace , and mercy of God , bestowed liberally vppon euery just persone , for the sole merits of Christ , and not dew to any whatsoeuer of his good workes . 6. Hence the Council affirmes that all our merits are the true gifts of God , coming from his free grace , and that soe we are neyther to confide , nor glory in our selues , but only in God . 7. Hence clearly follows , that this doctrine of merits , cannot possibly be any way injurious to our Sauiours passion , seeing it is grounded , both according to the grace where by such meritorious workes are produced , and the free promesse of God to accept of them , as meritorious , and to render a reward to them , for the sole passion of our dearest Sauiour , the vertu whereof is applied to vs by the meritorious force of such workes . as it also is by the impetratory force of prayres , the first derogating noe more from the power of his merits , then the second of his praires .

That which is here sayd , of the impretatory , and meritorious , is to be extended to the satisfactory vertu of good workes . For so the Council of Trent , speakes of them . Sessione 14. cap. 8. neque verò ita nostra est satisfactio haec , quam pro peccatis nostris exoluimus , vt non sit per Christum IESVM : nam qui ex nobis tanquam ex nobis nihil possumus ; eo cooperante qui nos confortat omnia possumus , ita vt non habeat homo vnde glorietur , sed omnis gloriatio nostra in Christo est , in quo viuimus , in quo meremur , in quo satisfacimus , facientes fructus dignos poenitentiae , qui ex illo vim habent , ab illo offeruntur Patri , & per illum acceptantur à Patre .

Neythcr is this satisfaction soe ours which wee pay for our sinnes , that it is not through IESVS Christ . For wee who of our selues , as of our selues , can doe nothing , he cooperating who comforts vs we can doe all things , soe that man hath nothing where of to glory , but all our glory is in Christ , in whom we liue , in whom we merit , in whom we satisfie , bringing forth worthy fruits of penance , which haue force from him , are offered by him to the father , and are accepted by the Father through him .

To these Athorities of the Council of Trent in declaration of the Romane doctrine , I thought fit to adde one clause of the 39 articles , which fauours much the merit of Good workes .

Arti. 12. Of Goodworkes .

Al be it that good workes , which are the fruits of faith , cannot put away sins , and indure the seuerity of Gods iudgement , yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ .

If pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ , then noe way sinfull , but truly and absolutly good and iust , for noe sin , whether out of Christ or in Christ can be pleasing , and acceptable to God , for then God should not be a hater , but a louer of sin , and Christ should not take away sinnes , but make them pleasing , and acceptable to God , which is a flat blasphemy . If truly and absolutely without sin , and iust , then hauing in holy Scripture the promises of God annext to them , to reward them , and that we must receiue Gods promises in such wise , as they be generally set forth to vs in holy Scripture , as saith article 17. sub finem , it is most manifest , that all the good workes of iust and righteous persones , shall be rewarded in Christ , and soe be truly meritorious in Christ : hauing such a supernaturall goodnesse . cōformable to that heauenly reward in them . which is all that is taught , in this point , by the Church of Rome .

The Protestant Position . That the good workes of the Regerate are not such , as can deserue heauen .

This is prouued by Scripture mistaken .

The first Proofe .

Rom. 8. v. 18. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shal be reuealed vnto vs .

The first mistake . Nothing against merits in this text .

NO more is a graine of mustard seed worthy to be compared to that high and spread stalke , & those multitudes of increase which it beares ; and yet it produces them : as also do the small sufferings of thi world that fayre tree of life , and glory in heauen , as witnesseth S. Paul 2. Cor. 4. v. 17. For our light affliction which is but for a moment , worketh for vs a farre more exceeding , and eternall weight of glory .

The second Proof .

So likewise yee , Luke 17. v. 10. when you haue done all those things which are commanded you , say ; we are vnprofitable seruants : we haue done that which was but our duty to doe .

The Second mistake . These words missapplied against merits .

What is there here which denyes the deseruing heauen by the good works of the regenerate ? is it because we haue only done our duty ? and why then deserues a seruant his wages , by doing his duty , and nothing else ? is it because we are vnprofitable seruants ? and who can bring any profit to God who is vncapable of profit ? Hence is only proued that Allmighty God is no way beholden to vs , but we to him for all our good works : and therefore we are all to humble our selues before him ; and to acknowledge that all our merits are his gifts , and the reward bestowed on them , grounded in his free promesse , and acceptation of them , for the merits of Christ .

The third Proof .

We are not saued by workes , least any one should boast . if righteousnesse come by the law , then Christ is dead in vaine .

The Third mistake . The word workes misunderstood .

The answer to Rom. 3. v. 28. &c. is here to be applyed : for he speaketh manifestly of the works of sinners before rheir first iustification , as appeares v. 11.12.13.14 . and of works done by force of the law only ; which he distinguisheth from the good works of the regenerate , v. 10. For we are his workemanship , created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes , which God hath before ordayned that we should walke in them .

The fourth Proofe .

Rom. 6. v. 23. For the wages of sinne is death : but the gift of God is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. if a full gift , then no merit .

The fourth mistake . The word wages , and gift missapplied .

The true mearing of this text must be drawn from the greeke word here vsed , where that which the English hath wages , is in greeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , opsonia , which properly signifies the base and ignoble stipend which was wont to be giuen to common souldiers , as their ordinary pay : and therefore it is fitly . Vsed to expresse the wages of sinne , which is death . That which in English here is called a gift , is in greeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , charisma , which signifyes a donatiue , or noble an pretious reward ; which was vsed anciētly to be bestowed vppon such as had caried themselues famously and valiently ( where by they deserued it ) for some seruice of war , aboue their ordinary pay : and therefore was fit to be applyed to signify that high reward which shal be obtayned in heauen by such as shall haue perseuered in good workes till death .

Which could not bee signifyed by the other word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , by reason of the basenesse and lownesse of it : so that both these words doe properly signify a recompense : the one a high and noble one , and yet proceeding from the worthy and liberall disposition of the Prince , and so happily exceeding the precise worth of the seruice , as alsoe Allmighty God doth in rewarding our works , qui remunerat vltra condignum , who rewards beyond the condignity and worth of the merit , as our Diuines teach ; and the other an ordinary low stipend due to common souldiers who haue noe particular worth in them . Soe that the true meaning of this text , according to the proper signification of the words in the original is this the base recompence and hirelings wages of sin̄ is death , but the high , noble and rich reward of God is eternall life , and thus the text makes nothing against the merit of good workes , but rather , makes playnly for them . Further if wee take the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 for a pure free gift wee may answer with S. Austin , and the Council of Trent now cited that because the good works & merits themselues are the free gifts of God , so also the glory of heauen which is deserued by them , is called truly a gift ; as if one should giue any one a tree the fruit which it beare also may be called his gift who gaue the tree . More ouer , seing ( as we haue learned from the Council of Trent aboue cited ) that the primary title , and right which all Gods childeren haue to eternall life , is that of inheritaene ; which is a free gift of God , before all merit of heauen , eternal life may be properly called the gift of God , as being absolutly decreed to be bestowed vppon them as his childeren , before they had any merits , to deserue it , supposing that they dy in state of grace .

The Catholicke Position .

That the works of the regenerate are such as can deserue heauen .

I haue fought a good fight , 2. Tim. 4 ▪ v. 7.8 . I haue finished my course , I haue kept the faith . Hence forth there is layd vp forme a crowne of righterusnesse ( iustitiae , of iustice , sayth the Greeke and Latin ) which the Lord the righteous ( iustus , the iust ) Iudge shall giue me 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , reddet , shall restore vnto me , at the last day , ( the greeke at that day ) and not to me only , but vnto them also who loue his coming . By a crown of iustice , he meanes a true reward , or prize , got by labour , as appeares , 1. Cor. 9. v. 24.25 . know ye not that those which runne in a race , runne all , but one receiueth the prize , so run , that yee may obteyne and euery man that striueth for the mastery , is temperate in all things : now they doe it to obtaine a corruptible crown , but we an incorruptible : 2. Cor. 4. v. 17. for our light affliction which is but for a moment , worketh for vs a farre more exceeding and eternall weight of glory .

If our afflictions worke a crowne of eternall glory then they are a true cause of it which cannot be but by merit . Gal. 6. v. 8. For what things a man shall sow , those also shall hee reape for hee that soweth to his flesh ( latin in his flesh ) from his flesh also shall reape corruption : but hee that soweth in the spirit shall reape life euerlasting . So that life euerlasting is a proper fruit of a spirituall and godly life , and so such a life , is the true cause of saluation . Reuel. 3. v. 4. Speaking of the elect . saith : They shall walke w●ith me in whyte garments , because they are worthy . Therefore the true seruants of God , haue something in this world which makes them worthy of eternall life : and that is theyr innocent and vnspotted liues , as the Euangelist declares in the next precedent words , but thou hast some in Sardis who haue not defiled their garment . R. 3. v. 8. Behold I haue giuen thee a dore open which noman can shut , because thou hast some smal vertue , and hast kept my word , and hast not denyed my name . where the vertuous life , and good works of that person , are affirmed to be the cause , why eternall happinesse was to be bestowed vppon him . Hebr. 6.9 . for God is not vnrighteous , to forget your worke , and labour of loue , which yee haue shewed towards his name , in that yee haue ministred to the Saints and doe minister , and v. 12. That yee be not flothfull but followers of them , who through faith , and patience inherit the promisses . where it is said , both that it belongs to the iustice of God to remember our good workes , and that not only by faith , but by patience allso ( and the same is of all other vertues ) wee inherit the promises , as Abraham did , v. 13.14 . Reuel. 3. v. 10. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience , I will preserue the from the hower of temptation which is to come through the whole world to tempt the inhabitants vppon earth . where the desert of good workes is most clearly deliuered .

The Protestant argument against merit of Good workes .

The blessed saints were euer ready to acknowledge theyr vnworthynesse with humility .

Mistake . This tutches not the merit of good workes .

THey are humble and euer will be , and must be according to our doctrine both because they are neuer fully certain , that they haue any one worke that is truly pleasing to God , and if they were fully certain , they must attribute all the glory to him , seeing it is only his grace which workes all good in them . And all theyr merits , are his gifts , as S. Augustin says , and rewarded through the free acceptation of them for the merits of Christ according to the Concill of Trent sess. 25. c. 16. But if by this title be vnderstood , that noe iust man hath any workes truly good , and pleasing to God , through the working of Gods grace in them ( as the mistaken proofes seeme to insinuate ) it will be a false humility , because it stands vppon a false ground , and soe no humility of Saints .

This Protestant argument is proued by Scripture mistaken .

The first proofe .

Dan. 9.7 . O Lord righteousnesse belongs vnto thee , and vnto vs confusion of face . saith Daniel .

The first mistake . The Persons here mentioned were not Saints .

These words were spoken by great sinners . Therefore Daniel ascribes confusion of face to the Izraelites of his tyme , because from the highest to the lowest they , and theyr Predecessours had greeuously sinned against the law of God . As appeares through the whole prayer of Daniel in that chapter , and he puts his own sinnes to the rest , v. 20. as hauing transgressed with the rest . But how proues this that neyther he nor any other Saint had done any good workes ?

The second proofe .

Ps. 103.3 . And Dauid . If thou Lord shouldest be extreame to marke what is done amisse . O Lord who may abide it .

The second mistake This text proues that all Saints haue some sinnes , but not that they haue no merits .

How proues this that noe Saint can haue any good wotkes , or merits , for they doe many things a misse , yet through the grace of Christ they may doe some things aright ?

The third proofe .

Speake not thou in thy hart saing for my righteousnesse , Deut. 9. v. 2. the Lord hath brought me in to possesse the Land , but for the wickednesse of this nation , the Lord doth driue them out from before thee , was the counsell of Moyses to the Israelites .

The third mistake . This tutches sinners but not Saints .

The reason of this counsel was because the Israelites had greeuously offended god in the wildernesse as appeares , v. 7.8.9 . &c. where Moyses reekons vp the haynous Idolatrie , and other great sinnes which they committed .

THE FIFT CONTROVERSIE Of Purgatory .

The Romane Doctrine declared in the Council of Trent .

Sess. 6. Can. 30.

SI quis post acceptam iustificationis gratiam cuilibet peecatori poenitenti ita culpam remitti , & reatum aeternae poenae deleri dixerit , vt nullus remaneat rearus poenae temporalis exolueudae vel in hoc saeculo , vel in futuro in Purgatorio , antequam ad Regna caelorum aditus patere possit ; anathema sit .

If any one shall say , that after the grace of iustification is receiued , the falt , and guilt of eternall punishment is soe remitted to euery penitent person , that there remaines noe guilt , or liablenesse to some temporall punishment to be payed eyther in this world , or in the world to come in Purgatory , before the enterance into the Kingdome of heauen can be opened to them ; let him be accursed .

Conc. Trid. sess . 25. Decreto de Purgatorio

Praecipit sancta Synodus , vt sanam de Purgatorio doctrinam , à sanctis Patribus , & sacris Coneiliis traditam , à Christi fidelibus credi , teneri , doceri , & vbique praedicari diligenter studeant . Apud rudem verò plebem difficiliores , ac subtiliores quaestiones , quaeque ad aedificationem non faciunt , & ex quibus plerumque nulla fit pietatis accessio , à popularibus concionibus secludantur . Incerta item vel quae specie falsi laborant , euulgari , ac tractari non permittant . Ea verò quae ad curiositatem quandam , aut superstitionem spectant , vel turpe lucrum sapiunt , tanquam scandala , & fidelium offendicula prohibeant .

The holy Synode commands the Bishops that they take diligent care , that the sound doctrine of Purgatory , deliuered by the holy Fathers , and the sacred Councils be beleeued , held , taught , and preached , by the faithfull of Christ . But that amongst the common sort of people , all difficult , and subtile questions , which make not for edification , & by which commonly there is noe accesse to piety , be secluded from popular sermons . But those things which tend to curiosity , or which tast of base lucre , as being scandalls , and offenses of the faithfull , they are to prohibite .

In these two places we see , 1. That none but iust persones suffer in Purgatory , 2. That those paines are only the remainder of such temporall paines , dew after the remission of sinne , and eternall punishment , which they deserued in this life . 3. That the Church of Rome , forbids all temporall gaines to be made , of the doctrine of Purgatory , where by it appeares how injurious the aspersion of some of our Aduersaries is to the Church of Rome . in accusing her , to haue inuented Purgatory , not to gaine soules , but mony . 4. All difficult questions , are here excluded from ordinary sermons , to common people , and all curiosities forbidden .

The Protestant Position .

That the soules of the faithfull ( in theyr departure ) are happy , wee often read : but noe newes of Purgatory .

This is proued by Scripture mistaken .

Blessed are the dead who dye in the Lord : from hence forth saith the spirit , that they may rest from theyr labours , and theyr workes follow them .

The first mistake . The text saith not they rest presently after theyr death .

They are not sayd here to rest presently after theyr departure , but that they may rest : and yet they may be termed blessed , as our Sauiour calls the pore in spirit blessed in this world , Mat. 5.3 . and in theyr misery : because the Kingdome of heauen belongs to them , as it does to those in Purgatory .

The second mistake . The word labours misapplyed .

They are not sayd to rest from all labour ; but from their labours ; that is such labours , persecutions , afflictions , sorrowes , temptations , mortifications , troubles , anxietyes as they suffered in this world ; from all which they rest after death . By theyr labours also may be fitly here vnderstood theyr good workes , and patience in suffering the miseries of this life with hope of eternall reward , so that they are sayd to rest from their labours , because the recompence and crown of their former labours are alloted to them as certainly to follow , as the next words declare , opera enini eorum sequunturillos , for their morkes , ( that is , their labours ) follow them : and yet in some of them it may happen , that they , may not presently receiue the reward of them which hinders not the resting of their labours , because they are not to haue any reward for what they suffer after this life .

The second proofe out of Scripture mistaken .

For wee know that if the eartly house of this tabernacle were dissolued , wee haue a building of God , 2. Cor. 5. v. 1. a house not made with hands eternal in heauen .

This text is mistaken . These words say not that presently after death they shall goe into that heueauenly house .

How follows it hence , that so soone as they depart they must goe into this house prepared for them ? seeing that many may haue houses that are hindred to liue in them , especially in these distracted tymes : and our Sauiour saith , Blessed are the pore in spirit : Mat. 5.3 . for theirs is the kingdome of heauen ; euen whilst they are liuing in this world . And the Apostle : Ephes. 2. u. 19. Now therefore yee are no more strangers and furainers , but fellow citizens with the saints , and of the houshold of God . 1. ep. Io. c. ● . 13. And yet more clearly S. Iohn , these things I writte vnto you that yee may know , that yee haue life euerlasting , yee who beleeue in the name of the sone of God . That is in full hope and expectation , not in actual possession , which yet i● sayd more clerely to belong to those in Purgatory , who haue , an infallible certainty , of life eternall .

The third proofe from Scripture mistaken .

Wisd. 3. v. 1. But the soules of the righteous are in the hands of God , and no torment shall touch them .

Mistake ▪ The word torment misvnderstood .

The Latin hath it , non tanget illos tormentum mortis : the torment of deach , shall not touch them . which is most true of all the iust departed ; because they shall liue eternally : but Protestants regard not the vulgar Latin translation . The greeke hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which , according to Scapula , particularly signifyes a torment , to which malefactours , or suspected to be so , are put to make them confesse the truth , or to try whether they be guilty or no , as are the racke , or such like . Now no such torment as this ; shall tuch the soules of the iust departed , because God hath sufficiently tryed them , and approued of them in this life , as apeares v. 5. and hauing beene a little chastised , they shall be greatly rewarded , for God proued them , and found them worthy of him selfe .

Which is a playne place for merits : but when it is against Protestants it is only apocryphal .

If any shall demand , whether the word Purgatory be expressed in Scripture , I answer that it is as much expressed , as the word trinity , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , diuine Petson , which not withstanding , are beleeued by Protestants .

If it be replied , that at least the substance or meaning of those words , are expressed in Scripture ; I answer the same of Purgatory . which I demonstrate in this maner . Purgatory is nothing else according to the Council of Trent now cited , but a place where temporall punishments are suffered by iust persones after death , wich they deserued in this life . Now if any iustified soul be and often is liable after death to suffer such punishments , then certainly there must be some certaine place where they must be suffered . But iustified soules may be and often are liable to suffer such punishments after death , ergo there must be such a place where in they are to suffer them . That iustified soules may be and often are liable to such punishments I proue thus . Iustified persones yet liuing after the remission of theyr sinnes , and consequently of eternall torment , are liable to some temporall punishment , therefore souls departed of iust persones , may , and often are liable to the like . I proue the antecedent , out of the , 2. Sam. 12. v. 13.14 . And Dauid said vnto nathan I haue sinned against the Lord , and Nathan said vnto Dauid , the Lord also hath put away thy sinnes thou shalt not dy : Howbeit , because by this deed thou hast giuen great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme , the child also which is borne vnto the , shall surely dy . whete for that very sinne which was put away , and forgiuen , Dauid was punished by the death of his child , because thou hast giuen by this deede , Rom. 6. v. 23. &c. the child shall dy .

The same is proued by the example of Adam whoe after his sinne was forgiuen him , was notwithstanding liable to the punishment of death ( which is the wages of sinne ) as are also all iust persones , for the same reason .

The antecedent therefore being clere , I proue the consequence , by this argument . Seeing God is noe respecter of persones , Reu. 21 , ●1 . 1. Pet. 1.17 . and that he rewards euery one according to theyr workes , whosouer deserues the like punishment that Dauid deserued , shall surely be punished , as Dauid wa●slet vs therefore put this case , that at the same time with Dauid , there had been an other Person , guilty of sinnes as greate as were those of Dauid , who should haue also repented , with the same degree of sorrow , and consequently obteyned pardone of his sinne as Dauid did , this sinner must haue been liable to the same temporall punishment that Dauid was , now suppose that this other sinner● should haue died , the very instant after his sinne was forgiuen him , according to the doctrine of the Romane Church he should haue been punished temporally in the other world , with a punishment correspondent to that of Dauid , and soe God should not haue been a respecter of persones , but haue rewarded euery one according to theyr workes , but according to Protestants , he should haue had no punishment at all after this life , and consequently , he should not haue been rewarded according to his workes , not suffering the condigne punishment , which he truly deserued , and God should haue proceeded vnequally , in inflicting his punishments , and haue had respect to his persone more then to that of Dauid . neyther is Purgatory any way injurious to the iustice of God , because though he forgiue the guilt of the sinne , and the eternall punishment , for which man is not able to satistisfie , yet he reteynes a parte of the punishment , which being finite and temporall , may eyther by workes of penance and patience be remitted in this world , or payed in the world to come , or released by the prayers , and penances of other faithfull Christians . And this may satisfye for the point of Purgatory .

THE SIXT CONTROVERSIE Of the Reall Presence of the Body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist .

The Doctrine of the Church of Rome , deliuered in the Council of Trent .

Sess. 13. Can. 1.

SI quis negauerit in Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri verè , realiter , & substantialiter Corpus & Sanguinem , vnâ cum animâ & diuinitate Domini nostri IESV Christi , ac proinde totum Christum , sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo vt in signo , vel figurâ , aut virtute ; anathema sit .

If any one shall denie that in the most holy Eucharist is conteyned truly , really , and substantially the body , and blood , togeather with the soul & diuinity of our Lord IESVS Christ , and consequently whol Christ ; but shall say that he is in it , only as in ● signe , or figure , or vertu ; let him be accursed .

Ibidem . Can. 2.

Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis & vini , vnâ cum corpore Domini IESV Christi , &c. anathema sit .

If any one shall say that in the holy Sacrament of the Eucherist remaines the substance of bread and wine , togeather with the body and blood of our Lord IESVS Christ , &c. let him be accursed .

Ibidem . Can. 4.

Si quis dixerit , peractâ consecratione in admirabili Eucharistiae Sacramento non esse corpus & sanguinem Domini nostri IESV Christi , sed tantùm in vsu dum sumitur , non autem ante vel post , &c. anathema sit .

If any one shall say , that the consecration being done , in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist is not the body and blood of our Lord IESVS Christ , but only in the vse , whilst it is receiued , and neyther before nor after , &c. let him be accursed .

Ibidem . C. 6.

Si quis dixerit , in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latriae , etiam externo adorandum , &c. anathema sit .

If any one shall say , that Christ the only Sone of God in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist , is not to be worshipped with the worship of latria , or diuine worship , euen externall , &c. let him be accursed .

This is part of the doctrine of the Council of Trent in this point , the rest may be seen in the Council , as drawn from this .

To dispose the Reader to a right conceipt of this high mystery , and to informe him , vppon what ground the Church of Rome teaches this doctrine , I thought it necssary to cite those texts of the new Testament , which deliuer the institution of this Sacrament that the Reader may with one vew , see how largely , and clearly the holy Scripture , if it be vnderstood according to the proper signification of the words , speakes for this doctrine of the Reall presence . And that I may not be thought to haue cited the words , otherwise then Protestants admit of them , I will cite the texts as I finde them in the Protestant English bible .

Mat. 26. v. 26.27.28.29 .

And as they were eating Iesus tooke bread and blessed it , and brake it , and gaue it , to his disciples and said , take , eate , this is my body .

And he tooke the cup , and gaue thankes , and gaue it to them , saying drinke ye all of it ;

For this is my blood of the new Testament , which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes .

S. Marke c. 14. v. 22.23.24.25 .

And as they did eate , Iesus tooke bread , and blessed , and brake it , and gaue to them , and said , take eate , this is my body .

And he ●ooke the cup and when he had giuen thankes , he gaue it to them , and they all drank of it , and he said vnto them , this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many .

Luc c. 22. v. 19.20 .

And he tooke bread and gaue thankes , and brake it , and gaue vnto them saying , this is my body which is giuen for you , this doe in rememberance of me .

Likewise the cup after supper saying , this cup is the new Testament in my blood , which is shed for you .

S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. v. 23.24.25 .

For I haue receiued of the Lord that which also I deliuer vnto you , that the Lord Iesus the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread .

And when he had giuen thankes , he brake it and said , take eate this in my body , which is broken for you , doe this in remembrance of me .

After the same maner also he tooke the cup when he had supped , saying , this cup is the new Testament in my blood , doe this as often as yee drinke in remembrance of me .

The Protestant discourse of the Eucharist begins thus .

Obiection 1.

THe institution of this Sacrament is expressed in the 3 first Euāgelists S. Mathew , Mark , and Luke , and also by S. Paul , in all which they agree in these 4 thinges , that IESVS tooke , blessed , brake and gaue bread : for he that saith , IESVS tooke bread , blessed , brake and gaue it , saith plainely enough , that he brake , and gaue bread , and not the species of bread as they hold .

Answer .

If this objection intend to proue ( as certainly it doth ) that our Sauiour tooke , blessed , brake , and gaue bread to his disciples so , that that which he gaue them , was bread remaining in the same substance of naturall bread which it had when he tooke it , I deny that our Sauiour gaue bread to his disciples , or that the three Euangelists and S. Paul cited agree in this : the proofe that our Sauiour gaue naturall bread to his disciples , because ( saith the objection ) he that saith Iesus tooke , bread , brake , and gaue it , saith plainly enough that he brake and gaue bread : is grounded in a false translation or addition to the text of holy Scripture in the English Protestant Bibles : for neither hath the greeke nor latin the word it ; and though the Protestant Bible , of the yeare 1630. and 1632. haue these words , Iesus tooke bread and blessed it , and brake it , and gaue it to his disciples , all in the same letter and print , as if the word it were no lesse in the originall then the others adioyned , yet the latter Bibles and namely that of the yeare 1646. put the word it in a different letter , to signify that it is nor in the originall , but added ( as they pretend ) for greater explication , as appeareth in a thousand other places : and in the Bibles of the yeares 1630. and 1632. S. Marke and S. Luke haue the words thus , Iesus tooke bread , and blessed , and brake it , and gaue vnto them : where the word it is not ioyned to blessed and gaue , but only to brake , and then the word it is put in a different smaller letter then the other words . All which conuince that the word it is not in the originall ; and so is not holy diuine Scripture , but an addition of men and so no solid argumenr can be drawn from the word it as from the word of God , not being the word of God , but of men . And hence also appeares , how cunningly the Protestant translatours detaine the ignorant readers by putting in words seruing , as they thinke , to their own purpose in the very same print and letter with the rest which are ioyned to them , and are in the originall , as if they were in the Originall no lesse then the others ; which notwithstanding in othet editions , translations , and places of Scripture they signify , not to be in the originall nor Gods word , by printing them in a lesser letter , after they were conuinced of fraud and falsity in the former . And thus , in some editions putting this and such like words in the same letter with the rest , and in others in a different , the vnlearned which are not able to examine , what is , and what is not in the Originall , may be in doubt which of these translations is the true word of God , and cannot be infallibly certain of either of them seeing the translatours of theyr Church , which are of equall authority , some of them put a word in their text in the same tenour , as if it were no lesse Scripture then the rest ; and others in a different letter . to signify , that that word is not Scripture , but added by them ( as they suppose ) for greater clarity .

If it should be answered , that whether the word it be in the sacred text , or no , yet the argument will haue force , for though the text runne thus , Iesus tooke bread , and blessed , and brake , and gaue to his disciples , yet it may seeme that he blessed , brake , and gaue no other thing then that very bread which he tooke , remayning in its own substance and nature . For certainly he must haue blessed , and broken , and giuen somthing to his disciples : and what can that be imagined to be but what he tooke ? that therefore which he tooke , hauing beene true naturall hread , as the text expressly sayth , Iesus tooke bread , he must be supposed to haue blessed , and broken , and giuen true naturall bread to his disciples .

I answer , that our Sauiour , though he be supposed to haue blessed , broken , and giuen some thing to his disciples , yet it follows not that he broke and gaue naturall bread : for he might take bread remaining in its own nature , and after breake and giue his Body , wherinto the bread which he tooke , was changed : as in the marriage feast of Galilé after the vessells were filled with water , and our Sauiour sayd , draw now and beare to the gouernour of the feast : certainly they drew , and caryed , and the gouernour of the feast drunk somthing ; yet it followes not , that as they filled the vessells with water , so they drew , and carryed , and the gouernour of the feast drunk naturall water ; but as it is sayd v. 9. water made wine , or wine wherinto the naturall water wherwith the seruants filled the vessells , was changed . yea though the word it had beene in the text , or were supposed to be rightly ioyned to it , could any one thence proue more , that , as our Sauiour tooke naturall bread , so he brake and gaue naturall bread remayning the very same which he tooke , then one can proue from the water of Galilé that as the seruants filled the vessells with naturall water , so they drew , and caryed , and the maister of the feast drunk naturall water remayning the very same which was filled , because the text sayes v. 8. and they caryed it , and v. 9. the ruler of the feast knew not whence it was .

But the objection in preuention of this answer vrgeth the former argument yet further in this manner .

Obiection 2.

For the actions of brake and gaue , were before the words of consecration This is my Body ▪ and consequently , not being changed , it must be bread which he brake and gaue .

Answer .

This argument proceeds from misunderstanding and mistaking this text of Scripture ▪ for though it saith , our Sauiour brake , and gaue to his disciples , and sayd , This is my Body ; yet it sayes not ( as the objection would haue it say ) that our Sauiour after he brake and gaue to his disciples , sayd , This is my Body , these being very different senses : for though the Scripture first mentioneth brake and gaue , and then sets downe that our Sauiour sayd This is my Body , yet it may well stand with the truth of the words , that at the same tyme and instant whilst he brake and gaue , he sayd , This is my Body , and so gaue not bread till it was changed into his Body , as if one should giue a peece of bread to a person in want , one might say truly , he tooke bread and brake it , and gaue it to him , Luke 22. v. 19. and sayd , take this almes , though he spake these words , take this almes , at the very same tyme when he gaue it . And that our Sauiour spake these words , This is my Body , whilst he was giuing what he gaue to his disciples . and not after , is manifest : first , because S. Luke affirmes it to be so , he tooke bread , and brake , and gaue to them , saying , This is my Body : that is , whilst he gaue , he was pronouncing these words . and though in the institution of the chalice , S. Marke sayes , and he tooke the cup , and when he had giuen thankes , he gaue to them , &c. and sayd , This is my Bloud of the new Testament , which shall be shed for many . Luke 22. v. 20. Yet S. Luke saies : Likewise the cup allso after supper , saying , This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud , which shall be shed for you . S. Paul also in the same manner ▪ 1. Cor. 11. v. 25. also he tooke the cup when he had supped , saying , This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud . Secondly , because all , as well Ptotestants , as Catholikes , agree that our Sauiour gaue his disciples a Sacrament ; and , as they say , a signe of his Body which was made a Sacrament by vertue of these words , This is my Body : therefore it were an impiety to say that our Sauiour gaue bread to his disciples before these words were pronounced ; for then he had giuen a meer peece of bread , and neither Sacrament , nor his Body , nor signe of his Body . Thirdly , if our Sauiour had perfectly giuen that which he put into the disciples hands , before he had pronounced the words of consecration . the Scripture sayinge , he tooke bread , brake , and gaue to his disciples , and sayd , This is my Body . then it would follow by the same argument that our Sauiour gaue bread , that is to say , put bread into the hands of his disciples before they tooke it into their hands , which is impossible : or , that he bad them take what they had already taken , which were absurd , because S. Matthew relates the institution so , that he mentioneth first gaue , and then take Iesus tooke bread , and blessed , and brake , and gaue to his disciples , and sayd , take , eate , this is my Body . If indeed the Scripture had affirmed that our Sauiour gaue to his disciples , after he had sayd , This is my Body , the argument had been of force : but s●eing it sayes not so , but only mentioneth first , gaue , and after , the words of consecration , as it mentioneth gaue before it mentions take , and that common sense tells vs they must be done at , the same tyme , there is nothing against the reall presence by this rather mistake them argument .

Obiection 3.

S. Paul obserues , that after he brake and gaue , he sayd , This is my Body which is broken for you .

Answer .

S. Paul's words , according to the Protestant translation , are these , tooke bread , and when he had giuen thankes , he brake it , and sayd , Take , eate , This is my Body . where there is no expresse mention of giuing to his disciples at all : and therefore what the obiection here affirmes , that S. Paul obserues that after he brake and gaue , he sayd , This is my Body , is very farre from truth . Againe , though S. Paul sayd , This is my Body , yet he sayes not that after he brake , he sayd , This is my Body , as the obiection affirmes . Neither sayd S. Paul , when he had broken , he sayd , Take and eate , as he sayes , when he had giuen thankes , This is my Body . for that would haue some shew of proofe that he pronounced the words after he had broken ; but only affirmes , he brake and sayd , This is my Body : which words may as properly signify that he brake and spake these words morally at the same tyme , as that he first beake , and then pronounced them . As when it is sayd in S. Matthew , In those dayes came Iohn Baptist preaching in the desert , and saying , Repent &c. where , though saying be put after preaching in the text , yet no man is so senselesse as to thinke that he preached before he sayd somthing ; or , that he preached before he sayd what the Euangelist affirme him to haue sayd as the subiect of his preaching , Repent &c. Iob 21. & alibi ▪ So also in Iob different tymes Almighty God , Iob , and his friends are affirmed in the English Bibles , then Iob answered and sayd &c. Then the Lord answered and sayd &c. where , though answered be put before sayd , yet no child will imagine they answered before they spake , or spake before they sayd what the text affirmes them to haue sayd .

Whence it is most euident , that words which are set one after another , signify not alwayes , nor euer certainly ( meerely because they are set one before another ) that the actions done and signifyed by them , follow one another iust as these words do . And so meerely thence can be drawn no forcible argument in this particular . And yet if we should grant for other reasons and circumstances , that our Sauiour brake the bread before he pronounced the words of consecration , whilst it was yet but bread ; what would this helpe our aduersaryes , or hurt vs ? for then it would follow , that bread was broken whilst it remained in its own substance ; but giuen to the disciples after it was changed into the Body of Christ , or morally speaking whilst our Sauiour was giuing it vnto them .

Obiection .

Here wee see plainly ( both by theyr own rules , and our Sauiours actions ) that it was bread which he brake , and gaue , and not the species of bread which was broken and giuen , that is to say the bredth , coulour and tast of bread , but noe bread .

This word broken must needs haue relation to that bread broken before he sayd , This is my Body , because he did not break it againe after he said , it was his Body .

Answer .

If we vnderstand by broken mentioned by S. Paul when he sayd . He brake , and sayd , Take , eate , this is my Body , that he brake the bread changed into his Body by consecration , or in a morall vnderstanding , whilst he changed and consecrated it by these words , This is my Body , it might happily containe no great absurdity , to grant that this second word is broken may haue relation to the former he brake : for in both of them ( according to this opinion ) his Body was mysteriously and sacramentally broken for vs .

But if we vnderstand by brake , as the Obiection supposes vppon a false ground ( as I hauc already demonstrated ) the breaking of naturall bread before he sayd This is my Body , then it is wholy false , and iniurious to our Sauiour and the worke of our Redemption to vnderstand that these words whith is broken for you , haue relation to brake which was mentioned before . For that were to say , that a meere piece of bread , before it was made either a Sacrament , or his Body , or so much as a signe of his Body , was hroken for vs ; which neither Catholike , nor Protestant , nor Christian doth or can affirme without blasphemy : for before these words , This is my Body were pronounced , all agree that the bread was neither made his Body , nor any Sacramētall signe of it . Neither can it possibly stand with the other Euangelists , that broken here should be only a breaking of common and naturall bread before it was made a Sacrament by these words , This is my Body : for it is certaine that S. Paul here vnderstands by broken for you , the same which S. Luke signifyes by this is my Body which is giuen for you ; especially seeing that by breaking & giuing thinges belonging to eating , whether temporall or spirituall , the same thing is signifyed in many places of Scripture , according to the Hebrew phrase . Now to say , that a piece of naturall bread vnconsecrated , was giuen for vs , is an intolerable blasphemy . And yet this is clearer in the other species of the chalice : Mark . 14. v. 24. for S. Marke relates it thus , This is my blood of the new Testament , which is shed for many . and S. Matthew , Which shall be shed for many for the remission of sinnes . Matth. 26. v. 28. Which no hart truly Christian can imagine to haue any relation to pure and common wine before consecration .

To that which the Obiection adds , that therefore broken for you must haue relation to that bread broken before he sayd , This is my Body , because he did not breake it againe after he had sayd these words : I answer first , that it can neuer be prooued from the words of S. Paul , that the first breaking here mentioned by S. Paul , was not presently ( speaking in a morall sense ) after these words were , pronounced ; for though it be mentioned before , yet it followes no more thence that it was not presently after , then when S. Marke sayes , speaking of the chalice , and they dranke all of it before he mention the consecration of the chalice , that the disciples dranke not after the consecration of the sayd chalice , and after it was made a Sacrament , as all do and must grant they did . and so there will not be two actuall breakings , but one actuall or mystycall or Sacramentall togeather signifyed by these two words breake , and broken for you , which happened after consecration .

But if we say that the first breaking was before consecration , and the second broken for you , signifyed somthing done after consecration , that is , the giuing of Christs Body for the remission of sinnes , as the Euangelists seeme to signify , then it will not be necessary that either the bread should haue beene twice visibly broken , or that broken for you should haue relation to the bread broken before he sayd , This is my Body , as the obiection contends .

Obiection .

But to proceed from his actions to the words IESVS added , Take , eate this is my Body . The vnderstanding of these words depends principally vppon the explication of the word this . we say , by the word this , Christ meant that which he held when he spake the word this , because transubstantiation is not yet made till the words following , This is my Body , be fully pronounced . They expound all the fower words This is my Body , thus : vnder the species is my Body : but enquire of them what is it which was vnder the species when Christ spake only the word this ; and they confesse that it was as yet bread : which is the same that we mayntaine against them . It is bread then : and by consequence , this there signifyes bread that I hold : and these words , This is my Body . are as much as , this bread is my Body .

Answer .

The maine diffiulty here vrged , is about the word this in the words of consecration , This is my Body . I demand first , when our Sauiour changed water into wine in the mariage of Galilee , whether he could truly haue sayd these words vppon the water , this is wine , and by vertue of these words changed the water into wine . the water remayning when the word this was pronounced by him , and changed into wine when the whole proposition , this is wine , was spoaken , as wee hold it happens , in the change of bread into the Body of our Sauiour in the Eucharist .

I scarce thinke that any Protestant will be se bold and temerarious as to deny that God can do this ; and yet all the difficultyes that are inuented and vrged against the word this in the words of consecration , are the very same here , as is manifest . So that the obiection about the word this proues not only ( if it prooue any thing ) that the Body of our Sauiour is not de sacto put really in the place of bread by vertu of these words This is my Body , but that it is wholy impossible for our Sauiour to worke any such change by vertu of these words : for , if whilst the word this is pronounced , water ( being only there actually ) must necessarily be signifyed by the word this , as the obiection contēds , then it is impossible by vertu of this proposition this is wine , that water should be changed into wine : for the signification of this proposition this is wine , would require the presence and continuance of water by reason of the word this which is supposed to signifie water : and the change of water into wine would require the absenec or non existency of water , it being supposed to be changed into wine , and so water would be and not be at the same tyme , which is a formall contradiction , and acknowledged by all to be wholy impossible . So bold are Protestants in restrayning and limiting the Omnipotency of God to defend their own groundlesse phantasies , who oppose the Romane Church in this manner . And therefore the more moderate and considerate amongst them grant this to be possible ; and soe vrge not this argument because it proues either too much , or nothing . Secondly demand , when our Sauiour sayd , this is my command that yee loue one another , what was meant by the word this ? Iohn . 15. v. 12. either somthing , or nothing was meant by it : if somthing , that was either the command which he gaue after the pronuntiation of the word this ; and so somthing which was not when he pronounced the word this , was vnderstood by it . And then in our present question why cannot by the word this somthing be vnderstood which was not at that instant when he pronounced the word this . Or by the word this in the former speech of the command , was vnderstood somthing which was not his command : but this is absurd ; for then he should haue sayd that which is not my command , is my command . if it be sayd , that nothing was vnderstood by the word this it will follow , that the word , this signifyed nothing ; and so his command was nothing , or nothing was his command , or the word of God signifyed nothing all which is absurd .

Hence therefore it euidently followes , that the word this in the text This is my command that yee loue one another &c. cannot haue any other sense saue this . Iohn 15. v , 12. This which I am presently to say to you , to wit , that yee loue one another , is my command . and this sense , and manner of speech is so ordinary , both in holy Scripture , and common discourse , that there can be no difficulty in the vnderstanding of it : for it is not necessary that the thing which is signifyed by the word this in such manners of speech be then existent , or in being when the word this is pronunced ; for ir may be either past , or to come . thus it is ordinary to say in the day tyme , I hope to sleepe well this night , that is the night to come : or , in the morning , I haue slept well this night , that is , the last night past . and this , not only by reason of the thing it selfe whereof we speake , but also in regard of the meaning and intention of the person who speakes : for words were not instituted to signify thinges and obiects only , but also , ( and that more immediatly ( the thoughts and affections of him who speakes : and hence it comes to passe , when the same word signifyes many things , it is to be explicated and taken in that sense only which appeares to haue beene intended by them who speake . hence , therefore it happens , that , seeing things not yet in being when the word this is pronounced , may be vnderstood by it , we must gather that a thing not yet existent , is to be vnderstood when it appeares by other cleare circumstances , that the meaning and intention of the speaker is , to signify somthing which is not actually when the word this was pronounced , but after is to be .

Thus in the forenamed example , where our Sauiour sayd , This is my command , that yee loue one another , it is cleare that his meaning was , by the word this to signify that which he was presently after to say ; and not . what was iust then when he sayd the word this . for then no command was giuen . And that this signification of the word this , is most common and familiar , euen in ordinary discours , is manifest in a thousand instances : thus when I beginne to draw a circle , and when I haue drawn , only thus much of it C ( precisely when I say the word this ) I may truly say this is a circle : wherby my meaning is not , this c beeing a little part of a circle , is a circle ; ( for that is no circle ) but , this figure which now I am a drawing , or shall presently draw , is a circle . Thus , if one beginning to power wine into a glasse , when he hath powred some few dropps , or small quantity , into the glasse , should say , this is a glasse full of wine , it being only full when the last word wine is pronounced , certainly the word this cannot signify that small quantity of wine which was in the glasse precisely when the word this was pronounced ; for that is not a glasse full , but the wine which he is then a powring into the glasse , till he haue filled it with wine , must be signifyed by the word this . In the same maner , if one desirous to shew to another , how quikly flax becomes fire , holding flax in one hand and a candle in the other , flax being in its own naturall substance in that precize instant , when the word this is pronounced , should say This is fire , and as he pronounces the words , he kindles the flax , soe that when the whole sentence , this is fire , is pronounced , the flax is kindled , and changed into fire , noe man can be soe simple to thinke , that his meaning is , this flax remāing as it now is vnkindled , is fire , but this which I am now a shewing , to wit , flax kindled is fire ▪ noe other wise happens it in our present case , where our Sauiour , by the word this , intends not to signifie , this bread remaining as it now is , when I prunounce the word this is my Body , but being consecrated , and by consecration changed into my Body , ( as flax by being kindled is changed into fire ) is my Body . This supposed , as a ground of this truth , I answer to the whole discours of the obiection , that , when our Sauiour sayd , this is my Body , this is my Bloud , his meaning was , This which I am to giue vnto you . and which yee are presently to eate and drinke , is my Body and my Bloud : which , though it were not existent actually then when he pronounced the word this , yet it was to be presently after ; no otherwise then when he sayd , this is my command ; not of any command which was then giuen , but of one which he was presently to giue when he had pronounced the word this . That this was the meaning of our Sauiour in the institution of this Sacrament , is most cleare to all such as vnderstandingly reade the text for he commanded his disciples to take and eate what he was instituting in this holy Sacrament , Take , eate , this is my Body . Therefore his meaning was to signify by the word this , that which his disciples were to take and eate . now his disciples were not to take and eate any thing but what was instituted and made a Sacramen● before it was eaten : neither was the Sacrament instituted but by the words of consecration , This is my Body ; which I haue allready proued . Therefore the word this , according to our Sauiours meaning , must signify somthing which was to be after the words of consecration , This is my Body . So farre from truth is it that by the word this , our Sauiour intended to signify that which he held in his hands whilst he precisely pronounced that word this , that he signifyed that which he was to giue out of his hands , and put into the hands of his disciples : and therefore he sayes not see , behold , but , take , eate , This is my Body ; that is , not what ye now see whilst I say the word this ; but what I command you to take and eate presently , is my Body . And yet this truth is made clearer in the institution of the chalice , Matth. 26 v. 28. And he tooke the cup , and gaue thankes , and gaue it to them , saying , drinke yee all of this ; for this is the Bloud of the new Testament , which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins . where our Sauiour renders the reason why he commanded them to drinke of it , because it was his Bloud , &c. So that he sayes not , looke yee all on it , for this is my Bloud , &c. which might haue beene done before the words of consecration were pronounced , or the Sacrament instituted , whilst he sayd the word it , or , this ; but drinke yee all of it : which was not to be done till the consecration and institution was past , as I haue already proued , and the objection herafter acknowledgeth .

Objection .

There is not one word which Christ spake , which we do not stedfastly beleeue to be true : for we hold , that this bread is the Body of IESVS Christ since he sayd that the bread which he brake and gaue , was his Body .

Answer .

I doubt not of the sincerity of this profession for so much as concernes the petson that wrote this paper : there is more want of true information of the vnderstanding , then good affection in the will , and zeale certainly there is of truth , but such an one as S. Paul describes , not according to knowledge . Rom. 1● . v. 2. For I haue clearly now demoustrated , that the meaning of this proposition , This is my Body , is not , this bread which I now hold in my hand whilst I say the words This , is my Body ; but , This which I am now to giue you , and ye are to eate after it be made a Sacrament by the words of consecration , is my Body .

Objection .

It is not our parts to glosse the word of God , or ad any thing of our own since then we haue those two things in the Gospell : the one that IESVS gaue bread ; the othet , that , that which he gaue , was his Body , we beleeue both the one and the other : not as they who will beleeue the latter , but the former they will not credit : and though we could not comprehende how this may agree , that it should be bread which we eate , and yet the Body of Christ our Lord , yet it were our dutyes to rest without any scruple .

Answer .

The good disposition expressed in these lines , will no doubt haue a great influence to induce the person that wrote them , to a right vnderstanding of these mysterious words of our Sauiour , after a due and impartiall ponderation of what I haue sayd concerning them , where by it may appeare that it was not bread remayning in the nature of bread , as it was before consecration ; but bread made the Body of Christ by consecration ; which the Apostles did eate and our Sauiour called his Body , and signified by the words this .

Objection .

But the Gospell , in the line following , instructeth vs and draweth vs out of all difficulty . for Christ hauing sayd , that that which he gaue , was his Body , added presently that it is a remembrance , or commemoration therof .

Answer .

The opponent may please to remember , that iust now we read in the former objection , that it is not their part to glosse the word of God , or to adde any thing to it of their own : & yet presently vppō it in the very next objection , the word of God is glossed , and somthing added which is their own , and not God's word . Christ ( saith the objection ) hauing said that that which he gaue , was his Body , added pr●sently , that it is a remembrance or cōmemoration thereof . where , I pray you , in the whole Scripture finde you that our Sauiour sayd in expresse and plaine words , as you affirme he saith , that which I sayd was my Body , is a commemoration or remembrance of my Body ? or where stands this written in God ' word , This is a commemoration of my Body ? or where in the whole Bible find you that our Sauiour so much as once pronounced these words , The commemoration of my Body ? Certainly in the whol new Testament no such expresse words as these , are to be found . Seeing therfore our Sauiour sayes in expresse and plaine words , This is my Body , and neuer sayes in as expresse termes , that is to say , a commemoration or remembrance of my Bady , nor so much as once names the commemoration of his Body , is it not to glosse the word of God , and adde some thing of your own , to affirme that he says what he neuer sayd nor named in the whole new Testament ? If therefore you stick to your rule iust now deliuered , of beleeuing the expresse word of God without all glosse or addition , you must stedfastly beleeue without all scruple , that out Sauiour gaue his true Body to his disciples ; seeing what you say of the commemoration of his Body , is no where our Sauiours expresse words , but your own glosse and addition to them .

If you answer , that though he says not in as expresse words , that what he gaue to his disciples , was a commemoration of his Body , as he says , This is my Body , yet that may be gathered to be his meaning by other words : giue me leaue to reply first , that supposing any such matter could be gathered from his words ( which I will presently proue to be false ) yet the consequence or collection drawn from an others words , is not to be preferred before his direct , cleare and expresse words to the contrary , and if you will follow the rule of good interpreters , you must expound the more obscure words by the more cleere and expresse , and not the contrary as you doe here . Secondly when you draw from other words of our Sauiour this consequence that he meant that that which he called his body was as much as to say , commemoration or remembrance of his Body , either you haue some expresse place of Scripture which warrants that consequence to be good ( and that place must be alleaged which will he as hard to find as the other proposition this is a commemoration of my Body , neither the one nor the other being any where in Scripture ) or you must beleeue some thing with a Christian faith ( as you professe to beleeue this consequence ) which not withstanding is not in Scripture : which is contrary to your own principle of beleeuing nothing which is not in the written word of God . and if this consequence be not in the written word of God , then it is framed only by your own discours and iudgement . what impiety then would it be to preferre your own discours before the expresse words of our Sauiour , and to expound them , and draw them from theyr own naturall , proper and direct sense , to an improper and figuratiue by a consequence gathered by humane discours only , neither expressed nor warranted to be good expressely in any place of Scripture .

Thirdly that I may giue a full and compleat answer to this objection so frequently in the mouth of euery Protestant , I denie that our Sauiour euer speake or meant our could possibly meane that that which his Apostles did eate , and he affirmed to be his body , was only a commemoration of his Body : or that by these words my Body is vnderstood a commemoration of my Body .

That this may appeare , I only contend for the present that in time of our Sauiours institution of the Sacrament at the last super that which the Apostles did then receiue and eate , was for that time not affirmed to be a remembrance of his Body , nor did our Sauiour speake any words in the said institution where by he signified that he gaue then to his apostles a remembrance or commemoration of his body , which if I proue , I conuince euidently against the obiection , that our Sauiour ( not hauing euer said or meant it to be a commemoration of his body ; and so these words , doe this in remembrance of me , being noe explication of the former word : This is my Body ) gaue his true and reall body substātially present vnder the forme of bread to his Apostles in his last supper , and consequently that it is still giuen in the same manner to all true Christians in this Sacrament .

I haue proued , and the obiection it selfe confesses that these words taken in themselues and without relation to any thing going before , are to be vnderstood of the reall body of Christ , and that our Sauiour said that the thing which he had in his hands , was his body . I will now proue that this plane and cleere signification of these words as they sound , is not hindred or taken away by any thing following these words . The maine ground where vppon is built the obiection , for the figuratiue explication of these words is this that our Sauiour sayes , This is my Body which is gIuen for you : this doe in remembrance of me . and S. Paul , This is my Body which is broken for you , doe this in remembrance of me . From these textes the obiection gathers this consequence that our Sauiour saith that that which he calles in the former part of the sentence in expresse words , his Body , in this latter he calles ( by way of explication , the remembrance or commemoration of his Body . So that by these words my Body : he meant the remembrance or commemoration of my body : and indeed if our Sauiour had expressely said thus , This is usy Body , that is the cowmemoration or remembrance of my Body : the difficulty had beene at an end . but this was neither said nor meant by him , but imposed vppon him by a false glosse and grosse mistake of Protestants ; for to say : doe this in remembrance of me , and to say : this is a remembrance of my Body are as different as to say when one friend lends a booke vnto an other : read this in remembrance of me , and , this is a remembrance of my Body , which euery child will see to be quite different : and if any one should say that these two sayings were the same in meaning and signification he would either be thought to haue no wit , or to haue lost what he had : for the one speakes of an action which passes , doe , or read this : the other of a thing permanent this thing , or this booke . the one speakes of a worke done in remembrance , the other affirmes a thing to be a remembrance . the one speakes of a person , of me : the other of a Body which is but one part of the person who consists both of soul and body vnited : so that the whol proposition is quite different the one from the other .

Secondly though these propositions had not beene so different as they are , yet our Sauiour cannot possibly be thought to haue meant by these words my Body , a mere remembrance of his Body , because this explication must be verified of the bread which was consecrated by our Sauiour in his last supper , as it is euident . For he speakes of that euen according to Protestants . now that could not be a , remembrance of his body , for nothing is said , according to Protestants to be a remembrance of a thing which is actually and visibly present as the body of our Sauiour then was to the Apostles being seene & heard by them : neither could it be a remembrance of his passion because we remember things past , not to come as the passion of our Sauiour then was , and so it should haue been a type of our Sauiours death , as the ceremonies of the old law were before he dyed , and not a remembrance or commemoration . Therefore it is euident that by the thing which he called his body in his last supper , could not be meant a remembrance of his body as Protestants would haue it , and so this explication is very false . Therefore when our Sauiour commanded his Apostles in these words : doe this in remembrance of me . he could not meane any action or thing then present or done at that time , but an action which he enioyned the Apostles and their successors to doe afterwards in the Christian Church , in remembrance of his passion principally , which is cleerely deliuered by S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. v. 26.27 . This is the new testament in my bloud , this doe as often as you drinke in remembrance of me . where the greeke word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 signifies , shall drinke , quotiescumque bibetis , doe this so often as you shall drinke . and so it is translated by Beza , in his latin translation , quotiescumque biberitis , as often as you shall drinke , and should haue been by our English Trāslatours , had they closely followed the greeke text , as they pretend to doe , but here it made not for theyr pourpose , and soe they put it eyther falsly , or at least obscurely , soe often as you drinke ; which euidently shews that our Sauiour meant by : doe this . not any action which was done in time of the last supper or institution and receiuing of the Sacrament by the Apostles , but what they were to doe in the future : and that our Sauiour in these words : doe this in remembrance of me , did not command the present action of eating and drinking when our Lord celebrated his last supper , is euident , because had it been of the present action , it would follow that he twice commanded the same action to be done at the same time , for he commanded his Apostles to doe what was then to be done when he said , take , eate . drinke &c. therefore to free our Sauiour from a nedelesse tautologie , must be vnderstood the command of doing some thing else , and at some other time , to be conteined in these words , doe this in remembrance of me : especially considering that the mention of remembrance could not be vnderstood of any thing then visibly present , or after to come , as I said before . These words therefore being to be vnderstood of the consecrating and frequenting of this Sacrament for the future only , cannot possibly be an explication of the former words , this is my Body ▪ which speake only of a thing that is then present , as is euident , and consequently those words ( according to the obiection ) are plainely & simply to be beleeued as they sound , without any glossing of the words of our Sauiour ( there being no ground in this place of Scripture for any such figuratiue glosse , ( as I haue prouued ) and each Christian must beleeue that that thing which our Sauiour gaue his Apostles was his very body as his affirmed it to be .

If happily not withstanding that this were granted , some Protestants should gather from these words : doe this in remembrance of me , that this Sacrament in times insuing after our Sauiours death was only to be a remembrance of his body , and so not his body , whatsoeuer is to be said of rhat Sacrament in the first institution . I answer that though some ancient heretiques haue been of this opinion , yet I neuer heard of any Protestant who held that the Christians after our Sauiours time receiued not the same which the Apostles did from his hands ; and so this obiection is to noe purpose for the Protestants .

Yet that I may cleare all difficulties which may probably occurre against what I haue said in this matter : I answer that this is noe good consequence : our Sauiour would haue this Sacrament celebrated and frequented in remembrance of him , therefore the hoast after the consecration is only a remembrance of his body and not his true body : or thus , therefore that which Christ called his body in the institution , is now amongst Christians only the remembrance of his body . for if these words : doe this in remembrance of me : were not an explication of those others : This is my Body : in the first institution , they will neuer be any explieation of them , and so there will be noe reason to say that the meaning of thesc words : this is my Body , is this : this is a remembrance of my Body , by reason of these words : doe this in remembrance of me : for these words only signifie that the action here commanded , doe this : is to be in remembrance of me , not that the thing conteyncd in the Sacrament was to be a remembrance of him . now who can doubt but the same person may doe one action in remembrance of himselfe , that is , of some action which he had done before ? how ordinary is it for any one to write his own workes and what he himselfe hat done or suffered ? did not S. Faul doe this ? and was not this done in remembrance of himselfe , doing or suffering such things : and shall any thence make this consequence : S. Paul writ this in remembrance of himselfe , therefore he was a remembrance of himselfe , therefore it was not S. Paul who writ it , for nothing can be a remembrance of it selfe : who sees not how false and childish this discours is ? may we not say the same of our Sauiour when he appeared to S. Thomas whom he put in remembrance of himselfe suffering vppon the crosse , when he commanded him to put his hand into his side , and looke vppon his hands and feet &c. and shall we then say that our Sauiour was not himselfe , or that is Body was not that which suffered because it did something in remembrance of his body crucified ? what Christian will dare to discours in this manner ? if then our Sauiours own body that suffered vppon the crosse can doe something to put vs in remembrance of the same body crucifyed once for vs , why should we denie that the same body sacrificed vppon the altar , or consecrated vppon the table of God should be able to put vs in remembrance of the passion of our Sauiour , and of the very same body crucified , that is those actions there done of consecrating the hoast separate from the chalice , of sacrificing , of giuing to others , eating , drinking &c. should signifie that our Sauiour there inuisibly present , suffered for vs many yeares agoe and sacrificed himselfe to nourish vs to eternall life . and so our Sauiour not hauing said , this is a remembrance of my Body , but , doe this in remembrance of me , by vertue of these words precisely made the actions done to him in this Sacrament , and not himselfe or his body , a remembrāce of himselfe as béfore crucified .

Objection .

So that that which he gaue into his disciples hands being a remembrance or commemoration of Christ , is not Christ himselfe , for nothing can be a remembrance or commemoratian of it selfe ; for who would not thinke him to speake simply that should say : I giue you this ring in remembrāce of this ring , or I giue you this bookc for a cōmemoration of this book , certainly the remembràce of things are otherwise then the thing it selfe .

Answer .

Though these words of our Sauiour : doe this in remembrance of me , by force of themselues signifie only that the action which the Apostles were commanded to doe , was to be in remembrance of him , that is , of him crucified . yet speaking independently of these words , it is noe absurdity but a truth to grant that a thing or pe●son may be a remembrance of themselues considered in different circumstances , for though nothing in the same time , place and circumstances can be a remembrance or cōmemoration of it selfe , for that were to signifie idem per idem , the same by the same , which is absurd : and in this sence the obiection sayes well ; yet it would nor be absurd to say I giue you this ring now to be a remembrance or commemoration here after that this same ring was giuing you by me for who can doubt but that very same ring when he lookes or thinkes vppon it who receaued it , is apt to put him in remembrance that it was giuen to him by such a friend so many dayes or yeares before and so at one time it is a remembrance of it selfe , as considered in a nother different precedent time . Thus when friends and ancient acquintance after a long separation meet first togeather , they presently put the one the other in remembrance of themselues , and so are accoustomed to say , I remember you very well : Thus if a king or Generall should act his own part vppon a stage . he would put his subiects or souldiers there present in remembrance of himselfe fighting or becoming victorious in some precedent battel . Thus our Sauiour appearing to S. Thomas made him presently beleeue and remember that he was the same person who not many dayes before was crucified for him , and to say : Dominus meus & Deus meus : my Lord and my God . Hence appeares manifestly that the very same body which was giuen and that very blood which was shed for vs remaning in its own proper substance and nature in this Sacrament which it then had ( but after an inuisible and diuine manner ) by reason of the visible actions of consecrating , sacrificing , eleuating , and receiuing of him , puts vs in remembrance of that same body , blood and person which so many yeares agoe was giuen , shed and crucified out of pure mercy for vs . If any one here shouid replye that though in the fore named instances he proued that one thing or person may put vs in remembrance of themselues in different times and circumstances , yet the same thing cannot properly be said to be a remembrance , commemoration or memoriall of it selfe euen in those different times according to the ordinary cours of speach amongst men . I answer that when a thing remaines in its whole visible substance as it was before , there may be some difficulties whether it be to be called a memoriall or remembrance of it selfe or noe , though it he capable of putting one in remembrance of it selfe , as existent in some other time , because it hath other functions and perfections properly belonging to it which being of cheefer and more primary vse and consequence giue the name to the thing , and so it is not rightly termed a memory or remembrance of it selfe , but when it actually reduces any one to the temembrance of it . But when a thing is so changed in respect of its proper functions amongst men ( though it remaines the same in substance and all other proprieties that it was ) that one of the maine ends for which it is put in that manner , is to be a remembrance of what it did or suffered in former times , then it may properly be called a memoriall , commemoration , remembrance or memory of it selfe . Thus though our Sauiour appearing to his disciples after his resurrection in a visible and liuing forme put them in remembrance of his passion , or that he was the same who suffered , and yet because his other actions of teaching , inlightning , comforting , confirming in faith , &c. were his primarie actions he had his appellations according to to them , and not from the remembrance which he caused in them , because that was secundary and of lesse consequence . But by reason that in this holy Sacrament he hath noe vse of any of those functions or the like , but is put in an inuisible and hidden manner as the food of our soules , and the end why he is so put is cheefly to continue a perpetuall remembrance of his bitter death and passion , he is most deseruedly termed a memoriall of himselfe suffering vppon the crosse . Thus for the like reason a sword wherewith some valiant champion hath atcheeued some notable feate of armes , so long as he weares it himselfe , or any other vses it , it cannot properly be said to be a remembrance of it selfe , as the instrument of those famous exploits : but if it be hung vp as a monument for those exploits in some publike place or temple , it becomes a memoriall of it selfe as working those noble actions , and in this sense the sword of Golias vsed by Dauid in the beheading of that tower of flesch , and kept in the temple as a monument , was a true memoriall of it selfe as the instrument of atcheeuing that victorie .

Obiection .

All that hath beene said of these words , This is my Body , may and ought to be applied to to these , This is my bloud , and there is nothing more conuenient then te receaue the same manner of speech in the distribution of the one kinde which is in the distribution of the other .

Answer .

All that is conteined in this paragraphe of the obiections may easily be granted ( supposing there be a right explication giuen of these words This is my Body ) as conteining nothing against vs .

Obiection .

But as they repeate only these words : This is my Body : without relation either to that which goes befote , or to that which followes after , that he tooke bread or doe this in remembrance of me . so they will forget &c.

Answer .

How farre this is from truth cleerely appeares by what our approued authours write in this point who most exactely exanime all precedents and consequences belonging to these words , which also I haue hetherto indeauored to doe in this treatis .

Obiection .

So they will forget that this cup which our Sauiour said was his blood , was after consecration called by him the new Testament , for that it was a holy signe of the new Testament .

Answer .

The obiecter would make vs to be of a very short memory , should we forget these words which vsually we pronounce euery day in saying Masse : we therefore remember very well that our Sauiour sayd according to S. Luke and S. Paul : This cup is the new Testament in my blood . but we remember not that either S. Luke or S. Paul or any other writer of holy Scripture euer alleadged this reason here mentioned in the obiection , that this sacred cup was called by our Sauiour the new Testament in his blood , for that it was a holy signe of the new Testament , and I would gladly haue any Protestant helpe the weakenesse of our memory by producing any clere text of Scripture where this reason is giuen , and if there be noe such to be found ( as vndoubtedly there is not ) then they must giue vs leaue to esteeme this explication ( according to their own principles ) groundlesse and noe way belonging to Christian faith , but a mere glosse framed from their naturall discours or rather a pure mistake grown from their ignoranee of the true meaning of the word , new Testament here , according to the Scriptures acception of that word , which that it may appeare .

We must not by new Testament here vnderstand ( as many ignorant readers of Scriptures may and doe happily misconceaue ) the bookes of the Gospel commonly called the new Testament , for none of those were then written , neither is there any one of vnderstanding who will thinke that the cup which our Sauiour had in his hand was a signe of the bookes of the new Testament , much lesse that by new Testament in our Sauiours blood should be vnderstood a signe of the said bookes .

Secondly we must conceaue that the very same thing may be a signe in respect of one thing , and an essentiall and substantiall part in regard of another : thus words and sentences are signes of the inward thoughts and affections of the speaker , but part of his outward discours , and in this manner the words , new Testament were a signe of our Sauiours internall will and intention , but withall were a necessary part of the compleat Testament of the new law then inacted by our Sauiour , and so beare the name of the whol Testament , as we shall presently see .

I answer therefore to the obiection , and deny that by new Testament , is vnderstood a signe of the new Testament , but truly & really ( though partially ) the new Testament it selfe solemnised by our Sauiour in his last supper not long before his death , and that in his own most precious blood there properly receaued and diuided amongst his Apostles : whereby he certified and obliged himselfe to be the authour , head , protectour & defendour of his law and all those who should truly professe it by giuing what he held in his hands to the Apostles , and they testified and obliged themselues and all Christians representatiuely to teach , professe and continue in that law by receauing and diuiding of it amongst them .

Now to make cleare what I haue sayd , wee must also know in generall what a Testament is . In latin it is called testamentum : of wose etymologie Iustinianus Instit. de testamentis ordinandis , sayes , Testamentum ex eo appellatur , quòd testatio mentis sit . it is called a testament , because it is the testification of our mynde , or will : so that a true testament includes two thinges , a reall minde and intention to doe what we testify : and an outward testification of what we intend , or oblige , our selues to doe . so that neyther this outward testimony without the inward will , nor the inward will without the outward testifying of it , can be compleatly termed a testament . not the inward will alone , because that cannot be vnderstood amongst men vnlesse it be externally testifyed : not the outward testimony alone , because it must haue something reall which it testifyes ; but the outward testification as corresponding to the inward will , and exhibiting it to others , is a testament . now all kindes of externall significations of our wills ot intentions , are not sufficient , but such as signify by way of a compleate confirmation , that the will of him who makes this testament , is such as it is signifyed there to be : and hence it is that so many witnesses , subscriptions , seales , and other solemnityes are not mere signes , buts parts of the testament , as the pronuntiation of the wordes in a sermon , though it be a signe of the minde of a preacher , yet it is essentially required as a part of the sermon .

Now this outward part of the testament , or last compliment or confirmation of it , was accustomed to be exhibited in bloud ; Liu. l. 1. as witnesses Liuie speaking of a solemne league or testament made betwixt the Romans and the Albans and no lesse Moyses in Exodus , Exod. 24. v. 8. Hebr , 9. v. 20. speaking of the testament or pact made betwixt Allmighty God and the Israëlites , vnto which our Sauiour may we haue alluded in the institution of the chalice . vsing according to the first two Euangelists , the very same phrase , or maner of speech , This is the bioud of the testament which our Lord hath made with you , &c.

This is my bloud of the new Testawent , &c. the word testament is in Hebrew 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Berith , and in Greeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , diatheke , and though the Hebrew word signify a pact , league , or solemne promise mutually obligatory betwixt two parties , and the Greeke word a testament , or last will of a person before his death , and confirmed by it , Gen. 9.53 . Ps. 54.21 . Ps 29.34 . Ps. 105.45 as S. Paul sayes Hebr. 9. yet because that last will is the most solemne and strong of all other pacts , or leagues , the Greeke word diatheke often signifyes a pact or promise mutuall , in Scripture . And the Septuaginta translate the Hebrew Berith by the Greeke diatheke , as S. Hierome notes Zachar . 9.11 . and Psal. 82.1 . Mach. 1. and often the English Protestant translations for berith put testament ; thus they call the arke of Moyses the arke of the testament , Berith in Hebrew .

Seeing therefore in the 24. of Exodus , the bloud is there sprinkled first vppon the aultar , which supplyed the place of God , and then amongst all the people wherby , as Interpretours , and ancient authours obserue , was signifyed that the bloud of that party who first broke this pact , or testament , should be shed , and dispersed as that was , and that our Sauiour in S. Matthew and S. Marke commanded his bloud to be deuided amongst his disciples , drinke yee all of this , ir is so farre from 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 , E●od . 24. v. 8. as it is called by him ; both Moyses and our Sauiour vsing the same maner of speach , Hebr. 9. v. 20. as I haue shewed , and such a solemne le●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 th●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 testamēt , 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 opponēt is , for if here by new Testament 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 Sau●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 dispersed amongst the vulgar , that any Romane Catholicque Doctours by the word is vnderstand shall become , or , shall be transubstantiated ; for though they gather , as a necessary sequel , transubstantiation , from the reall and proper signification of these words , this is my Body , yet they all vnderstand the word is , in its own natiue , common , and ordinary signification , and none of them take it for transubstantiated , or become my Body , neyther indeede can they , vnlesse they destroy their own principles , for if they should by is vnderstand , become , or transubstantiated , then they must vnderstand by the word this , bread ; ( seeing they all affirme that bread only becomes , or is transubstantiated into Christ's body ) but that were plainly to contradict themselues , it being one of the maynest points in this controuersy betwixt Caluinists and vs , they affirming that hread is vnderstood by the word this , and we denying it .

That which is added , that , those distractions can be no testimonyes of truth , that is , the diuersity of opinions amongst vs here reckoned vp , about the vnderstanding of these wordes this . and is , seemes to me to haue something of that eye condemned in the Gospell , which sees a mote in anothers eye , and discouers not a beame in it selfe . The opponent summes here vp fower different opinions , whereof the last , I haue proued to be a false imposition and no opinion of ours : the first and second , of the word this signifying vnder this , or vnder these species , are one and the same opinion , set down by the opponent in different words ; for seeing by vnder this , none of our Authours vnderstand vnder this bread , they must needs meane by it , vnder these species of bread , to omit that no Catholicque Authour sayes , that the word this , precisely signifyes , vnder this , or vnder these species , &c. but , that which is vnder these species , is my Body : the third opinion , that by the word this , is signifyed nothing present , if by nothing present , be meant , nothing present after consecration , it is another imposition vppon Catholicque Authours , making them speake like Caluinists , against themselues : but if therby be meant , nothing present precisely in that momēt when the word this was pronounced , it is true , and Catholicque , as I haue shewed ; but then it is not opposite to the former opinion , for seing no Catholike teaches that the body of our Sauiour is vnder the species of bread , till the substance of bread be transubstantiated into it , agrees well with their opinion that nothing in particular be vnderstood by the word this , which is existent when that word was spoktn , bread being then vnder its own species . Thus , vppon a iust examination , we finde that in truth there is but one only opinion of Catholicques in the whol reckoning , and therefore vnderseruedly termed distractions , or no testimonies of truth . But had the opponent put some reall diuersity of opinions amongst Catholicque Authours about the vnderstanding of these words , and brought them to the number of fower , as here is a shew made , yet seing they all agree in the proper and natiue signification of these words This is my Body , without all figures or improprieties , which exclude the reall presence : this variety can be no more termed no testimony of truth in this poynt controuersed , then are other different opinions of Schoolemen in many other mysteries of faith , being nothing but diuers wayes which learned men take to explicate or defend the same point of faith wherin they all agree against Infidells or Heretiques . But had the Opponent known or considered the diuersityes of opinions risen vp within the space of few more then a hundrcd yeares , about the vnderstanding of these words this is my Body amongst Protestants , and that in the mayne signification of them , which Luther confesses to haue amounted to the number of ten before his death , and another not many yeares after rekons vp to the number of two hundred there had beene iust occasion giuen to say , these dis●ractions can be ne testimonyes of truth .

Objection .

In the middest of these discords , they make these words , this is my Body , but halfe true , for they all hold that there were two things in the hands of Christ when he spake these words , his Body , & the species of bread ; wherof it followeth that these wordes are true but of the halfe of that he held in his hands ; and if he had sayd , this is not my body , hauing regard to the other halfe of that he held , the species of bread , he had also spoken the truth .

Answer .

This difficulty arises from want of knowledge in Philosophy , to distinguish an accident from a substance , so that it cannot well be so explicated , that the vnlearned will be capable of it ; and so will be better vnderstood by a familiar instance , euen in this present matter , then by a philosophicall discourse . The Opponent cannot deny but our Sauiour might haue sayd of that which he had in his hands ( this is bread ) when he sayd the word this . now I demand , seing according to all , there were two thinges ( as the Opponent termes them ) the substance of bread , and the species of bread , whether these words this is bread had been only halfe true , or no ? if it be answered that they had been but halfe true , it will follow , that whensoeuer we demonstrate any thing ; in ordinary conuersation , saying , this is a man , a horse , a tree , a stone &c. we speake but halfe truly , because there is always the substance , and species , or accidents of those things , yea when S. Iohn Baptist sayd , behold the lamb of God , or the heauenly Father , this is my beloued Son , our Sauiour hauing both substance and species , those propositions had been but halfe true . if it be answered , that this proposition this is bread , is absolutely and entirely true , then I answer the same to all that is here opposed ; for species , or accidents are not different thinges , absolutely speaking , but relatiue appendixes , dependances , adjuncts , or exhibitions of thinges which are so absolutly denominated , that is , substances ; as when we see a person cloathed , it is absolutely , and wholly true to say , this is Peeter , or Iohn ; for though there be two things , the person , and the cloathes , yet the cloathes being only adjuncts , or meanes to demonstrate the person whose they are , are not intended to be included in this demonstration . and so , if one hauing only regard to the cloake of a person , should say , this is not Peter , meaning this cloake is not Peeter , though he should speake true to such as know his meaning ; yet in ordinary conuersation , vnlesse by some particular signe he gaue to vnderstand his meaning , he would either not be vnderstood , or vnderstood to speake false , because the demonstration this is instituted in such circumstances , to signify the person or thing demonstrable , and not their adjuncts , ot accidents . Apply this to our present purpose , and all is solued .

Objection .

Now let any iudge which opinion is lesse forged , and more naturall ; ours who say , tbis signifyes , that which Christ held ; or that of theyrs who say 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 , ●nd by is my body , is a commemoration of my body ; ●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 ga●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 , Io. 2. v. 7.8.9 . 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 tymes after consecration : 1. Cor. 11.20.28 . for it follows no more that therefore it should be pure bread , remayning as it was before the words of consecration ; then that the water remained in its own nature after it was made wyne , because after the change it is called water .

Neither doth yet S. Paul ( if his words be well marked ) say that the consecrated hoast is naturall and common bréad , such as it was before , fit to be eaten at an ordinary table , as the Protestants must grant it not to be : for at the least it is sacramentall bread , and consecrated to a religious and holy vse , according to them , and therefore though he had put the same word bread , before and after consecration , yet it follows not that the signification of that word after consecrati●n should be the same with the signification of the same before consecration ; for before it signifyes common , ordinary , naturall , and vsuall bread ; but after , sacramentall , significant , cōmemoratiue , holy , diuine bread , according to Protestants , and therefore if Ptotestants must confesse that though the word be the same , yet the signification is not the same , why blame they Romane Catholicques if they giue the same answer , saying that by the word bread in S. Paul , before consecration , or blessing , is meant the substance of naturall , and vsuall bread ; but after consecration , supernaturall , heauenly , spirituall , diuine bread ; which our Sauiour termeth himselfe to be , in the sixt of S. Iohn , six or seauen different tymes , and which euery Christian chiefly begs of God in the Pater noster , or Lords prayer , saying , giue vs this day our dayly bread ; for it is to be noted , that bread in greeke , familiarly in holy Scripture is taken for all manner os meate , and not for bread only , as it is distinct from all other meates .

But to make it yet clearer that S. Paul did not meane naturall bread remaning in its own substance as it was before , when he called the Sacrament bread after it was consecrated or designed for a part of that holy mystery : it is particularly to be reflected on , that in this acceptiō he neuer calls it absolutly bread , but allways with in article determinatiue or restrictiue , referring it to that which consecration had made it ; and so he calls it , this bread , this cup , that bread , that cup , to wit , which was held for a Sacrament , and mystery amongst Christians by force of our Sauiours words : and to put vs out of all doubt that it was not that naturall bread and wine , which it was before it was consecrated , he clearly calls it the bread of our Lord , and the cup of our Lord , v. 29. wherfore whosoeuer shall eate this bread , and drinke this cup of our Lord vnworthily . &c. and as we gather Ioan. 6. v. 48. that when our Sauiour termed the bread whereof he spoke there , the bread of life , he meant not naturall and visible bread , but supernaturall and diuine ; in the same manner are we to gather from the words of S. Paul , that by the like phrase the like bread is signifyed ; and as our Sauiour termes that bread wherof he spake Io. 6. v. 51.58 . this bread , to distinguish it from naturall and vsuall bread , and to signify that he thereby meant his true body , so also doth S. Paul here : neyther can it more be gathered , from the being tetmed bread by S. Paul , that is naturall , and substantiall bread , then it can be gathered from the canon of our masse , that wee beleeue , it to be the substance of bread , because it is often called bread in the said canon , after consecration .

Objection .

If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle , he should vnderstand flesh , were not he worthy to be blamed to entertayne the people in errour , since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence , that it is bread , which man naturally beleeues ; would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspension , and to beleeue that it is his flesh though it seemeth bread , then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses , calling it alwayes bread without any explication ?

Answer .

We are not to prescribe to the holy Ghost what he is to disclose to the writers of diuine Scripture : he could haue deliuered many other mysteries of our faith in clearer words in the holy Scripture then he hath done , if it had seemed good in his diuine Prouidence , and therefore though he command vs not here in expresse termes , to deny our senses , and to beleeue that it is his flesh , though it seeme bread ( as some holy fathers haue done with in the first fiue hundred yares ) yet he calles it as expressly the body of Christ , as he calls it bread : and seeing we finde bread often to be taken in a spirituall sense in holy Scripture for the food of out soules , but neuer finde the body of Christ which is giuen for vs , to be any other then his reall true Body , one would thinke that the darker or more doubtfull word should in any reasonable mans iudgement yeeld to the more cleare and certaine , and be interpreted by it then the contrary which is here alleadged : and though our Sauiour call his flesh bread twice as often as S. Paul calls that which was consecrated bread here , Ioan. 6. Ioannis 6. yet no man dare from thence argue that his flesh was not true flesh , but corporall and materiall bread .

And if S. Paul by calling it so often bread after consecration , should ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses , as the opponent here affirmes , he would draw vs also to thinke that it is mere naturall , and vsuall bread after consecration , as it was before , and therefore we may apply the same objection in almost the same wordes , against Protestants , which here is brought against vs ; in this manner : If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should vnderstand a Saerament or mystery as it is beleeued to be amonst all Christians , were he not worthy to be blanted , to entertaine the people in errour since he knew that sense and reason giueth in euidence that it is vsuall and common bread , which man naturally beleeues , would he not rather haue aduertised vs to hold our senses in suspention , and to beleeue that it is sacramentall and spirituall bread , though it seeme vsuall bread , then to ioyne himselfe with the report of our senses , calling it always bread without any explication ? Thus whilst Protestants frame arguments fitter for Infidells then Christians , against vs , they neuer consider what force the like arguments haue against themselues .

But it is very vntrue that S. Paul called it bread without any explication , or that he any way draws vs to what our senses would iudge if they were left to themselues , but eleuates our thoughts vnto faith telling vs that it is panis & calix Domini , the bread , and cup of our Lord , which our Sauiour confesses himselfe to be . Iohn the sixt : and besides , that he who eats this bread , and drinketh this cup of our Lord vnwortily , shall he guilty of the body and 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 , Isay 53.5 . 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 , Luke 22. v. 22 ▪ 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 . which is an euident argument if we stand to S. Lukes relation according this explication , that it was not materiall reall wine which he drunke in the consecrated chalice .

And hence followes another conuincing argument against Protestants in this particular . for seeing our Sauiour sayd , I will drinke no wore , &c. and that they referre these words against vs , to the consecrated chalice , and consequently must affirme that our Sauiour dranke of it , ( for he could not say he would drinke no more of that whereof he had neuer drunk ) I demande of them , whether our Sauiour dranke this as a Sacrament ? This they cannot deny : hence it will follow that he tooke it as a memoriall , or commemoration of himselfe in their opinion : and thence it will necessarily follow that Christ had forgot himselue , hauing need of a remembrance of himselfe . Secondly , that a man present to himselfe , can without an absurdity take a momoriall of himselfe . Thirdly , this memoriall was to he taken by the mouth of fayth , as they say , and so our Sauiour should be depriued of his most diuine , all-cleare and beatificall vision , and knowledge of himselfe & all things , ( wherby S. Paul affirmes that faith is euacuated ) and led by the darke light of faith : 1. Cor , 1● . v. 8. which no Christian can say without blasphemy . Fourtly he commanded not himselfe , but his Apostles to doe what he did in remembrance of him . and so there is no ground in Scripture to say , that out Sauiours receiued this Sacrament a a remembrance of himselfe : and yet he must haue done so if that first Sacrament had been essentially only a signe and remembrance of our Sauiour , as our aduersaries teach . If therefore our Sauiour be supposed to haue drunke of the consecrated chalice , and that he could not possibly drinke a remembrance or signe of himselfe , or his Bloud , he must needs haue drunke his own reall Bloud : for according to the Opponent , if it be not a rememhrance of his Bloud . it must be vnderstood to be his reall Bloud ; but if he drunk that which was his own blood , it was not wine , therefore when he sayes , I will drinke noe more of the fruit of the vine &c. it cannot be referred to what he drunke after consecration , but to what he drunke before , as S. Luke relates it .

Hitherto I haue argued , admitting , not granting that when our Sauiour sayd , I will drinke no more of the fruit of the vine , &c. he meant reall and naturall wine . now I wil shew , that though those words were referred by the Euangelist to the consecrated chalice , and vnderstood of a reall and materiall fruit of the vine ; yet it is not necessary to vnderstand wine by them : for there be many fruits of the vine which may be drunk beside wine : the iuice pressed out of grapes not yet ripe , is properly the fruit of the vine , which may be drunke , and yet is no wine ; nay should one presse the young branches , and draw liquour from them , it would be that which is here called in Greek a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , genimen vitis , the generation , or the thing produced naturally by the vine : and yet it would be no wine . and euen wine corrupted , and quite changed is the generation and effect of the vine : and yet it is no wine . so also in our present case , the accidents or species of wine are genimen vitis , the true effects or productions of the vine , & yet are not the substance of wine , Seeing therefore here euen after consecration , according to the Romane Catholike tenet , those species remayne ; our Sauiour might truly be sayd to haue drunke ex genimine , or generatione vitis , of the fruit or propagation of the vine , though there had beene no substance of wine there , but in place therof the Blood of Sauiour vnder those species . so that the very literall sense of the words retayned , and referred to the consecrated chalice , conclude no more then this , that our Sauiour spake of the species of wine ; which is properly the propagation or generation of the vine .

But the words beare and admitt as well another explication ( plainly suting with the Romane tenet ) as of the fruit or issue of a reall vine . For our Sauiour stiles himselfe , as the Opponent presently obserues , the vine . Why then might he not call his Blood here the fruit of the vine ? and so referring it to the consecrated chalice , confirme that it was the chalice of his Blood proceeding and issuing from his Body , as the wine or species of wine proceeds from the vine .

All these explications shew how little this place proues against vs : or rather how much it aduantages our cause . But if the text be considered entirely as it stands in the Euangelists , it will neither hurt vs nor helpe them , nor so much as tuch the matter in question : for our Sauiout saith thus , Mattk . 26 v. 29. Marke 14 v. 25. But I say vnto you , I will drinke no more of the fruit of this vine till that day that I drinke it new with you in the kingdome of my Father . Verily I say vnto you , that I will not drinke of the fruit of the vine vntill that day that I drinke it new in the kingdome of God . where he expressly affirmes that he speakes of such a fruit of the vine as he is to drinke with them in heauen : which , whether it be materiall wine , or no , I leaue to the Protestants to consider .

Obiection .

But it might be objected , why might they not call it bread , and the fruit of the vine ? in respect they had beene so before consecration : as the serpent is called a rod : and God sayd vnto Adam , thou art dust , because he was made of dust . But if things be named by the names of what they were before , it doth not follow that we should so take it of the body of Christ . for it is not only false , but impious to thinke that the body of Christ is called bread for that it had been bread before the consecration . the serpent indeed had been a rod , but the body of Christ had neuer been bread . So Adam was called dust because he had been dust : but Christ is not made of bread . The holy Scripture saith well that Moyses rod became a serpent , but the Scripture doth not say that bread was conuerted into flesh .

Answer .

I answer first that we doe not say that the body of Chtist was bread before consecration at least I remember not euer to haue read any such proposition in Catholike authours : because his sacred body still existent visibly and gloriously in heauen cannot be said absolutely to haue been bread , it hauing been made of the sacred virgins most pure blood for that in its full sense would signifie ( if any such proposition were in vse ) that the thing which is affirmed to be made of an other , is not existent in an other place , whilst that whereof it is made is changed into it : as neither Adam nor the serpent made of the rod of Moyses were ( for then only they began to be ) when the rod of Moyses , and dust were changed into them .

Secondly I answer that the objection proceeds vppon a false supposition , for the rod of Moyses is not called a rod when it was turned into a serpent , because the serpent had been a rod before : nor Adam dust because he was before dust : for though it be true to say that that which was become a man or a serpent , was dust or a rod by reason of the subiect which remaines common to them both ( called in philosophie materia prima ) yet it is not true in any formall philosophicall sense to say : Adam was dust : the serpent was a rod : for Adam neuer was , nor neuer could haue been any thing else then what his essence made him viz: a man and a reasonable creature : nor a serpent any thing then what the being of a serpent requiers , to wit , to be a serpent . when therefore in holy Scripture Adam is called dust , and the serpent the rod of Moyses , it is not because Adam was once dust , and the serpent a rod ( for how can that be proued out of any place of Scripture ? ) but because Adam was made of dust , and the serpent of the rod of Moyses , which is cleerely testified in Scripture . so that the supposition and fundation of the ob●ectiō failing . that which is built vppon it viz: that the body of our Sauiour is called bread after consecration by S. Paul because it was bread before , must needs fall to the ground . For we say not that the body of Christ was euer bread , but because that which was bread , is now become the body of Christ , bread casing to be vnder those accidents by vertu of Christs body coming in the place of it : so that though this sacred body cannot be said to be made of bread ' as a house is made of wood and stones which remaine in their own substances to compose it , nor as fire is made of wood where the matter common to them both remaines , yet if there be vnderstood only that the body of Christ succeds to the substance of bread vnder the same accidents and so issues from it as the day issues from the night , as from the terme from which it beginnes to be , as one may say : ex necte fit dies : of the night is made the day ; so may one say : ex pane fit corpus Christi : of bread is made Christs body , as it is mysteriously in this Sacrament , and might be therefore called bread after consecration , as the wine in Cana in Galilee is called water because it was made of water , and the serpent called the rod of Moyses , because it was made of the rod of Moyses . or which is the same in other termes ; because that which became wine was water , and that which became a serpent was the rod of Moyses which if it be resolued into philosophicall termes , is nothig but this , that the substantiall matter which was vnited to the substantiall formes of a serpent and wine , was immediately before vnited to the substantiall formes of the rod of Moyses and of water , which happens in other changes of one thing into an other .

Thirdly : it is not the ordinary way of speach to say that all things which are made by substantiall changes were such things as were changed into them . thus though fire be made of wood , or wood be changed into fire , yet it is an ordinary manner of saying to affirme this fire was wood : neither say we : these flowers were earth , though they were made of earth changed into them . In like manner when our own flesh is produced of the different meates we eate , we vse not to say , our flesh was beefe , or mutton , or hearbes , or btead , or drinke &c. and yet it is made of all these when they are changed into our substance : and hence is true the same proposition of our Sauiour in time of his nourishment : for his meate was as truly changed into his flesh as our meate is into our flesh , and consequently the bread which he did eate , was changed by nourishment into his flesh . and so it is true euen out of holy Scripture which speakes of his eating and drincking and increasing ( and by consequence of his nourishment ) that the flesh of Christ at least in some part , was made of bread , and yet it is not the ordinary manner of speech to say that those parts of the flesh of Chrtst were bread , not withstanding it would be neither impious nor false to say that some parts of Christs flesh were once bread ( supposing it were true that the serpent had been a rod and Adam dust , as the Opponent here affirmes ) to wit , those into which bread was changed by naturall nourishment . if then it might be truly affirmed of some parts of Christs flesh that they were bread in this sense for-named why should it be not only false but impious to affirme that the flesh of Christ as it is in the Sacrament ( for we affirme it noe otherwise ? ) was bread ? there being noe more difficulty in the one then in the other . fourthly this change being made in a way wholy supernaturall where noe part of the substance of bread remaines , to wit , neither forme nor matter , as we speake in the schooles , which happens not in any naturall nor in many supernaturall changes , where the matter and substance still remaynes , now receiuing one forme , now an other , by reason whereof the thing that succeeds may be sayd ( as the opponent contends ) to haue been the thing that was changed into it : by reason I say that noe such common subiect remaines here , but the whol substance of bread is changed into the substance of Christs body , it will not be so proper a manner of speech to say that the flesh of Christ was bread as the like would be in other naturall and ordinary changes , if that manner of speech were allowable .

Fiftly , the objection mistakes the compleat reason of Catholikes why S. Paul calls thc Sacrament bread after the consecration : for it is not only because the bread is changed into the flesh of Christ , for this might haue been done so inuisibily that neither the body of Christ nor the species of bread should haue appeared , and then we should haue had nothing common to them both to haue continued the denomination of bread ▪ but the entire reason giuen by Catholike Doctors is that the bread is changed into the flesh of Christ which is put vnder the outward shewes or species of bread , which giue occasion or ground of giuing it the same denomination it had before . Thus we call the dead carkase of a lamme a lamme , and the dead body of a man , a man , by reason of these outward organs and proportions which remaine the same they were before , though the thing be quite changed from what it was . Vnto that which is added that we haue noe where in Scripture that bread is conuerted into the flesh of our Sauiour as we haue that the rod of Moyses was conuerted into a serpent I Answer that it is not necessary to haue all things in Scripture in the like clearnesse and 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 body 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 : Coloss. 1. v. 24. 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 is only true of spirituall sheepe , for our Sauiour had noe other . That which the objection said that our Sauiour was as able to change the Apostles into sheepe as to change bread into his body , is true if the Apostles had ceased to be men and had been so conuerted into sheep , as Lots wife ceasing to be a weomā was conuerted into a pilar of salt . but then the proposition which Protestants pretended out of Scripture : yee are materiall sheep , had not been true : neither could the truth of that proposition euer haue caused that conuersion as conformable to it . but this proposition only should haue been true : yee are made , or are become materiall sheep by vertu of a miraculous change of men into sheep : noe otherwise then the water in the mariage in Gallilee is said to be made wine : for when one thing is affirmed of an other , then that where of it is affirmed is supposed to be existent , as when I say : I am a man : the person must be existent where of it is aff●rmed that he is a man . but contrariwise when one thing is said to be made an other naturally , not artificially , then that which is said to be made the other ceased to be what it was , and is conuerted into the other ; as when it is said , water was made wine , water ceased to be and wine was made of it . and hence it is a plane contradiction to haue any change or conuersion made in a pure affirmatiue and simple proposition in this manner : Peeter is a reall and naturall sheepe . for then this person Peeter , is supposed to be and not to be at the some time . to be , because he is affirmed to be a sheepe not to be , because he is changed into a sheepe , and so ceases to be as water ceased to be when it was made wine . And the same absurdity and contradiction had followed if our Sauiour had said : this bread which I now haue in my hands , is my naturall Body truly and really . for bread should haue remained because it was affirmed to be his body and yet it should haue beene destroyed and so not remained , because it should haue been changed into his body . I am sorry that such speculations as these should be propounded to those who haue not ftudied , but the objections require them . yet I must adde to make this matter out of question : if the propositions : I am the vine : yee are the vinebranches , implyed any change of our Sauiour into a reall materiall vine &c. then this proposition adioyned , and my Father is the husbandman . would haue implyed a power in God the Father to be changed into a reall hushandman and so God himselfe would be changeable , wich cannot be affirmed without a blaphemy . So then as God the Father is called only a Spirituall husbandman , so also our Sauiour a Spirituall vine , and the Apostles spirituall branches , noe more change being implied in the one then in the other . Now that many things affirmed of others , are to be vnderstood , of those thinges as spirituall , not corporall , is most euident , 1. Cor. 10.3 . cited herafter by the Opponent , and they did all eate the same spirituall meate and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke , for they dranke of that spirituall Rock that followed them , and that Rock was Christ . So that as Christ is here called the spirituall Rock , soe is he in the places cited in the objection , called the spirituall way , dore , vine , &c. which he truly and really is , without , all impropreties of signes , or figures , for otherwise , , as Protestants make , this is my Body , to be this is a signe of my Body , soe must they say I am a dore , is as much , as I am the signe of a woodden dore , which were both blasphemous , and ridic●lous , being applied to our Sauiour .

Obiection .

And if he was in a figuratiue manner a dore , a vine ; why may not bread be is body figuratiuely ? and why should they thinke it is a less● change , for our Sauiour to call his body bread , then to call bread his body ? doubtelesse he called his body bread in respect of the nourishement which a faithfull soul receaues in the Sacrament ; euen so the bread is the body of Christ sacramentally and taketh the name of the body of Christ as being a sacred signe or Sacrament thereof .

Answer .

I haue before giuen the reason of this difference , for certaine it is that in this proposition ●n protestant doctrine by the word this , is ●ignified reall and materiall bread , and by my Body the reall body of Christ , where of they wil haue this materiall bread to be a signe now ●n the other proposition : my flesh is meat , or I am ●he bread &c. though the words my flesh and I signifie really and truly our Sauiour and his sacred body ; yet the word bread cannot any way signifie true and materiall bread : for he expressely calles it the bread that came down from heauen : the bread that giues life to such as worthyly eate it , and liuing bread . which can by ●oe meanes agree with bread made of wheat or any other corne .

Hence therefore apeares that the flesh of our Sauiour ; , or he himselfe are neither a Sacrament , nor a signe of visible and vsuall bread : ●or it would want little of blasphemy to say ●hat our Sauiour or his sacred body were a signe ●f a loafe of bread which seeing it is so , there can ●e thence noe argument drawn that bread is called the body of our Sauiour because it is a ●igne of his body : but rather the quite contrary our Sauiour or his blessed flesh are tuly and ●eally liuing bread , life giuing bread , heauenly ●read , spirituall bread . Therefore that which ●ur Sauiour gaue his disciples was truly and ●eally his reall and naturall body : or thus , that ●read of our Lord , that heauenly , liuing spirituall which the Apostles receaued from the hands of our Sauiour , was his true substantiall body .

But if by the words : this is my Body : should be vnderstood true visible bread , as in the objection they are , there will be noe other parity or consequence saue this : or Sauiour calls his flesh bread because it is true liuing , heauenly bread : therefore a peece of common bread is called the body of Christ because it is a signe of his body : which is quite out of ioynt .

Now certainely ( to answer the question he●e propounded ) it is much lesse strange for our Sauiour to call himselfe meat , or liuing spirituall bread &c. then to call a piece of wheaten bread his true and reall body ; for he is truely the one , but naturall bread can neuer be the other .

Concerning the other question first propounded , why may not bread be his body figuratiuely ? if it had been set down in this manner : why might not bread haue beene his body , figuratiuely ? I would haue answered that there is no reason but it might , as were the figures of the old law and amongst them the bread of proposition , and of Melchisedech , and many such like types of the old Testament : but the reason why it may not now be so in this Sacrament is because I haue shewed that according to the first institution , it was our Sauiours will to change bread into his body : and so not being at all , it could not be his body figuratiuely : neither can a figuratiue sense stand with the truth of this proposition : This is my Body which is giuen for you . That which is lastly added that bread is a Sacrament of his body , cannot stand with the Protestant doctrine : for they define in the little catechisme in the common prayer booke a Sacrament to be an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace . now certaine it is that our Sauiours body was as outward and visible to the Apostles in the first institution as was the bread it selfe , and so neither an inward nor spirituall grace , and consequently it could not be a Sacrament of it . and if noe Sacrament , it could be noe signe of it . for Protestants acknowledge noe other signe here then a sacramentall signe : and though after our Sauiours ascension we cannot actually see his body by reason of the distance betwixt vs , yet that makes it not an inward spirituall grace , for then Rome and Constantinople would be spirituall to those that liue in these climates because for the same reason they cannot see them . and yet much lesse could the body of our Sauiour , either in the first institution or at any time after , be termed an inward grace according to Protestants : and yet we are not cōstrained to acknowledge that there is not a Sacrament , for it signifies that heauenly an● diuine grace which by vertu of it is giuen to nourish our soules which is truly inward an● spirituall : and that which sensibly appeares in it , and is called by diuines Sacramentum tantum , is a sacramentall signe of our Sauiour sacred body inuisibly but truly existent vnder those shewes or species in this Sacrament , and nourishing our soules and bodyes ( and so may be truly and properly called a spirituall grace or gift ) and that inward also when it is sacramentally receiued . And noe lesse is it now ● sacramentall commemoratiue signe of the passion , death and sufferings of our Sauiour which are long since past , and so become now inuisible , working mysteriously and meritoriously in this holy Sacrament .

If here should be replyed that hence would follow that this Sacrament might also in the first institution haue been a signe of our Sauiours death & sufferings representing them as presently to follow : and so these words ( This is my Body ) might haue this sense : this bread is a representatiue signe of my body as instantly suffering and dying vppon the Crosse : which death and sufferings were then inuisible because they were not then existent . I answer that our Sauiour might haue pleased according to his absolute power to haue instituted such a Sacrament , but because we haue neither ●n Scripture nor tradition that he instituted ●ere any such : and the words of the institu●ion , This is my Body , are properly and litterally ●o be vnderstood when there is nothing that ●onstraines vs to the contrary ; we denye that ●ny such typicall or empty signe as this was ●ctually constituted by our Sauiour in the in●titution of this Sacrament ; especially seeing ●hat the paschall lamme represented much ●ore liuely and perfectly the passion of Christ ●hen the bread and wine : and that such typi●all representations were proper to the old ●aw which was the shadow of things to come . And for Protestants they must confesse that ●hey haue noe ground in Scripture for any other signe of our Sauiours passion , then by way of commemoration or remembrance , which supposes his suffering and death past , ●nd not to come , as I haue already prouued . And though it were gratis admitted that in this Sacrament such a prefiguratiue signe of our Sauiours passion was exhibited in the first institution , yet this would noe more hinder the reall presence necessarily required by vertu of this proposition , this is my Body &c. ●hen it s being now a commemotatiue signe of his said passion , as I haue declared and proued already .

Obiection .

In the old and new Testament it is vsual to call the signes by the names of that they signifie , why then should it be thought strange that our Sauiour in this Sacrament ( calling bread his body and wine his blood ) should speake in the same manner .

Answer .

I haue now shewed against Protestants in these principles that there was noe sacramentall signe of the body of our Sauiout in the first institution of this Sacrament : ( Christs body hauing been then as visible and present as the bread and consequently noe signe at all ; and if noe signe : the true and reall body as the opponent hath granted . Though therefore where the Scripture giueth cleare euidēce that there is a signe , or that it may be clearely gathered thence , that the signe should be called by the name of the thing signified , yet there is great reason where noe such euidence is , but rather to the contrary , that our Sauiour should not speake in the same manner ; neither is it yet conuinced by all the textes alleadged presently by the opponent , that signes are called by the names of the things signified or be that which they doe signifie : as will appeare by the particulars .

Objection .

Circumcision is called the couuenant with God . This is my couuenant betweene me and you . now ●hat the word couuenant , Gen. 17. v. 10.11 . must be taken for a signe of the couuenant , the line following ●heweth , where God said : And it shall be a signe of the couuenant betweene me and you .

Answer .

There were two couuenants or pacts made betweene God and Abraham in this chapter . the first ver. 1.2.4.6.7 ; 8. which was of the fauour of God promised to Abraham and his seed . The second v. 9.10.11 . &c. which was of Abrahams obedience and his childrēs towards God . whereto he obliged them in taking circumcision : now this second couuenant was a confirmation , signe or seale of the first on Abrahams part : and so though being considered absolutely in it selfe , it was a true and reall couuenant , yet in regard of the former couuenant it was a signe or scale as S. Paul calls it : Hebr. 4. v. 11. and so it is called here both a couuenant , and a signe of the couuenant that is , of the first . as if one should make a couuenant with an other of inferiour note : first that he would fauour and patronize him in all things ; and then that the other might shew his gratitude , and acceptation of this couuenant on his part , he makes an other that once a yeare he should come and wayte on him at his table . This second couuenant would be as true reall a part of the couuenant or agreement between them , as the first ; and yet would be a confirmation , ratification , signe or seale of the former . Now that this second was a true couuenant , is euident out of the words , for it is a true command , obligation , or iniunction of God accepted of by Abraham , which being done , God of his part obliged himselfe to 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 which 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 . 1. King 4. v. 7. and by this argument the opponent may proue as well that it was a signe of many Gods , because the philistines called it Gods . 1. King 4 , v. 8. 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 .

1. Cor. 10. v. 4. 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 .

Gen. 41. v. 6. 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 . Gen. 41. v. 25. 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 from 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 pi●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 , can be truly and really the one affirmed of the other thus : This which I am to giue you , is really and substantially my body which is giuen for you , according to the rules of all good interpreters it must be vnderstood so as the opponent also acknowledged before . if therefore the opponent , or any other Protestant will proue any thing against vs in this particular , there must be produced some text of Scripture where a proposition ( all things considered ) can be verifyed in a reall and proper sense : as I haue proued this proposition : This is my Body which is giuen for you , can be , and yet is to be vnderstood figuratiuly and improperly . for so long as they produce ptopositions which cannot possibly be vnderstood in a reall and proper sense as this is which they haue cited : seauen eares are seauen yeares , and the like , there is a manifest disparity , because the former can very connaturally be vnderstood in a proper sense , and these not . and the fundamentall and vnanswerable reason is because the words of Scripture as also of all other authours , must be vnderstood properly when soeuer they can be vnderstood so , or when nothing compels vs to the contrary .

Obiection .

Euen before the fall of Adam there were two trees , the one whereof was called the tree of life , because it was a signe and memoriall to Adam that so long as he obeyed God , he should inioye life : the other of knowledge of good and euil , because it was a signe and memoriall vnto him , that if he obeyed God , he should know by experience the difference betweene good and euill .

Answer .

These are only glosses and additions to Scripture contrary to what was before promised . where read you in the Bible that those two trees were so called because they were signes , the one of life , the other of knowledge of good and euill ? if there be any such place , why was it not cited in the margent ? if noe such , what can it be but glossing and adding to Scripture ? & not only without , but against Scripture , in the very places cited , if we stand to the expresse words ? for if the tree of life had been so called only because it was a signe or memoriall to Adam that so long as he obeyed God he should enioye life , as the objection affirmes , why then did God Allmighty prouide euen after his disobedience that he should not eate of the tree of life by putting a cherub in the way least by eating he should liue for euer ? Gen. 3. v. 23.24 .

Thus farre I haue answered the objections , and laid open the mistakes which are extant in the paper : some others there are which are commonly objected and mainely stood vppon by our aduersaries in this most weighty point of the reall presence , least therefore some might stik vppon them , as not being yet solued , I will propound distinctly some of the cheef of them obseruing the methode which I held before , of objection and answer .

Obiection .

What soeuer may be answered to any figure or signe in these wordes , my body which is giuen for you , as being so cleare and determinately signifying the reall body of Christ , yet why can there not be a figure in the word , is . which may be as much as , signifies , so that those words of our Sauiour This is my Body : may haue this sense : this signifies my Body ?

Answer .

I haue in effect already satisfyed this difficulty , or at least giuen sufficient grounds to satisfye it . for the word , is , is neuer to be drawn from its ordinary and proper signification when it can with all conueniency retaine it , as I haue iust now demonstrated , it may here , beside that which is more cleere and known , cannot prudently be signifyed by that which is more obscure and remote from our knowledge , now the body of Christ visibly present before the eyes of the Apostles was more cleerely known to them then the significant figure of the bread , and so could not be signifyed without absurditie by the bread in time of the first institution of this Sacrament , as if I show my naked hand to any one , it were absurd to hold vp my gloue to signifie that my hand is there .

Further , had the bread then barely signifyed the body of Christ as presently after to suffer , it would haue been a bare type and figure of his passion , as was the Paschall Lamb , and so a shaddow of things to come , proper to the old law , and consequently would not haue been a Sacrament of the law of grace , as certainly , according to all , it was .

Objection .

Ioan. 6. When the Iews thought that our Sauiour would giue them his true flesh to eate , he corrected theyr errour and tould them , it is the spirit that quickeneth , the flesh profiteth nothing , the words which I speake vnto you , are spirit and life , therefore our Sauiour giues vs not his reall flesh to eate .

Answer .

Sayes our Sauiour here my flesh profiteth nothing ? where find you that ? noe , replies the protestant , but he sayes , that the flesh profiteth nothing , and seeing he had spoken much before of his own flesh , what can he be though● to meane by the flesh , but his own ? and can any Christian thinke that he meant his own , vnlesse he denie that he is redeemed by the torments , and death of Christ , or esteeme his redemption noe profit : or dare a Christian entertaine so base an opinion of Christs most sacred and diuine flesh , as to thinke that it is in opposition to the Spirit of God , as the flesh here mentioned , is affirmed to be by our Sauiour , it is the spirit that quickneth , the flesh profiteth nothing : or where through the whole Bible shall they finde , flesh contradistinct from spirit , as here they are , wherby is not meant , our corrupt nature , our fleshly immaginations , our low and naturall discourses , ignorance , malice , &c. and must it only here signify the flesh of Christ ? is not this Scripture mistaken ! it is therefore of the Iews carnall and grosse vnderstanding whereof he speakes , which was wholy opposite to the true spirit , light , and life of God , which made them immagine that our Sauiour would cut out peeces of flesh from his body and giue it them to eate , or permit himselfe to be visibly cut and quartered , as meat is at the shambles , and so rosted , and eaten by them , as S. Augustine obserues in this place , which naturall , and carnall discours our Sauiour affirmes to profit nothing , and not his own most pure and heauenly flesh vnderstood aright only by true faith , which he calls here the Spirit , or spirituall light . it will be said , that we affirming that our Sauiours flesh is truly eaten by vs though not in so grosse a maner , are no lesse condemned by our Sauiour , for our carnall vnderstanding of this mistery , then were the Capernaites . I answer , that there is as much difference betwixt vs in this particular , as there was betwixt S. Iofeph and Herod , about our Sauiours natiuity , for though both of them vnderstood that he had true flesh , and was borne of a woeman , yet Herod imagined that he was conceiued and borne in the ordinary maner of other children , 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 considered 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 , Ioan. 1. 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 , Ioan. 1. 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 proper 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 and formes of bread , in the Sacrament , how shall wormes be generated from the hoast corrupted , or putrifyed , seeing they must consist of matter and forme , and so be produced of some materiall substance .

Answer .

If there were nothing but humaine nature in Christ as man , without humaine personality , how could it performe the actions of a person , seeing all other actions of men proceed from theyr persons , and not from theyr natures , as the compleate principle of them . You will say , the diuine personality supplyed the place of humaine personality in Christ , and I say that diuine power . supplies the place of nature in this Sacrament , in producing a matter , after the species of bread be corrupted , and the body of our Sauiout ceases to be vnder them .

Obiection .

But how can an accident performe the office of a substance ?

Answer .

But how can the personality of one persone performe the office of the personality of an other ?

Obiection .

God vnited the diuine personality to humane nature , and so it subsists by it , as supplying the want of its own .

Answer .

God vnites a matter produced at the exigency of nature , to thé accidents which were of bread , which in the production of wormes from a putrifyed hoast supplyes the want of theyr own .

These , to my best remembrance , are the cheefe difficulties , which according to the principles , of naturall reason , our Aduersaries commonly presse against vs in this mistery , in answer wherof , I haue playnly shewed , that they themselues must answer as great or greater difficultyes , which may be opposed by heathens , and Infidells against other articles of our faith which they beleeue , let them therefore eyther desist to moue any such heathnish objections as these , against the reall presence , or acknowledge that whilst they presse these against it , they giue iust occasion to an Infidell to presse the like against themselues : which when they haue solued in other mysteries , they will haue solu'd theyr own , against this .

Before I end this controuersie , I will summe vp briefly what I haue said at large in this treatis , that the Reader may haue a full sight of it at one Vew . first , I haue ( according to my former methode ) cited the doctrine of the Concil of Trent . whence clearly appeares that it conteynes nothing , grosse and Capernaiticall ( as Protestants commonly are made beleeue ) but a most heauenly , pure , mysticall , liuing , and ineffable presence . Secondly I haue cited the words of the Euangelists and S. Paul touching the Institution , which are not only most clere in themselues ( as I haue proued ) but are iudged soe to be both by Martin Luther , in his first Tome printed at Iena , an. 1589. Concione 3. de Confessione , & Sacramento Eucharistiae , parte 2. pag. 329. where after he had cited the words of the Euangelists , he saith thus : Haec sunt verba quae neque ipsi , neque etiam Sathan negare poterit , in quae figendus pes est , vt firmiter in iis consistamus . Sunt autem nuda & planissima , quae nullis interpretationibus eludi possunt . Quòd & panis sit Christi corpus . pro nobis traditum , & calix Christi sanguis , pro nobis effusus , & iubemur illa facere in commemoratione ipsius .

These are words , which neyther they ( he meanes Romane Catholicques ) nor Sathan can denie , vppon which wee are to fix our foote , that we may stand immouuable in them . For they are naked and most plaine which cannot be shifted of by any Interpretations . That bread is the body of Christ , which is giuen for vs , and the cup the blood of Christ , which is shed for vs , and that we are commanded to doe them in remembrance of him . Thus Luther . which though he here affirmes , to proue his errours , of Consubstantiation , and Communion in both kindes against vs , yet withall he clearely , confesses that the words are most plaine for the reall presence of Christs true body , and blood in this holy Sacrament , which he allwayes held .

These texts also are so vndeniably clere , for the reall Presence , that Zuinglius the first authour of the Sacramentaries changed the word in all the Euangelists , and S. Paul 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Greeke , est in Latin , in these words , This is my Body , this is my blood , into significat , thus , this signisies my body , this signifies my blood , and so printed them in his Bible , dedicated to Francis King of France , and printed at Tiguris anno 1525. as witnesses Conradus Sclussenburgh a learned Protestant , in Theologiâ Caluinistarum Ie. 2. ar. 3. fol. 43. And Zuinglius himselfe approuues of this his translation to ▪ 2. de verâ & falsâ religione c. 5. fol. 210.

And Beza . Translating , those words of S. Luke , qui pro vobis effunditur ▪ which is powred out for you , puts , them thus in greeke , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Hoc poculum quod pro vobis effunditur , this chalice which is powred out for you , and in his Latin translation he puts them thus , hoc poculum &c. in sanguine meo , qui pro vobis effunditur , which blood is powred out for you , referring the word this , to blood and not to chalice , quite contrary to the Greeke construction , which not withstanding he confesses to haue found , in all the ancient Greeke copies which he had read , and hauing noe other shift to auoyd the force of these words as they stand in all these Greeke copies acknowledging that they make quite against him , he is put to that desperate insolensie , as to say , that these words , which ( chalice ) is powred out for you , haue crept out of the margent into the text , by negligēce of writers , and soe are not the word of God ▪ soe Bezaes translation Greeke , and Latin , printed , by Henry Steenen , anno 1565. Thirdly , I haue discouered clerely the sundry grosse mistakes of Scripture , in the words , it , take , eate this , doe this in remembrance , &c. Fourtly , I haue shewed the mistakes , in the parities brought , of I am a dore , a vine , a way , &c. Fiftly , I haue layd open the mistakes , in the instances , of other Sacraments , and figuratiue speeches alleadged by the opponent in the old Testament , and many such like misapplications .

The maine things where in I stand are , that the words of S. Luke are soe clere , that Beza hath noe way to auoyd the force of them , then by saing that they crept out of the Margent into the text , though he confesses to haue found them , as he cites them , in all the Greeke Copies which he had seene .

And secondly , that seeing these words , This is my Body which is giuen for you , may most easily and connaturally be vnderstood in a most proper sense , without violating any other article of our faith , or plaine place of holy Scripture , that they must be soe vnderstood , onlesse wee will take away all force from Scripture to proue any thing , and destroy the fundamentall rule not only of Interpretation of Scripture , but of all humaine conuersation , which is , that euery one is , so be vnderstood to speake properly , when nothing constraynes to the contrary , ●eeing therefore , I haue clearly demonstrated , that in the instāces alleadged none of the figuratiue speeches , can be vnderstood in a proper sense , without the violation of some article of our faith , proceeding according to true discours , euen confessed by our aduersarios , I conuince also that they haue no force to proue , that these sacramentall words are to be vnderstood figuratiuely .

THE SEAVENTH CONTROVERSIE Concerning Communion vnder one kinde .

The Doctrine of the Church of Rome , deliuered in the Council of Trent .

Sess. 13. cap. 3.

SEmper haec fides in Ecclesiâ Dei fuit . Statim post consecrationem verum Domini nostri corpus , verumque eius sanguinem sub panis & vini specie vna cum ipsius animâ & diuinitate existere ; sed corpus quidem sub specie panis , & sanguinem sub vini specie ex vi verborum : ipsum corpus sub specie vini , & sanguinem sub specie panis , animamque sub vtraque vi naturalis illius connexionis , & concomitantiae , quâ partes Christi Domini , qui iam ex mortuis resurrexit , non ampliùs moriturus , inter se copulantur : Diuinitatem porrò propter admirabilem illam eius cum corpore & animâ hypostaticam vnionem . Quapropter verissimum est tantumdem sub altetutrâ specie , atque sub vtrâque contineri , totus enim & integer Christus , sub panis specie , & sub quauis ipsius speciei parte , totus item sub vini specie , & sub eius partibus existit .

This faith hath been alwayes in the church of God , that presently after consecration the true body and blood of Christ did exist vnder the species of bread , and wine , togeather with his soul and diuinity . But his body vnder the species of bread , and his blood vnder the species of wine , by force of the words : but his body vnder the species of wine , and his blood vndet the species of bread , and his soul vnde● both , by force of that naturall connexion , and concomitancy , whereby the parts of Christ our Lord , who is now risen from the dead , not to dy any more , are ioyned togeather , moreouer also his diuinity both with his body and soul by reason of that admirable hypostaticall vnion with them . wherefore it is most true , that as much is conteyned vnder eyther kinde , as vnder both togeather . for whol and intire Christ exists vnder the species or kinde of bread , and each part of it , and whol Christ exists vnder the species of wine , and vnder each part of it . The same doctrine is confirmed . sess. 13. can. 3.

Item sess. 21. cap. 3.

Insuper declarat quamuis Redemptor no●ter , vt anteà dictum est , in supremâ illâ coenā●oc Sacramentum in duabus speciebus insti●uerit , & Apostolis tradiderit , tamen fatendum esse , etiam sub alterâ tantùm specie totum atque integrum Christum , verumque Sacramentum su●●i , ac prop●ereà quod ad fructum attinet , nul●a gratia , necessariâ ad salutem , eos defraudari , qui vnam speciem solam accipiunt .

Moreouer ( the Council ) declares , that allthough our Redeemer , as is aboue said , instituted this Sacrament in his last supper vnder both kindes , yet it is to be confessed , that vnder one only kinde whol Christ , and a true Sacrament is receiued ; and therefore , for soe much as belongs to the ftuict , that those who receiue it only vnder one kinde , are not defrauded of any grace , necessary to saluation .

Ibidem cap. 2.

Praetereà declarat , hanc potestatem pepetuò in Ecclesiâ fuisse , vt in Sacramentorum dispensatione , saluâ illorum substantiâ , ea statueret vel mutaret , quae sus●ipientium vtilitati , seu ipsorum Sacramentorum venerationi , pro rerum , temporum , ac locorum varietate , magis expedire iudicaret . Id autem Apostolus non obscurè visus est inuisse , cùm ait : 1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor. ● . Sic nos existimet homo , vt ministr●s Christi , & dispensatores mysteriorum Dei , atque quidem hac potestate vsum esse , satis constat , cùm in multis aliis , tum in hoc ipso Sacramento , cum ordinatis non nullis circa eius vsum , caetera inquit , cùm venero disponam . Quare agnoscens sancta mater Ecclesia hanc suam in administratione Sacramentorum authoritatem , licèt ab initio Christianae Religionis , non infrequens vtriusque speciei vsus fuisset ; tamen progressu temporis , latissimèiam mutatâ illâ consuetudine grauibus & iustis de causis adducta , hanc consuetudinem sub alterâ specie communicandi , approbauit , & pro lege habendam decreuit , quam reprobare aut sine ipsius Ecclesiae authoritate pro libito mutare non licèt .

Further ( the Coūcil ) declares , that this power hath allwayes been in the church , that in the dispensation of the Sacraments , the substance being kept inuiolated and intire , she might appoint and change , such things , as , she iudged to be expedient for the profit of the receiuers , or the veneration of the Sacraments , according to the variety of things , times , and places . And this the Apostle seemes not obscurely to haue insinuated , 1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor. 6. when he sayes : Let a man soe esteeme vs , as Ministers of Christ , and dispsnsers of the mysteries os God , and that he made vse of this power is clere enough , both in many other things , and particularly , in this Sacrament , when ▪ ordayning some things concerning the vse of this Sacrament , he said , I will dispose the rest when I come . wherefore our holy mother the church taking notice of this her power in the administration of Sacraments , though in the beginning of the church the vse os both kindes was frequent . yet in processe of time that custome being now notably changed , being induced by iust , and important reasons , she hath approuued this custome of communicating vnder one kinde , and hath decreed that it be held for a law , which it is not lawfull to change , or reproue at ones pleasure without the authority of the church . The like doctrine is deliuered , in the first chap. of this session .

From these texts it is manifest , that the Council , was induced to command this practice , first because whol Christ is vnder both kindes , 2. because in each kinde is the whole essence , and substance of this Sacrament , 3. because noe sacramentall grace necessary to saluation , is lost by communicating vnder one kinde . 4. because many important reasons toutching the honour and respect dew to soe diuine a Sacrament , mouued her to it . 5. because there is noe diuine command to the contrary , as appearrs sess. 21. cap. 1. 6 because the church hath power to dispence the Sacraments as she finds most eōuenient , soe long , as Gods commands , and theyr substance are not violated . 7. That it is not in any ones power , saue only of the church to change this costome .

The Protestant Position . Deliuered in the 39. Articles of the English Church . Art. 30.

THc cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people . For both the parts of the Lords Sacrament , by Christs ordenance , ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike .

This is proued by Scripture mistaken , as will presently appeare .

Hauing therefore , as I hope , cleared this point of the reall presence in the iust balance of an open and impartiall eye , it will not be very difficult to euen an other as a sequell from this concerning communion vnder one kind , which though it be not thought vppon in these objections , yet this fit occasion , the great difficulties which our aduersaries raise against it , the earnest desire which many not otherwise ill disposed , haue to be satisfied in it , and the request of others who haue seene some part of this treatis haue put me vppon necessitie to say something but very succinctly of this matter holding my selfe close to Scripture according to my former methode .

This point therefore supposes the reall presence , and is rather to be treated against Lutherans , or such other Protestants as are conuinced of that mysterie then against Caluinists or Suinglians who disbeleeue it , for were not our Sauiours body and blood really present there , as the practise of receauing one only kind had neuer been allowed , so could it not haue been defended . This therefore supposed , I will indeauour to defend communion vnder one kind , and answer whatsoeuer is pressed by our aduersaries against it out of Scripture mistaken .

Objection .

First they vrge the institution of this Sacrament as hauing been vnder the formes both of bread and wine , which institution is to be followed by all Christians and so both to be receaued .

Answer .

The bare institution of a Sacrament drawes with it noe necessitie of frequenting it , as appeares in Priesthood and mariage instituted by our Sauiour . which not withstanding impose noe necessitie or command to receaue them , so that standing precisely in the institution , noe man wil be obliged to receaue either both , or either of them .

Objection .

Secondly though the bare institution of a Sacrament impose noe command to receaue it , yet it imports a precept that when it is receaued or administted , it be done in that manner it was instituted , as it appeares in baptisme , Priesthood and other Sacraments . Seeing therefore our Sauiour instituted this Sacrament both in the consecration and communion in both kinds , at least whensoeuer it is receaued , it must be receaued vnder both .

Answer .

This objection inuolues many difficulties and is first to he vndeestood that Sacraments are to be receaued and administred as they were first instituted in such matters as belong to the substance and essence of the Sacrament , not in other accidentary circumstances of time , place , personnes , precedences , consequences , &c. as was the institution of this Sacrament after supper , sitting vppon the ground , giuen to priests only , in a priuate secular house &c.

Secondly there is something particular in this Sacrament which is in noe other , euen concerning the substance of it : for the very same entire substance being here put vnder each kind makes that woesoeuer receaues either of them , receaues the whole substance of this Sacrament and consequently receaues a true Sacrament instituted by our Sauiour ; and so that which is able to sanctifie him who worthily receaues either of them .

Thirdly concerning the substance of this Sacrament all that can be gathered from the bare words of the institution , is that it is to be consecrated and receiued by Priests such as were the Apostles who were Priests , then made when it was first instituted vnder both kinds , but here is noe president giuen about the lay people , because none then receaued it . That the whole substance of our Sauiour is here receaued I suppose for the present , neither is it much questioned by such as grant the reall presence , nor can be possibly doubted of by any who beleeues that our Saoiour dies not more , and soe both flesh and blood , and life , and soule , and diuinitie are all vnited togeather weresoeuer he is : hence therefore followes that lay people receiue as much of our Sauiour ( seeing they receaue him wholy and interily ) as Priests doe .

That he who receaues our Sauiour thus vnder one only kind receaues a true Sacrament is as cleare as the former for who can without absurditie denye that vnder one kind is exhibited an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace , which is the compleat definition of a Sacrament according to our aduersaries : for here the formes of bread only containing vnder them our Sauiour by way of meat , signifie that he confers a spirituall grace nourishing and feeding our soules to eternall life and thus much is signified by the English ministers when they distribute the bread to the people saying : the Body of our Lord Iesus Christ preserue thy body and soul to eternall life , &c. and containing his body represented as separated from his blood , and so as dead by force of the words of consecration are an outward visible commemoratiue signe of his sacred death and passion . and seeing that both bread is composed of many graines , and wine of many grapes vnited togeather , the mystical vnity of Christians receauing this Sacrament is sufficiently signified by the species of either of them . if then here he an outward visible signe of an inward spirituall grace both exhibitiue , commemoratiue and significatiue , here must needs be a true Sacrament euen according to the pttnciples of our aduersaries . and what I haue said of the forme of bread , is by the same reason verified of the forme of wine . but not only in their principlcs , but in all good Theologie there must be a true Sacrament vnder each kind : for certainly seeing that a different grace is conferred by each of them , the one of spirituall meate , the other of spirituall drinke ( which how it is to be vnderstood , I will hereafter examine ) each will be sufficient to sanctifie and helpe the soul to eternall life . If it should be replyed that in neither of these kinds alone is exhihited a compleate signe either of our spirituall refection , or the death of our Sauiour but only a partiall or imparfect signe of them , which notwithstanding are compleatly significd vnder both togeather . I answer that if by a compleat signe be vnderstood a most full and expresse representation of these two particulars , I grant that there is not vnder one only kind so full and expresse a representation ( and in this sense not so compleat a signe of them ) as vnder both togeather . but then it must be prouued ( this most full and expresse representation vnder both being exhibited to lay Christians by the consecration and communion of the Priest in the dread full sacrifice of the masse ) that the substance of this sacrifice requirs that they should be allways so fully and expressely represented in each particular communion of the people . but if by a compleat signe be vnderstood a signe sufficient to signifie both our spirituall food and vnion , and the death of our Sauiour , I denie that there is not a compleat signe of both exhibited vnder each kind . This distinction may be much illustrated by an instance from baptisme , certainly the mystery of the trinity was more expressely , fully and compleatly signified by that ancient coustome of a threefold dipping the child in the water , and the words of baptisme then by the same words and putting water once vppon the child , and yet this latter is iudged sufficient euen by Protestants . for who can doubt that the formes of bread sufficiently giue vs to vnderstand that our Sauiours is the food of our soules noe lesse then the bread of proposition in the old , and the bread multiplied by our Sauiour in the new Testament ; and his calling himselfe the bread of life in the sixt of S. Iohn prefigured and signified sufficiently that our Sauiour was to be the bread of our soules : and who seeing a bodyly before him void of soul and blood as our Sauiour is here represented by force of the words , gathers not presently that it is dead though he see not the blood which issued from it : and the same is of the blood of our Sauiour vnder the forme of wine , for this alone is noe lesse sufficient to represent the death of our Sauiour then was tbe blood alone of the paschall lambe sprinkled vppon the posts of the Israëlites by the Iewish priests to prefigurate the shedding of his precious blood and sacred passion : nor is the blood of our Sauiour vnder the forme of wine lesse sufficient to represent the spirituall exhiberation and conforting of our soules them was the wine in Cana of Galilee , and that sentence spoken of by the Prophete ( wine producing virgins ) able to fore figurate the same blood so comforting : as also the species of bread or wine alone to signifie the vnity and amitie which is to be amongst Christians both in regard of Christ and themselues , as I haue shewed . Hence therefore appeares that seeing in each kinde apart both the death of our Sauiour , and our spirituall meate and drinke and vnion respectiuely are sufficiently signifieds each must necessarily containe a true Sacrament , and not only the part of a true Sacrament : and seeing in each a true Sacrament is receaued , each alone must conferre that grace which is signified by it , and so sanctifie the soul of such as receaue it , and consequently may be receaued fruitfully and sauingly alone for so much as belongs to the bare institution : for if our Sauiour instituted each species apart to conferre sauing grace , then who receaues either deuoutly receaues that grace for which our Sauiour instituted it , and so we are put in the state of saluation by reeeauing one vnlesse thete be some other command produced which obligeth all to receaue both , which shall here after be examined .

Objection .

Some may happily obiect that this answer subsists not , for according to this doctrine the Priest also receaues a true Sacrament and the spirituall graces and fruits of it when he receaues the host only , and yet euen after he hath receaued the host ; he is obliged to receaue the chalice according to Roman Catholiques , therefore though it should be granted that lay people by receauing vnder the species of bread only , receaue a true Sacrament with the sauing grace signified and conferred by it , yet they may be obliged to receaue the other kind as Priests are .

Answer .

There is first a great difference betwixt the Apostles and lay Christians , for they were directly and expressely obliged by our Sauiour in time of the institution to receaue the chalice euen after they had receaued the true Sacrament and the grace of it vnder the species of bread . whence may probably be gathered that all Priests consecrating haue the same obligation of receauing both : but noe such command was directly and expessely giuen to lay people none hauing been there . Secondly Priests consecrating and sacrificing are obliged to receaue of each part of theyr sacrifice , and so though precisely standing in the essence of a Sacrament , there be no diuine obligation , yet in regard of consummating and participating of theyr own sacrifice they are bound to receaue both as the Apostles did , wich hath noe place in lay people . The answer only concluds that standing precisely in the institution , seeing lay people receaue vnder one kind a true Sacrament with sauing grace , it cannot be thence conuinced that they are bound to receaue more ; so that if there be any obligation of receauing both it must rise from some other head and not from the bare institution , whereof we treate in answer to this objection now taken from it alone .

Obiection .

It may be yet further obiected that our Sauiour here instituted a full and compleat refection not only by way of meate , or by way of drinke only , but of both togeather , and therefore such as receaue one only kind receaue but one part of this heauenly banquet and want the other , which seemeth quite contrary to the institution and intention of our Sauiour .

Answer .

Our Sauiour instituted this celestiall banquet in so ineffable a manner that the very same substantiall thing was to be both our meat and drinke , to wit , himselfe and that so abundantly that either both to geather , or each a part are so suffizing a repast , that they communicate strengh and life to all such as worthily receaue them : and though both being receaued make but one compleat refection by reason they are both taken at once by way of meate and drinke , as it happens in other ordinary refections , yet each of them receaued apart , or at different times , is also a full and compleat refection of the soul by reason that each communicates sauing grace sufficient to saluation , and this euidently appeares in common feasts and banquets , for when many dishes are eaten and different sortes of wine drunke at the same time or meeting , they are esteemed but one meal or banquet , and yet if at different times one should feed now vppon one , then vppon an other of these dishes apart , or dranke but one sorte of wine one day , and an other of them an other , then such eating and drinking by reason of the diuersitie of times would be counted diuers sufficient refections : and if it were possible to find in other meates and drinke what is found in this Sacrament , that as well the one the other alone could preserue and conferre life , and that one could liue with drinking without eating , or eating without drinking , then either of these a part would become a full refection all therefore that can be gathered from this objection is only that our Sauiour in the first institution gaue a most plentifull and abundant banquet , whereof each part in it selfe was sufficient to conferre life and satieté to his Apostles , which in succeeding ages being receaued either ioyntly , or apart , was to be a sufficient refection for Christians . But from the institution vnder both kindes followed not ( which is cheesty pressed in this objection ) that our Sauiours intention was that these two kindes should be such parts of this heauenly feast that both of them are essentially required to it , for then he would not haue giuen each of them force to conferre grace sufficient for saluation , but would haue had that grace necessarily dependant vppon the receauing of both togeather . Now that the receauing of our Sauiour vnder the forme of bread only conferres life and saluation is out of all question Ioan. 6. He who eateth this bread shall liue for euer , and that perfectly and entirely as appeareth by these words : As I liue by my father so he who eateth me shall liue by me . for our Sauiour liueth by his father not partially , bu● wholy and perfectly .

Obiection .

Further one may reply that as corporal meate and drinke haue different effects , th● one of nourishing and strengthing the othe● of comforting and exhilerating , so proportionably this diuine meate and drinke must haue the like different spirituall effects correspondent to each of them . whence followeth that he who receaues one only , is depriued of the grace corresponding to the other , and so the people will be depriued of some grace corresponding to the chalice , to wit , that of spirituall consolation , and exhilaration of the soul in the seruice of God , which Priests haue by receauing both kindes .

Answer .

First I answer that it is sufficient for the defence of the Catholique Roman faith that lay people in receauing vnder one kind , are not depriued of any grace necessary to saluation , which they should be were they obliged by vertu of Christs institution to receaue both . Concil. Trid. sess. ●1 . c. 3. And which our aduersaries presse against vs . seeing therefore the same habituall iustifiing and sauing grace is receaued by one kind as well as by both , though he who receaues both were supposed to receaue extensiuely more then they which receaue one only , yet this hath noe greater difficulty then that Priests being accoustumed and permitted euery day to say masse receaue by vertu of oftener communicating more habituall grace then lay people who promiscuously haue noe such practise or permission , they being by acts of obedience to the holy Church , and humi●ity proportionable to there own estat to supply the want of that extent of graces which are conferred vppon Priests by vertu of theyr dayly receauing this Sacrament , noe wrong being done them so long as both in this and that of communicating vnder one kind , they are depriued of noe grace necessary to saluation , and by other acts of vertues and good workes may if they will , ( being assisted by the grace of God ) exercise and supply that defect wherein by reason of the Sacrament they fall ●hort of Priests . I say there is noe wrong done them , because Christians are obliged to haue respect not only to theyr own parricular spirituall profit in increase of grace by the Sacrament , but also to the reuerence which is due to it , they must be content to want that ●ncrease when it cannot be obtained but by some irreuerence offerred to this diuine Sacrament . Thus though both Priests and lay men might haue more degrees of grace by celebrating and communicating two or three times a day , then by once , yet because this inuolues a want of reuerence to the body and bloud of Christ , it is but once a yeare generally amongst Catholikes permittrd to Priests , and neuer to lay people , neither by Catholiques nor Protestants , the same would follow if all lay men were licenced promiscuously to communicate euery day , and noe lesse , were they permitted to receaue vnder both kindes as I shall shew here after : whence followes that as out of the respect which they are bound to bere to this heauenly mystery they are obliged to refraine from communicating euery day , and vppon noe day to receaue more then once : so are they to abstaine ( the Church so commanding ) from receauing the chalice . Secondly concerning actuall auxiliary graces , which are supernaturall pious thoughts and inspirations to good , conferred by vertu of this Sacrament and proper to it , some doctours hold that there is a different actuall grace corresponding to the chalice from that of the host , the one of strenghning proper to meate , the other of exhilaration proper only to drinke . yet the common tenet of doctours is contrary , and so it will only come to a schoole Question not necessary to be treated here , wherein the more common and negatiue opinion seemes to me more pious and honorable to this Sacrament , for it wil be sufficient to saue the proper effects of these two kindes that there be actuall graces corresponding to meate and drinke , the one of corroborating , the other of exhilerating , as the primary , not as the only actuall fruits of this spirituall food and drinke , so that by the host by reason of its inestimable ' and illimitated vertu be communicated to the receauer certaine actuall graces strenghtning him in time of tentation as the primary effect of that kinde , and yet the other of exhilerating in time of sorow also , as the secondary and lesse principall of the sacred host . and the same discours holds proportionably of the chalice , so that each kinde conferres these different graces , but in a different order and manner . and by consequence he who receaues either hath the very same actuall graces communicated to him noe lesse then he who receaues both , and lay people are not depriued of any species of actuall grace due to this Sacrament , which Priests haue . Now that this doctrine much conducing to the honour and glory and grounded in the boundlesse perfection of this Sacrament , is cleere tough to such as only consider that this spirituall banquet vnder each species containes noe lesse then Christ himselfe . who is not only the food , but also the drinke of our soules , and so the holy Scripture speaking of him telleth vs , Eccies . 24. v. 29. Marr. 5.6 . he who eateth me shall yet hunger , and he who drinketh me shall yet thirst , and if we may hunger and thirst after iustice , and the same iustice be borh able to satisfie our hunger and quench our thirst , that is , be both meat and drinke to vs whensoeuer we receaue it , why should we denye these effects to the fountaine of iustici our deare Sauiour whensoeuer he is worthily receaued vnder either forme in this Sacrament . and if the materiall manna had the taste , sweetnesse and strength of all other different meates , why should we not attribute to this spirituall and diuine manna the strength sweetnes and perfection both of all meates , and drinks also whensoeuer it is rightly receaued ? And if speaking of diuine wisdome Salomon tell vs that all good came to him togeather with it , Wild. 7.11 why should we limite that wisdome of God more then is necessarie in this Sacrament . In a word , if some corporall meates haue also the vertu of drinke ▪ and some corporall drinkes the force of meate to nourish , why should we denye this to the best of all meates and drinks the body and bloud of our Sauiour ? for if the least drop of his bloud or action of his body was sufficient to satisfie for the sinnes of infinite worlds , why should we frame so pore an opinion o● them both in this Sacrament that whensoeuer they are truly receaued they haue not power vnder each kind both to nourish strenghen , exhilerate and conferre spiritually all the fruits and profits 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 & com●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 strenght●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 effect 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 the● fattnes of wheat , where the delightfull nourishmēt of the soule is expressed : and sati●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 by 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 different 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 present 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 Protestants 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 Christendome tells vs that such commands as were giuen to the Apostles were neuer esteemed to oblige theyr successours .

Thirdly : when the matter commanded is common to the Apostles and all other Priests and not limited by any circumstance mentioned or insinuated in Scripture , to the Apostles only ( if the generall and continnuall practise of Christendome be not contrarie ) it is to be vnderstood to oblige not only the persons of the Apostles but all Bishops and Priests in succeeding ages , such as are the preceptes of teaching the Gospell , , Baptizing absoluing from sinnes &c. and of consecrating sacrifising and receauing this blessed Sacrament .

Fourthly : when the matter of the precept in it selfe may be common to all Christians as was the washing of one an others feet , the abstinence from bloud , and the receauing of both kindes , and hath noe limitation to the Apostles or Priests only prescribed in the Scripture there can be noe other rule to know which precept obliges all Christians , which not , saue the constant and generall tradition of the Christian Church . For by this only me know ( as well Protestants as Catholikes ) that the precept of washing of feet bindes not though it be vniuersally & strictly inioineyd in Scripture without any limitation of time or persons , and noe lesse though all Christians are of themselues capable to receaue both kindes , and the command be giuen to the Apostles to teceaue them , yet this command by the churches perpetuall tradition , or permitting many lay Christians to teceaue in one only kinde , & by the Protestants coustome of not communicating little infants , shew cleerly that this precept is not to be extended to all Christians without exception . and if Protestants notwitstanding the word , all , limitate it only to such as are arriued to the yeares of discretion , without any ground in the bare words of the text , to exclude little children , only because their own practise approues it ; why may not Roman Catholikes limit it to the Apostles then present hauing both a ground in the text , because the words were spoken to them only , and the vniuersall tradition of the Christian Church permitting many lay persons to communicate in one only kinde , and little children eyther in one , or neyther , as I shall here after demonstrate .

Objection .

The second precept alleaged by reformists for communion vnder both kindes , is in these words : doe this in remembrance of me , which being to be vnderstood of something commanded to be done not then , but for insuing times , as I haue already shewed , are not to be limited as spoken to the Apostles only , then present , and so seeme to be extended to all Christians . especially if they be limited to Priests only , there will be noe command at-all in the institution obliging all Christians to receaue either both , or either kind of this Sacrament .

Answer .

These words : doe this in remembrance of me . according to all that which is commanded in them , cannot be extended to any more then , Priests , for here is euidently commanded the blessing , consecrating , offering , sacrificing and administring of this Sacrament , for it is to doe what our Sauiour then did , which according to Catholiques comprehends all these particulars , and according to Protestants some of them , and if the consecrating and administration of this Sacrament were not commanded in these words there would be noe command at all for them in the whol institution , nor very probabily in the whol new Testament .

Secondly if we stick closely to the bare words , noe man can conuince from them only that all Christians are obliged to receaue this Sacrament vnder both , or either kinde , for the cleargy men might haue been obliged to consecrate and administer this Sacrament , though the layity were not obliged to receaue it , as they are bound to administer Priesthood and mariage when they are iustly required : though noe man haue any absolute command either to be a Priest , or to mary , and consequently are not bound to receaue those two Sacraments .

Thirdly all that those words import as they stand , may be satisfied probably if we say that not euery Priest or lay man in particular is obliged to consecrate or communicate by force of them , but that they conteyne a precept giuen to the church in generall that what our Sauiour here commands , be done as certainly there is a command giuen to the church to conferre Priesthood , absolution and extreme Vnction &c. and yet noe Bishop or Priest hath in particular any such absolute obligation by reason of his Priesthood only neither is any in particular bound to administer them by a positiue diuine precept , giuen directly to them , though accidentally they may haue a strickt obligation according to different circumstances to administer the said Sacrament .

Fourtly : though it should be granted that these words : doe this &c. containe a precept obliging all Christians arriued to yeares of discretion to communicate sometimes , yet this toucheth only the receauing vnder the forme of bread , if we stand to the expresse words of the institution being said after the consecration of the host and before the chalice . And the precept recorded by S. Paul after the chalice is not absolute to consecrate and receaue that , but so often as it is drunke , to doe it in remembrance of our Sauiour : doe this as often as you shall drinke in remembrance of me , said our Sauiour .

Lastly : though from the sole force of these words : doe this in remembrance of me , considered as they stand in Scripture , noe forcible argument can be drawn to proue a positiue precept in particular binding euery Christian , to receaue sometimes this Sacrament vnder either or both kindes , and though the generall doctrine of the church be that there is noe diuine precept obliging more to receaue the host then the chalice , and the coustome of the primitiue church was to giue to some the chalicc noe lesse without the host , then to others the host without the chalice . and that some late Learned Writers affirme that there is noe such precept conteyned in holy Scripture ; yet because S. Thomas and the common streame of doctours after him grant a generall precept of receauing this Sacrament to be conteyned in them , and that S. Paul seemes to giue sufficient ground to thinke that this command : doe this &c. was to be extended to the actuall receauing of this Sacrament by the laity , by mentioning drinking in the conditionall command of the consecrated chalice , and deducing from the institution what preparation all Christians should make to receaue worthily this Sacrament , as appeares v. 27. to the end of the chapter : and mouued by this authority I grant that all Christians are here commanded sometimes in there liues to frequent this Sacrament , yet so that lay people satisfie this precept by receauing one only kind , or both , according to the order prescribed by the holy Church , as shee is mouued by different times or circumstances now to ordaine the receauing of both , now of one alone , to some the sole host , and to others the chalice only ; for seeing this precept was giuen before the consecration of the chalice , though it induce noe more neccssity of receauing the host then the chalice , yet it shewes euidently that if the host alone be receaued , this precepte is satisfied and by a manifest paritie and equalitie betwixt the two kindes that if it be sufficient to satisfie this precept to receaue the sole host , it will also be sufficient to receaue the chalice without the host , the one containing nos lesse the whole essence of this Sacrament , then the other , as I haue already declared .

So that in this command : doe this in remembrance of me . the word , this , seemes to signifie ( according to S. Thomas now cited ) whatsoeuer our Sauiour then did , as necessarily appertaining to the essence & substance of this Sacrament ; and though this absolute preecpt was giuen before the chalice , yet the ground of it being the very same in the host and chalice , it is equally to be applyed to the receauing either of them ; yet disiunctiuely only that is , that this Sacrament is to be receaued by euery one either vnder each or both kindes , as the church shall determine ,

Obiection .

The maine difficulty therefore comes at last to that text , Ioh. 6. vnlesse &c. which as it deliuers an absolute necessitie of receauing this most holy Sacrament , so seemes it in expresse termes to impose the same necessitie of receauing vnder both kindes , making mention of eating the flesh , and drinking the blood of our Sauiour , as necessarie to saluation . Verily , verily I say unto you , vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man , and drinke his blood , you shall not haue life in you .

Answer .

I am not ignorant that Catholique doctours giue different answers to this text which I leaue to be perused in theyr particular treatises of this point . I answer breefly and clearely that in this text is comprehended a necessity both of eating and drinking that is , there is a generall command giuen to the whol gencrality of Christians to receaue the body of Christ by way of eating , and his blood by way of drinking , and consequently of receauing vnder both kindes , which must alwayes be performed by the generall body of Christians , that they may haue life in them , and that this may be performed there is a particular necessitie put vppon euery particular Christian to concurre to the execution of this generall command , not that euery one in particular is obliged both to eate and drinke really this Sacrament , but that some eating , others drinking , others doing both , each particular conferres to the performance of this command of eating , and drinking the body and blood of Christ : wherevnto the generallity is absolutly obliged : so that this whol command is to be performed by all as ioyntly and vnitedly considered and that it may be thus ioyntly done by all , each particular is obliged to some part of it , thereby concurring partially to the whol performance . Matth. 28. v. 19. Marc. 16. v. 13. Thus when our Sauiour commanded his Apostles to teach and baptize all nations , he gaue a generall and vniuersall command to them and theyr successours to performe this worke ioyntly amongst them , not commanding each one in particular to preach and baptize the whol world , for that neither was nor could , morally speaking , haue been done , but that this might be done by all , each one in particular was obliged to performe his part , and to cōcurre to the conuersion and instruction of all nations , so that though noe one was bound by vertu of this command either to conuert all nations , or any one in particular : each one was obliged to labour towards the conuersion of some part or other of the world , so that by the labours of each , at last the whol worke might be accomplished . Thus our Sauiour sent his disciples saying : goe and cure all diseases &c. that is each one curing some , Iohn 10.9 . all might be cured amongst them . thus after his resurrection he foretold what cures and miracles should be done by his disciples , not that each should doe all these miracles , but that amongst them such miracles should be done : and thus the holy Euangelist affirmes that the Apostles of Christ preached euery where , not that each preached euery where , but that all of them togeather were spread ouer the whol world . and in the same manner may it now be said that Christians eate the flesh and drinke the blood of Christ , not that each doth both , but that it is done amongst them , by reason that each in particular is obliged either to both , or either of them : and so the whol precept will be performed amongst them . Neither seemes the context of S. Iohn to exact more then this ; for in what goes immediately before , the doubt which the Iewes had there , to which our Sauiour answers in this text ; was not whether it was necessary to saluation for euery one both to eate the flesh , and drinke the blood of Christ , for he had as then made noe mention at all of drinking his blood , but they only doubted how his flesh could be really eaten . how can this man , say they , giue vs his stesh to eate ? Iohn 6. so that our Sauiours answer to this doubt of theirs , was fully sufficient by telling them that it was not only possible , but necessary to salua●ion to eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the sone of man , that is , that those two actions should be really and truly done amongst such as were to haue eternall life . but seeing their doubt was not ( supposing the reality of this eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ , amongst such as were to haue eternall life . ) whether it were necessary that euery one in particular were both to eate and drinke ( for they neuer so much as dreamed of this question ) it is noe way necessary to affirme ( by vertu of this context ) that our Sauiour defined there that it was necessary for euery one in particular to performe both : but it was sufficient that both these actions were truly and really so to be accomplished in his church , that the generalitie was to doe both , and each Christian in particular to concurre either by performing one , or both to the accomplishment of this iniunction . for if each in particular had not been obliged to concurre to the performance of this command , the whol● church would not haue been bound to correspond with it , seeing their is noe more reason to binde one then another to the performance of it , as in the command of teaching and baptizing the whol world by the Apostles , each particular was bound to performe his part , seeing that our Saoiour had commanded it should he done amonst them : and there was noe reason that one should be more obliged to doe it , then an other .

And though there be many other commands giuen by our Sauiour to the church in generall which oblige not each particular Christian to the performance of any part of them , but only the gouuernours of the church to see that by some or other they be put in execution , yet this precept is of an other nature binding the whol community 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 stand 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 i● 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 , a● 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 Scrip●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 , Gal. 3.1 . Iames 4.1 1. Par. 5.3 . 1. Cor. 1.10 Act. 25.2 . Act. 17.22 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 m● &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 ●ate &c. doe not euidently include ea necessity for euery particular ▪ person to rereceaue both kindes , but that they cannot possibibily include any such necessity , without a contradiction betwixt this text and the text following now cited ; for if he who eates the flesh of our Sauiour hath eternall life , as those textes affirme , then it can not be true that vnlesse each particular both eate and drinke he shall not haue life eternall , and hence also appeares a necessity of vnderstanding these words , that though all in generall be bound to receaue both amongst them , yet none in particular is bound to receaue both : but each is partially to concurre to accomplish this command as each Apostle was that of teaching and baptizing all nations .

Obiection .

Some happily may answer with Caluin that though eating be only named in the text now cited , yet drinking also is there included , and to be vnderstood as being connected with it in the former text : vnlesse you eate &c.

Answer .

That more is vnderstood then is expressed in any place of Scripture , is not vppon light coniectures to be supposed , but to be prouued by solide and conuincing arguments , otherwise each light headed nouelist might at his pleasure frame to himselfe certain apparent congruities to extend the words of Scripture , and to make them import more then they signifie in themselues , and so multiplie Synecdoches wheresoeuer it comes to his purpose . Seeing therefore I haue shewed that there is noe necessity to strech these textes beyond the common and vsuall stgnification of the words , by giuing at least a probable satisfaction to whatsoeuer they alleadge to proue the contrary , let our aduerfaries make good that there it a necessity of the drawing these words beyond their naturall signification , or that more words are supposed then are expressed in the text , and we will yeeld to this explication .

But this discours of our Sauiour : is so farre from giuing the least ground to any such like , improprieties ( the common refuge of our Aduersaries when they eannot auoyd the sorce of the expresse words , and proper sense of Scripture ) that it rather confirmes the proper and natiue signification of these words : he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer : when he saith : as I liue by my father , so he who eateth me shall liue by me . whence is ( at the least more probabily then Protestants can proue the contrary ) inferred that as our Sauiour liues totally and compleately by his father without the addition of any thing else , so Christians liue by worthily eating this heauenly bread without the addition of drinking , or any other action necessary to giue life as a part of this Sacrament .

But that I may make the exposition which I haue giuen of these words , yet more plaine and forcible , I will propose an instance of a command of this kind giuen to the Israelites euen in matter of a Sacrament , Exod. 12. 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 performāce 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 bu● 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 ineffab●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 ou● 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 , negligēces , 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 willfull , and vngrounded importunity . But Roman Catholiques beare both a tender loue to this most pretious blood of our Sauiour , and so indeauour all they can to preserue it from all irreuerences and preuent all occasions as much as is possible of indangering the least drop of the consecrared chalice to be spilt or lost ; and frame a most high esteeme of his sacred body as conteyned vnder the formes of bread to be alone sufficient to feed them to eternall life . Imitating in both these the care and esteeme of the primitiue church , which both imposed very heauy and seuere penances vppon all such as permitted any the least quantity of the sacred chalice to be spilt , and was accoustomed to giue this Sacrament sometimes in forme of bread only both to hermites in the wildernes , Dion . Alex . ep. ad Sabīa . Beda Hist. lib. 4. c. 14. Prat. Spir. c. 79. Enas . li. 4. c. 35. Euag. Matisco . 2. c. ● pilgrimes in theyr iournies , sicke persons in theyr beds , laymen in theyr houses and children in the church : and in forme of wine only to little infants in their cradles , which cleerely conuinces that the primitiue church had noe beleefe or knowledgement of any absolute necessity or diuine precept to receaue alwayes both ; which not withstanding as it read as diligently , so vnderstood it more clearly and obserued more punctually the laws and commands of Christ , then our aduersaries now doe .

Some there are who being conuinced of the reall presence , and that there is neither necessity nor command in Scripture of receauing allwayes both , notwithstanding for the precedent places objected , say that euery particular Christian is obliged sometimes in his life to communicate vnder both at the same time , and thus they esteeme themselues both to agree with those places of Scripture now cited which affirme that by eating alone eternall life is acquired , and auoid those inconueniences which happen to the blood of our Sauiour amongst such multitudes of Christians so frequently communicating by granting that this Sacrament ordinarily may be receaued vnder the formes of bread only : and agree with the practise of the primitiue Christians who though they often receiued vnder one priuately , or when the other could not conueniently be had : yet at other times they receiued publickly vnder both ▪ and on the other side conforme themselues both to the institution of our Sauiour and those other precepts of receiuing both by doing it sometimes in their liues when the precept obliges . This opinion though it seeme fairely to compose all difficulties , yet the newnesse and vnhardnesse of it , where there nothig else , render it suspect of superficiality and falshood , for how is it possible that each Christian should haue so weighty an obligation , and neither any doctour in the moderne Roman Church , so much as dreame of it , nor any amongst her present aduersaries once presse it against vs , or thinke of it themselues . or if we looke to the late fiue hundred yeares before vs where in it hath been the coustome in many particular churches to communicate publickly vnder the formes of bread only without the least reflection or practise of any such precept , 3. parte qu. 150. ar. 2. cor. as S. Thomas wittnesses , those churches always communicating the laity vnder one kinde only , or if we ascend to the primitiue times , there is noe step nor impression to be found of any such precept , for then they not sometimes only or euer by way of diuine precept , for so much as can be gathered from the authours of those times , but frequently in publick celebrations of those mysteries communicated vnder both . and those childeren which communicated vnder one only kinde , we neuer read to haue communicated vnder both , though they died in their childhood , which not withstanding they should haue done , had the Christians of the primitiue times beleeued any such need , as is here conceiued of sometimes communicating vnder both . how , I say , is it possible that this opinion should be true & solide seeing neither moderne nor ancient , nor primitiue times , nor friends nor aduersaries of the Roman Church so much as once mention it ? but beside the newnesse it hath other reasons enough to conuince it of falshood , for first when the primitiue Christians communicated little infants presently after baptisme vnder the formes of wine , only they neuer are read to haue giuen it vnder both if they came to be in danger of death when , they had acquired strength enough to receaue both ; which notwithstanding they had been obliged to doe had there been any diuine precept obliging all Christians to receaue both sometimes or at least once in their liues .

Secondly the same difficulty may be pressed against this new hatched opinion , of children arriued to the age of six or seauen yeares who being accoustumed in the primitiue Church to consumate the particles or reliques of the sacred hosts , raceaued vnder the formes of bread only , for there is not a step imprinted in antiquity of conferring both kindes to them when they came to dy about that age . The like is of hermites who liued perpetually in the deserts and had the coustome of taking with them the most blessed Sacrament vnder the formes of bread only .

But that which discouuers most cleerely the non existency of this new fangled opinion , is that it hath noe ground in holy Scripture . for when our Sauiour saith Ioh. 6. he who eateth this bread shall liue for euer , whosoeuer holds this opinion must say that he who receaues deuoutly vnder the forme of bread only , receaues grace and spirituall life in his soul ; suppose therefore that still perseuering in that grace receaued he come to die before he teceiue vnder both kindes , certainly he will be saued ; which shewes euidently that the receauing of both kindes before death is not necessaty to saluation necessitate medij ( as the schoole speakes ) that is , so necessary that saluation can noe more be acquired without it , then it can be without faith , or the grace of God . neither can communion vnder both kindes be said to be necessary to saluation necessitate praecepti , or by diuine precept : for these words of S. Ioh. c. 6. nisi māducaueritis carnem filij hominis &c. being a mere declaration of a truth , cannot properly be said to be a precept or command and rather seemes to include necessitatem medij then precepti . and whatsoeuer command may be deduced from those words , or pressed from any other place of Scripture , I haue allready shewed to be of noe force , to put a necessitie vppon all Christians to receaue vnder both kindes , either all wayes when they frequent this Sacrament , or at any time in their liues .

What I answer to this opinion will easily preuent the forging of an other of the like nature that might happily occurre to some quaint nouelist , that though there should be noe necessity of euer receauing both kindes at the same time , yet these words of S. Iohn : Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sone of man and drinke his blood , you shall not haue life in you , import a necessity of both eating and drinking at the least at seuerall times , now doing the one and then the other , which being done , each Christian may be truly said both to haue eaten the flesh and drunke the blood of the sone of man , and soe sufficiently to haue fullfilled this declaration of our Sauiour . This imagination , I say , is wholy cut of by what I haue answered to the former opinion , ( to omit the nouelty of this inuention ) for the community of Christians , comply sufficiently with this command , if some receiue vnder the forme of bread , and others of wine , this being amongst themselues to haue both eaten the flesh , and drunke the blood of the sone of man , though each in particular doe not both of them , the command being giuen not in the singular but in the plurall number .

Now that I may conuince euen from the confession of our Aduersaries , that communion vnder both kindes is not necessary to saluation .

1. First whatsoeuer Luther holds in some places , ( as he is most vnconstant in his assertions ) yet in very many others , he clearly defines , that communion vnder both kindes is not necessary to saluation , nor was euer commanded by our Sauiour . De capt. Babylonicâ , c. de Eucharist . in Declar. in serm. de Eucharist . à se habito . de formulâ Missae . In assertionibus . Artic. 16. Epis. ad Bohemos Tomo 2. Germanico . fol. 100. In aliâ editione Tomo 7. fol. 360. libro de vtrâque specie Sacramenti : Si veneris ad locum , in quo vna tantùm species ministratur , accipe tantùm vnam , quemadmodum ibi accipiunt ; si praebentur duae , duas accipe , nec quidquam singulare infer , nec te multitudini oppone . If thou comest to a place where one only kinde is administred , receiue one only ; if where both , receiue both , and induce noe singularity , nor appose thy selfe to the multitude . Thus Luther .

2. The same is held by Melancthon , in loc. com . edit. 2. nu. 1551. sol. 78.

3. And in the English Statutes . In the first Parlament vnder K. Edward the 6. pag. 818 , In case of necessity communion vnder one kinde is permitted ; neyther is any way condemned the vse of those Churches where communion vnder the forme of bread only is practised .

Which clearly proue that , those English Protestants held not communion vnder both kindes necessary to saluation .

And here I make an end of this whol treatis , which ( had the spirit of Christian humility , and obedience perseuered in the harts of Christians ) need neuer haue been begunne ; and was vndertaken for no other end , then to let the miflead spirits , of our age and country see , how little reason they either had in the beginning or now haue , to disobey the precepts , and contradict the decrees , of theyr noe lesse tender , then powerfull mother the vniuersall Church ; that being noe other , nor better then a weake pretence of Scripture mistaken the common plea of all sectaries against the generall consent of Christendome . For this mistake of a few curious and disquiet Nouelists , the mysticall body of Christ must be rent in peeces , Kingdomes and Prouinces swinne in each others blood , Churches , and Religious howses , the monuments of Christian pyety , rased and defaced ; citties sacced and pillaged , contries dispeopled and desolated , castles burned , families ruined , parents bathed in their own teares , theyr children half famisht , like those of the Israelites , crying out for bread , and none found to giue it them ; and that I may shut vp all , in those sad lynes of Vincentius Lirenensis Commonitorio 1. c. 6. speaking of the Arrian beresie and giuing noe lesse a true description of those , then a presage of our tymes , after he had declared how the whol Romane Empire was shaken , the west and easterne Churches eyther by fraud or force , dangerously infectcd , and all things both sacred and Prophane , distempred , and distracted , he vses these words , Tunc temeratae coniuges , depullatae viduae , prophanatae virgines , dilacerata monasteria , disturbati clerici , verberat● Leuitae , acti in exilium Sacerdotes , oppleta sanctis ergastula , carceres metalla . Then maried woemen were abused , widdows dispoyled , of theyr purple mourning garments , sacred virgins prophaned , monasteries torne in peeces , clergie men displaced , Leuites beaten , priests sent into banishment , dungeons , prisons , and mettle mines fild with Saincts . O vnhappy , and accursed mistake ! what mischeefs hast thou allready wrought , and art still a working in the bozom of Christendom ! how hast thou hoodwinkt the eyes , bewitched the eares , clowded the braines , and set on fyer the harts of mistaken Christians , who are soe deeply besotted , with thee , that like one in a frenzie , they can neyther beleeue , nor indure to heare that they are mistaken : and yet are not to be deserted as wholy desperate and incurable , there is still a sunne which can dart a beame of light into theyr souls , to discouer these cymerion clouds ; a neuer erring truth to correct these mistakes , and a most prouident wisdome , to lead them to the certaine way of saluation . Deare contrymen , I haue only exposed before your eyes ( and more I cannot ) a cleare looking glasse wherin you may behold , the foulest , grossest , and most dangerous of your mistakes , and beholding , loath them , and loathing leaue them , though you leaue the whol world , and your own liues with them , for being once discouured , left they must be , or God will leaue you .

FINIS .