SCRIPTURE MISTAKEN THE GROUND OF PROTESTANTS AND COMMON PLEA OF ALL NEW REFORMERS AGAINST THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC RELIGION OF ENGLAND.  
Many texts quite mistaken by Novelists are laid open, and redressed in this treatis, by restoring them to their proper sense, according to which, it is made manifest, that none of them are of force against the ancient Catholic Religion.  
By JOHN SPENSER of the Society of JESUS.  
Videtis id vos agere, ut oninis de medio Scripturarum auferatur auctoritas.  S. Aug. li. 32. contra Faust. c. 19 
PRINTED AT ANTWERP By JAMES MEURSIUS. ANNO M.DC.LU   

The points of Controversy contained in this Treatis.  

I. Of worship of Saints and Angles. pag. 1.  
II. Of the making and worshipping of holy Images. pag. 69.  
III. Of justification by faith only. pag. 137.  
IV. Of the merit of good works. pag. 161.  
V. Of Purgatory. pag. 179.  
VI Of the real Presence. pag. 189.  
VII. Of Communion under one kind. pag. 317.    

THE PREFACE.  
THose victories are deservedly inroled amongst the most noble and memorable in the monuments of Antiquity, wherein an Enemy is overcome me with his own weapon. Thus David's beating down that Tower of the Philistines, seemed to the Israelites, to have been a conquest over ten thousand Enemies, Saul percussit mille, & David decem millia, because he cut of Goliath head, with Goliath sword. Thus the soon of God & our dearest Saviour, purchased the noblest of all victories, against the strongest of all Enemies, ut qui in ligno vincebat in ligno quoque vinceretur. because he who overcame us by a tree, was through him by a tree overcome. And thus, our dear Redeemer having been furiously attacked by the Tempter in the desert with the authority of his own word, put to flight and vanquished the same Tempter by the authority of the same word which he had pressed against him. Hence it is, that not the sling of David wherewith he begun, but the sword of Goliath was reserved, and wrapped up in a holy Ephod, in the Tabernacle, as an eternal trophy, and monument of his victory. Hence, that anciently most ignominious, & hateful of creatures the cross, is now erected in triumphal manner not only upon the highest towers of Christian temples, but upon the most sacred and sovereign heads of Christian Emperors. And hence it also is, that the Catholicque Church, hath so carefully conserved, so religiously honoured, and gloriously triumphed in those breaths of divinity the holy Scriptures, because that as her spouse stopped the fontaine, so she by the heat of his spirit hath dried up the troubled and divided streams of all errors, and heresies, trough their heavenly light and authority.  
This is the victoty which I represent in triumph in this present treatis, as the most heroic amongst all others of the Roman Church; because it conquers heresy, by the weapon of heresy, ut qui in verbo pugnabant, in verbo quoque vincerentur; that those wbo have hitherto fought with the sole word, might be overcome with the sole word.  
The Roman Church, even from the first Challenge of her adversaries in these last ages, hath given them the foil (nay quite defeated them) at the weapons of Antiquity, universality, unity, succession, visibility, sanctity, miracles, Fathers, Councils, reason, authority, but these were so far and clearly her weapons, that they scarce ever dirst lay claim to any of them, and so the victory (glassed in their eyes) seems either none, or small, because not gained with a weapon of their choosing, now therefore to accomplish what she hath so prosperously attempted, she accepts the combat even with that weapon, which they take (by mistaking) to be their own.  
It is the writ●en word of God, the sole written word, to which all appeal, here they boast and glory, here they exult and triumph, not only before the victory, but befote the fight, this and this alone they take for their bucklar of defence, for their armour of proof, for their deep piercing dart, their swift flying arrow, and their sharp edged sword; this they brandish before the eyes of innocents', with this they flourish in their books, and Pulpits, in their public meetings, and private conventicles, nay in the very streets, and taverns; and that so seemingly with a gloss as false as it is fair, that they dazzle the eyes of the vulgar, and strike them with admiration in each motion of it.  
Here they fully persuade themselves that those of the Roman Church dare not meddle with them, and take for granted, that whatsoever we have gained upon them by other weapons, yet we yield ourselves clearly conquered by this. So confident are our Adversaries in their own conceits! where as the Roman Church, never as yet acknowledged to have been either worsted, or so much as touched by any one text of Scripture which they ever pressed against her, witness the many & large volumes of full and clear answers to every sentence objected by her Adversaries. Neither ever refused she to encounter her enemies, with this weapon of their own choosing. True it is she requires judge's present, to see and determine which party hath the better in the encounter, but they refuse all other judges (quite contrary to the light of reason) save that very weapon where with they fight, and though she still keep the field, continue on the combat, & maintain the quarrel, without so much as yielding either a step or hairs breadth, not withstanding she must be worsted, only because her adversaries say she is.  
What will an impartial ey judge of such proceedings? yet to show how empty and vain all these flotishes are, and how strong desires she hath of the eternal good of her enemies, rather than leave them wholly destitute of redress, she freely like an indulgent mother condescends to their infirmities, and conforms herself to their wayward humours, and that so far, as to expose the equity of her cause even to the judgement of her very Adversaries, and confides with holy David, & inimici nostri sunt iudices, that even her most forward enemies, will not be so void of light, reason, and equity, as not to acknowledge her conquerant, and themselves vanquished, even in their own judgements, and with their own weapon.  
Thus she enters the list, and confides in the strength of her God and spouse that the day will be hers. And finds no surer means to encompass it, then by disarming her enemy, because to dissarme him him, is to dissanimate him, for yield he must, when he can fight no longer.  
I have endeavoured in this present Treatis, to give my Readers an essay of this kind of victory of the Roman Church, where in I hope he will find it manifest that the texts which our Adversaries usually allege against the Roman doctrine in such points as I have tuched, are not arguments, but mistakes.  
And that so gross and palpable that half an eye may discover them. Thus therefore the matter stands, and the combat proceeds betwixt us.  
Our Adversaries have now above a hundred years proclaimed through the ears of Christendom that the Roman Church resists the known truth, and the evident testimonies of the written word of God: a heavy accusation! I demand in the poursuit of this discourse, that these testimonies be cited and evidenced out of the authentical editions, and original languages of the holy Bible. In place of these they press the words of their own late translations. These I prove to be dissonant & dissagreeing from the original, and so not the words of true Scripture, but of a false translation, will make against us. They tell me that whatsoever the words are in the original, yet the sense is evidently against the Roman Church. I demand how, shall the sense (at least in their principle of sole Scripture) ever evidently appear but by the words of the original. They tell me, whatsoever the words be, yet the sense is evident. I reply that I am nothing mowed with their saing, without their prowing. They bid me prove that it is not evident. I tell them, that it belongs to him who affirms, to prove his own assertion. which if they refuse, the whole world will discover that they have nothing evident in the whole Bible against the Tenets of the Roman Church. Yet to comply beyond all obligation, I undertake to prove that the texts which they most press against us, are neither euident, not so much as probable, but evidently insufficient, and not so much as capable of that sense which they draw from them to make them sound against us, and consequently nothing but pure mistakes.  
And yet farther, that nothing may be wanting to a full victory, I press against them clear words either out of their own Translations, or out of the original, the force whereof they cannot possibly avoid, but either by denijng, the plain and proper sense of the words, and flying to tropes, and figures, & improprieties, & shadows and abscurities, and that without any necessity, save only of maintaining their own assertions; or translating the words in a secondary signification, leaving the primary and most proper when it makes against them, which notwithstanding they put in other places where it makes not against them; or by translating the words quite contrary to the original (euen by their own acknowledgement) or when they are so troughly pressed that their is no way of escaping, to reject the express words of the never questioned original, and affirm that they crept out the margin into the text.  
The discovery of these, and such like particulars, is the main drift, and sum of this Treatis. which I have entitled, Scripture mistaken the ground of Protestants, etc. The occasion of my falling upon which, was as follows.  
This Treatis, was at first a private controversy, in answer to a long Cathalogue of texts, taken (and mistaken) out of the Protestants Bible, and sent to a Person of quality, to divert him from the Roman faith. Through importunity of friends I condescended, that it might pass the print, hoping that some might reap profit from it, and therefore couched it in a plain & easy stile that not only the learned, but the vulgar also might understand it. I keep myself close to Scripture in the whole process, and connexion of my proofs either against my Adversary, or in my own cause, scarce affirming any thing which I confirm not by one clear texr or other, and those such as I have read, and diligently examined myself, in what language foever I cite them, and therefore, if any false dealing be found in the citations I am content, (as in that case I should well deserve) to bear the shame of it. The texts which I answer, are those which are commonly, and chiefly stood upon by Protestants, and indeed which mainly withhold them from embracing the Roman faith, and the points of controversy, such as are the most pressed against us, and maintained by our Adversaries, so that I have no reason to doubt, if the Readers be once convinced that they have no ground against us even in their own Bible in these maine, and radical controversies, (as I am in great hope they will be) that they will at least begin to suspect the weakness of their own, and to diseover the strength of our cause, and so put themselves in a fare way of returning to the bosom of that mother-church, from which the late mistakers, and misusers of holy Scripture have seduced them. Some controverfies of lesser moment set down in the paper, I have here omitted (which I reserre to an other occasion) being now pressed, for want of time, to content myself with these.  
Wherein that I may proceed upon a sure foot, I observe this method, first I set down plainly and unquestionably, the Doctrine of the present Roman Church, delivered as such in the express words of the Council of Trent, in each controversy which I treat, there by stating aright the question, & disabusing the Protestant Readers, who are commonly wholly missin form of our doctrine, by a wrong conceit of it, in stilled into them, & preserved in them, by either the malice, or ignorance of their Teachers.  
Secondly I set down the Protestant positions, either as I find them in the paper, or in the nine-and thirty Articles of the English Protestant church.  
Thirdly, I cite and answer the texts, of the Adversary, by discowering clearly the several mistakes contained in them. and lastly I allege some plain passages of Scripture, as they stand in the Protestant Bible, in confirmation of our doctrine.  
The greatest favour therefore that I expect from you dear countrymen, is, that you spare me not, neither in troughly examining what I allege, nor in demanding satisfaction in matters which you cannot fully examine, of people abler, and learneder than yourselves.  
Please therefore to ponder what you read no less impartially, then seriously, to disengage yourselves from that withdrawing bias, which education, custom, country, friends, self love, will, and judgement have insensibly instilled into your hearts. labour with a strong & humble desire to be informed aright, with a love of truth▪ above all transitory interests of this short and miserable life, & lastly have your earnest recourse to Allm. God, both to discover what is best for your eternal welfare, and to embrace it when you have discovered it, prefer God before creatures, your soul before your body, heaven before earth, and before time, eternity.   

SCRIPTURE MISTAKEN THE GROUND OF PROTESTANTS, etc.  

THE FIRST CONTROVERSY. Concerning the worship of Saints and Angels.  
The doctrine taught, believed, and professed in this point as matter of faith, by the Roman Church. And dlivered in the Council of Trent as Such. Sessione 24.  
Mandate sancta Synodus omnibus Episcopis, & caeteris docendi munus, curamque sustinentibus, ut— Fideles diligenter instruant, docentes eos, Sanctos unà cum Christo regnantes, orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offer; bonum atque utile esse suppliciter eosinuocare; & ob beneficia impetranda, à Deo per Fili●m eius jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, qui solus noster Redemptor & Saluator est, ad eorum orationes, opem, auxiliumque confugere:  
THe holy Synod commands all Bishops, and the rest which have the office and care of teaching that— they diligently instruct faithful people, teaching them, that the Saints which reign together with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men; that it is good, and profitable humbly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, help, and assistance, to obtain benefits of God through his Sun jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour.  
Whence it is clear, that according to the Council of Trent (to whose doctrine all those of the Roman Church hold themselves obliged to subscribe) first, that we pray not the Saints, That they Should procure any blessings by their sole force and vertu independent of God, but only that they present their prayers to God to obtain them of him, for us, orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offer, which plainly clears us from all idolatry, in this particular, both they and we praying to the same one only God. And secondly, we have not recourse to their prayers to God, as if they were to be granted for the worth and dignity of the Saints imdepedently of Christ's merits, but only through and for his merits, ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per Filium eius jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, to obtain benefits of God, through his Sun jesus Christ our Lord, excluding the Saints from being either our Redeemers, or Saviour's, which we all acknwledge to be christ alone, qui solus noster Redemptor & Saluator est, as this holy Council here teaches us, which makes us undeniably free from the least shadow of injury done to our Saviour, and his infinite merits when we invoke the Saints.  
Thirdly we are here taught to give regence, and worship to the Saints in heaven suppliciter eos invocare; to invocque them humbly, devoutly, suppliantly, neither as Gods, nor as saviours, but as pure creatures reigning with Christ, and as dependent of God, and Christ as we are ourselves, as appears by the former words of the Council now cited.  
Lastly we are here taught, that this humble invocation of the Saints (and the same is of Angels) is good & profitable, but the Council teaches not, neither gives any general command to invoke them, nor that the actual practice of it is absolutely necessary to Salvation, or that no man can be saved, who has not thus humbly invoked the Saints, for their prayers are only furthering helps, not necessary means to Salvation, so that, no man is bound to believe any absolute necessity of it, but in rigour it is sufficient not to reject it as bad, or hurtful, but to allow of it as good and profitable, leaving the practice, or not practice, the greater, or less use of it to every ones particular piety, and deuotion. This I say not to induce any one to think, that it were either laudable or allowable, in such as believe the goodness, and profit of this invocation (as all Roman Catholicques must do) never, or very seldom, to practise it, for this were to be supinely negligent in using the helps, which we believe to be profitable for our spiritual good, (as the same appears in desiring the prayers of God's servants whilst they live here on earth, which is nor absolutely 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 think that the Roman church teaches, that it is as necessary to salvation to invoke and worship the Saints, as to invoke and worship Christ, himself. Having thus declared the doctrine of the Roman church delivered in the Council of Trent, let us now see, what Protestants allege against it, out of Scripture mistaken.  

The first Protestant Position, Thus framed by the opponent.  
God only to be worshipped, therefore neither Saint nor Angel.  
This is proved by Scripture mistaken.  Mat. 4.10. 
It is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, saith Christ.  

The first mistake. The words of this text affirm not that God only is to be worshipped.  
THe text saith thus, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, from which cannot be proved, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God only, that word only being not joined in this text, to the worship of God, as no Protestant can, or does prove that God only is to be feared, from the like text of Scripture. 
Levit. 19 v. 14.  Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, seeing that à wife is commanded to fear her husband, Ephes. 5.25. And subjects to fear their Magistrates, and Governors, Rom. 13.4. Neither is any one so senseless to affirm, that God only is to be loved, because David says, O love the Lord all ye his Saints, 
Ps. 31.23.  for if God only that is none save God were to be loved then no man were to love his neighbour, which not with standing is most strictly commanded, as all know, nor husbands to love their wives, which S. Paul commands Ephes. 5. v. 25. and how come they then to prove, that God only is to be worshipped, because the Scripture here cited commands us to worship God, but commands no more to worship him only, than the former texts, to fear and love him only. How come they, I say, to urge such à text as this, without the least appearance of prose, but by à pure mistake of the words of Scripture? especially seeing that the Scripture in an other place, commands us as clearly to worship something beside God, as it commands to fear and love others beside God, Psalm 99.5. worship his foorstole. where the very same Hebrew, and Greek phrase, and words are used, which are in this text cited. Mat. 4.10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God; howsoever that text Psal. 99 is mistranslated by Protestants, as I shall show here after. And the Prophet Isay foretells that the enemies of Jerusalem, should worship the steps of her feet, Isay 60.14. but what soever 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 should say, that though the word only, be not joined to worship, yet it is joined to serve in the text cited, Mat. 4. and him only shalt thou serve, which seems to be of as much force, as if it were joined to worship. I answer, that if the Opponent had framed the Protestant position thus, God only to be served, therefore neither Saint nor Angel, the latter part of the text having, and him only shalt thou serve, there might have been some show of proof, in alleging 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 no show at all of proof in it? as when the Scripture saith, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, 
Deut. 10.20.  and him only shalt thou serve, one might at least seemingly prove from this sentence, that God only, is to be served, but one shall never prove, by the force of those words, that God only is to be feared. If a Protestant should reply, that worship, and serve, seem to signify the same thing, and so only being added, to serve, is as much as if it were added to worship. I answer that if we have regard to the Greek text, (in which only the difference betwixt worship, and serve in Mat. the 4. v. 10. is clearly discovered) there is a large difference betwixt those two words, the one signifying properly, and by mere force of the word, worship in general, and so used familiarly in holy Scripture, to signify both the worship due to God, and to men, Saints, and Angels, and the other a service due to God only, and never applied to the religious service of any creature, which I shall here after make manifest. Beside, serve signifies more largely, than worship, for we serve God by faith, hope, charity, obedience, and all good works done to his honour, but we worship 〈◊〉 him, only by an act of Religion. As appears. Hebr. 12.28. let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with Reverence and Godly fear.   

MISTAKE II. Worship missapplied in this text, Mat. 4.10.  
I Have already proved that this text, commands not that God only should be worshipped, because it says not thou shallte worship the Lord thy God only; but though it had said so, yet it were to be understood not to forbid, the exhibiting of all kind of worship to any save God, but only such worship as is proper to God alone, and which without Sacrilege, and Idolatry cannot be given to any but to God. Thus though Saint Paul say, that God only hath immortality, yet that must be understood of a most divine, infinite, 
1. Tim. 6.15.  and uncreated immortality proper to God alone, and not of all kind of immortalities, for then S. Paul would contradict himself, when he saith, 
1. Cor. 15.54. Lue. 18.19  that our mortal bodies shall put on imusortality. Thus when our Saviour said, none is good save one, that is God, it must only be understood of an essential, incomprehensible goodness, for otherwise, that text would be contrary, to S. Luke, saying and behold there was a man named joseph, which was a counsellor, 
Luc▪ 2●. 25.  a good man and a just, 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, divine, essential, and uncreared, the other, imperfect, humane, accidental, and created; so that the scriptures ascribing the one to God only, and the other to creatures, are easily reconciled, and plainly understood without any show of contrariety, or contradiction, amongst themselves, or injury to God, so are there in Scrtpture different kinds of worships, the one acknowledging, and exhibiting honour to, an Infinite, divine, uncreated immortality, and goddess 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 itself, signify properly both these kinds of worships, yet as it lies here, it must be taken for the first kind, of highest and chiefest worship only; but the very same word, both in hebrew, greek. latin, and English, in other places of Scripture, must be taken for the Second kind of lower and inferour worship, acknowledging, and intending only to express, an imperfect, limited, and created goodness, in the persons, or things worshpped. Thus we read in Genesis, The sons of thy father shall adore, 
Gen▪ 49.8.  or worship thee Saith jacob, blessing his son juda. 
Gen. 42.6.  And of the btetherens of joseph, saluting their brother, when his brethren had worshipped him, and nothing more ordinary in holy hcripture, then worship given to persons in dignity, and authority. As therefore this Protestant position, that God only is to be worshipped, being understood (at it must here by the opponent) that no worship ath all is to be given to any save God, plainly contradicts those and the like places of Scripture. So the Roman Catholic position, that some kind of worship, is to be exhibited to others, than God, is both evidently consonant to these texts, and no way dissagreeing, from that of Mat. 4.10. and the like texts, which command us to worship God, nay though they should command us to worship God, only, because such commands are all ways to be understood, of that first, and highest kind of worship, above mentioned; neither is there any possible means to reconcile, different places of Scripture, which seem to ascribe to God only, that, which in other places is ascribed to creatures, but by such distinctions, of perfections, or worships, as I have declared. And this is so clear, that it must be, and is confessed, by Protestans themselves, who generally grant, that Religious worship is to be given to God only, but civil worship to creatures; which distinction being once admitted, the opponent, will never be able to convince any thing against the worship of Saints and Angels, out of Mat. 4.10. for if one will term the worship given to Saints and Angels, a civil worship, as I will presently demonstrate Protestant's must do, if they make no distinction betwixt religious worships, than even Saints and Angles may be worshipped at the least with some kind of civil worship, even according to Protestants, notwithstanding thath text of Mat. 4.10. which according to them must be understood to forbid only Religious worship to any save God. But because the common tenet of Catholic Doctors is, that things created may be worshipped with some kind of Religious worship, I will make it evident out of Scripture, that some Religious worship hath been, and may be lawfully exhibited to creatures, and so not to God only. Thus we read in the books of kings, that the captain of 50 men worshipped Elias the Prophet, 
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 Prophet Elizeus, and after the Sunamite receiving her revived soon, adored the same Prophet; Thesame is of Moses commanded to adore the ground where on God stood, and of David commanding to worship the footstool of God. And lest it should be thought that this manner of worshipping was only in use in the old testament, we have an express precedent of it in the new, for our Saviour in the revelation speaks to the Angel of philadelphia thus. 
Reu. 3.9.  Behold I will make them (that is his enemies) come and worship before thy feet.  
Now that it may appear, that these acts of worship, were Religious, and not merely civil, we must know in general, that worship is nothing but an humiliation of ourselves in acknowledgement of some goodness, and excellency, in that which we worship. So that there are two kinds of worship the one interior, the other exterior, the interior is in the mind, and soul only, the exterior is that interior signifeyd by some humiliation of the body, so that though one may have the inward of the soul, without any outward or exterior in the body, yet one can hever have a true act of exterior, or bodily worship without an interior worship, in the soul, thus the soldiers in the time of our Saviour's passion, though they bended their knees to him, which is one part of exterior worship taken Separately, and absolutely in itself, yet because it was not accompanied with the inward humiliation of the soul, it was no act of worship, but of mockery. I say it follows, that as the outward corporal humiliation is constitured, an act of true worship, by the inward intention of the mind, So are the different kinds of worships distinguished only by the different intentions, and humiliations of the soul; For the very same, external comportment and prostration of the body may be used both when we worship God, an Angel, a Saint, an Apostle, a Bishop, a Priest, a King, a Magistrate, a father, a mother, etc. 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 greek word, is used in these different worships, (the same bowing and kneeling is practised to them all as I have already proved. But though the same external gestures of the body may be used to all, yet they b●ome different kinds of worships, according to the different humiliations, intentions, and acknowledgements, which he who worships desires to exptesse by those outward deportments of the body. Thus if when I kneel I intent to exhibit worship to the Creator and maker of all tkings; that kneeling will be a divine worship proper to God only; If I kneel with intention to acknowledge only some civil dignity, or moral exccllency in the person before whom I keel, it will bc a mere civil worship, but if I kneel before, or to some other thing, or person, with intention to acknowledge in them he worth or dignity, neither infinite nor divine, but finite and createed, neither yet civil, moral, humane, and natural, but christian, spiritual, and supernatural, such a kneeling will neither be an act of divine worship, proper to God only, nor of civil worship, proper to persons or things endued with mere humane, and natural, excellences, but will be an act of supernatural, and religious worship taken in a larger sense, as I shall presently declare. Thus we see that the different intentions of the mind, make the same external, kneel of the body, to be different kinds of worships, by intending there by to acknowledge, a worth in that which is worshipped, divine, Supernatural, or civil; so that all the difficulty in this matter, consists in showing clearly, that there are these three different worths, or excellencies, to be acknowledged and honoured, by an act of worship. Two of these, to wit, divine, and civil excellency, the one found in God alone, the other in the civil Magistrate, all Protestans Acknowledge, the difficulty therefore at the last, comes to make it eleare, that there is also a third worth, and excellency, which is neither infinite, nor increated, nor divine, nor yet humane, or natural, but wholly spiritual, and supernatural, inspired or communicated, above all reach, of natural force and light, from the holy Ghost, and given to men, through the only merits, and by the authority of our Saviour. These heavenly excellencies I find to be of two sorts the one internal, and justifying graces and gifts, or at the least given freely to men, as other supernatural things: the other external powers and authorities: both which I will convince out of holy Scripture, to be such supernatural gifts of God as I have affirmed. S. james, speaking of the internal graces saith thus. 
james 1.17. 1. Ccr. 15. v. 10. john. 15. v. 5. john. 1.10.  Every best and perfect gift is from above, descending from the father of light. And S. Paul by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace was not void in me. and that of our Soviour, without me ye can do nothing. And S. john. So many as received him he gave them the power to become the sons 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 evidently prove, that all true grace, and Sancttitie, is a free gift of God, above the force of man's nature, understanding and will, and this Protestans commonly grant, and no Christian can deny, without falling in to Pelagianisme. Concerning the external authority, dignity, and preeminency of Ecclesiastical people in the true Christian church, they are as evidently 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 Prophets, thirdly Doctors, next miracles, than graces of doing cures, helps, govermen, kinds of tongues. Which he ascribes with many other heavenly gifts, to the holy Ghost, towards the beginning of this chapter, in the words following. And there are divisions of graces, but the same spirit. 
1. Cor. 12.4.5.6.7.9.10.  And there are divisions of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are divisions of works but the same God who works all in all; But to every one is given the manifestation of the spirit to profit. To one by the spirit is given the word of wisdom; but to another the word of knowledge according to the fame spirit: to an an other faith in one spirit: to an other the work of power, to an other Prophecy, to an other discretion of spirits; to an other kinds of tongues, to an other interpretation of speeches. All these, works one an the same spirit dividing to every one as he will. And to the Galathians. 
Gallath. 4.11.12.  And he (that is our Saviour) hath given some to be Apostles, others to be Prophets, others to be Evangelists, but others to be Pastors and Doctors, to the consummation of the Saints, into the work of the ministry to the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all meet in the unity of faith, and the acknowledgement of the soon of God, in a perfect man, in the fullness of the age of Christ, whence it is eleare, that not only in the Apostles time, but through all ages till the end of the world, the dignities in the church were to be gifts of our Saviour, and not conferred by any authority purely humane, and natural. And as those testimonies covince, that both inward holiness, and ecclesiastical dignities are gifts of the holy Ghost, and conferred by the power and Authority, derived from Christ; so lickewise the worth and excellency of the Saints in heaven, are to be accounted the highest and chiefest supernatural gifts, and graces of God. Thus S. Paul. 
Rom. ●. 23.  The grace of God (Protestant's read the gift of God) is eternal life, which all the Saints of heaven enjoy. And S. john. Be faithful until death, 
Reuel. 2.10. Mat. 19.18. 1, Cor. 6.2.3.4.  and I will give the a crown of life. And S. Mat. Ye shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And S. Paul. Know you not that the Saints shall judge the world, if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge of small matters. Know you not that we shall judge the Angels, how much more things of this life. And S. john, brings in the 24. Elders, saying, 
Reu. 5.19▪  thou hast made us a kingdom and Priests and we shall reign upon the earth. whence most clearly appears, that the Saints in heaven have those two highest dignities which are in esteem amongst men, of judges, and Kings of the whole world, which notwithstanding is above the power of all mortal men to confer upon them, and only in the power of God, and therefore these judiciary▪ and Royal powers must be of a higher rank and order, then are any dignities merely civil, humane, and natural. And the like dignities are ascribed in holy writ, to the Angels, for our Saviour calls them holy Angels, 
Luck 9.26. Mare. 8.36. Acts 7.53. Gen, 19.1. Luc. 1·11. 1. Mat. 20.  and so they must have true holiness, wihch is a gift of God above the force of nature. They were the Promulgers of the old law, the Ambassadors of God, in matters of highest concernment, the inflicters of God's punischments, Gen. 19.1. Reu. 15. trough out. The captains & generals of the armies of God. josua 5.14. The Governors & controulers of kingdoms. Dan. 10.12.13.14. The. deviders of the Reprobate, from the elect in the day of judgement. Mat. 13.49. And the Sendres of the wicked in to hell fire. ibidem. with many such like dignities, and preeminences, all great and high in themselves, and above the reach, both of all humane, and Angelical nature, bestowed freely upon them, through the liberality of God. And as this supernatural excellency is found in Saints and Angels, so is it ascribed all so to other things in Scripture, to which God hath freely communicated certain blessings and privileges. Thus we read in josua. Lose the shoes from thy feet, 
josua 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 etc.  for the place where thou standest is holy. And in Exodus. Lose thy shoes from thy feet, sor the place where thou standest is holy ground. Thus the bread of the temple, is called holy bread, and sanctified bread. The Temple is called holy, yea so holy, that our saviour saith, that the temple Sanctisieth the gold, which is in it, and the Altar sanctifieth the gift which is offered upon it Thus the most inward place, of the temple, had no other name, then Sanctam Sanctorum, the holy of holies, that is the most holy place of the whole world. The holiness of these, and the like things, where in soever it consisted, issued not from any civil, or humane power, but was drawn from the power, and authority of God, as author of the true Saving religion of those times. Thus I have made it clear out of Scripture, that there is a worth, a dignity, a power, an excellency, which is merely created, and infinitely inferior, to the attributes, and perfections of God, and yet far excelling all civil, and humane worth, and above the reach, sphere, and force of all civil power and authority. The most clear rule, to the capacity of the vulgar, to distinguish, civil, worths and excellencies, from Spiritual and supernatural, is, that those which are common to the true religion, with all other kinds and professions of men, are only civil and natural, such as are, wit, understanding, knowledge, learning, eloquence, nobility, valour, Government, Magistracy, etc. But those which are proper to the true religion, are Spiritual, and Supernatural, as are, the dignity of a Saint in heaven, of an Angel, a holy man yet living, a Prophet, an Apostle, a Bishop, a Priest, a Godfather, a God mother, etc. And because these and the likc excellencies, are proper to religion, they may in a large sense, be termed religious excellencies, or dignities·s That this may be better understood, the Reader, may take notice, that the word Religion, may either be taken in a strict sense, for the virtue of Religion, as it is distinguished, from othet infused, and supernatural virtues, whereby true worship and honour is given to God: or in a more large and general sense, for the whole profession of those who esteem themselves to have the true saving way of serving God, and attaining Salvation. And this is the more obvious, and vulgar understanding of this word Religion, thus we commonly say the Catholicque Religion, etc. that is their whole belief, and profession. In the first strict and and rigid sense, Religion is taken amongst the School doctors, when they dispute of the nature of infused virtues: and in the like sense it is often taken in the books of Moses, Exod. 12.26.43. Exod. 29.9. Levit. 26.31. n. 19.2. where it is restrained either 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. So that many of an other nation and sect, joined themselves to their Religion and ceremonies. Hester 9.27. Upon all those who would unite themselves to their Religion. Acts 26.3. Saint Paul saith, that before his conversion, He lived a Pharesie according to the most certain sect of his Religion. james e. 2. If any one seem to be religious and bridleth not his tongue, this man's religion is vain. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Religious, pious, according to scapula. Deuou● in the protestant Bibles. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, According to scapula, amongst Ecclesiastical Authores, Religious, Pious, the protestants translate i● Deuou●.  In which texts it is manifest that Religion is taken for the whole belief, and Profession, both of jews and Christians. Hence it follows, that as the word Religion, so the word Religious, derived from it, may be taken in the two fore said different senses; yet I find it usually in Scripture in the second larger acception, where a Religious Person signifies nothing, but a person truly devout, virtuous, and fairhfull. Thus Acts 2.5. But there were dwelling in jerusalem jews Religious men of all nations whieh are under heaven. And Acts 10.2. where it is said of Cornelius, that he was Religious, and fearing God with his whole household, giving many alms to the common people, and all ways praying God. And Acts 13.50. The jews stirred up certain Religious, and honest women, and the chief of the city, etc. And james the 1.26. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Religious in protestant Bibles.  If any man seem to himself to be Religious, not bridling his tongue this man's Religion is vain where Religious, is taken for pious, virtuous etc. For else the ill government of the tongue, would not hinder a true exercise of the virtue of religion, strictly understood as it differs from other theological and moral virtues, as it hinders not the true exercise of faith and hope; as they are particular virtues. This large acception therefore of these words Religion, and Religious, being so clearly delivered in Scripture It will be sufficient for defence of the Catholic Roman faith in this point, to affirm, that when our Doctors say that any thing created may be or is, worshipped with Religious worship, that it is Religious in this large acception found so familiarly in Scripture, that is, virtuous, pious, christian, a worship belonging to our Religion, proper to our Religion, and tending finally to the acknowledgement of God, and our Saviour's honour, as author of our faith and Religion. So that having these references to God's honour, though those Acts of Religious worship tend immediately to the acknowledgement of some created supernaiurall excellence in that which we worship, by them, yet that hinders not their being Religious acts in this larger sense. As appears by these following texts of Scripture; where Moses is commanded to prescribe certain ceremonial rites in Sacrifices, & Holocausts, 
Levit. 7.6.  amongst which one was, that the breast & right Shoulder of that which was offered in sacrifice, should be given to the Priests, as belonging to them by right and ordinance of God, The giving 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 appears by the words. These things God commanded to be given to them (that is to Aaron, and his offspring, as it is in the precedent words,) from the children of Israel, by a perpetual Religion in their generations. Secondly S. james. Pure and undefiled Religion with God, and the father is this, to visit the orphans, 
james 1.17.  and widows in their tribulation, and to keep himself unspotted in this life. where a work of mercy to the poor is called Religion, that is a work proceeding from Religion, and belongrg to Religion, though done to creatures, such as are orphans and wedows.  
All that I have cited out of Scripture in the discovery of this second mistake, will, I hope, have convinced the judicious, and well minded Reader, that there is a Supernatural created excellency, communicated liberally from Allm: God to some creatures, infinitely below the divine, excellency of God, and yet far above all natural and civil worth, which therefore must deserve honour, and worship seeing that natural and civil excellencies, (even according to protestants) though far inferior to them, deserve it. which worship seeing it is done in acknowledgement of the Spiritual and supernatural dignities, which are only proper to God's true religion, and so are religious excellencies, may be rightly termed a religious worship in the fore named sense: For seeing the humble acknowledgement of divine perfections, is deservedly termed divine worship, and of civil, perfections, rightly styled, civil worship so the humble acknowledgement of religious perfections, for the like reason, is to be named Religious worship. which will yet seem less strange, to an indifferent eye if one consider, that the some different degrees may be found in Acts of other virtues, which are here found in worships. I have already proved from Scripture that there are different kinds and degrees of fears, and loves. whence it follows, that when one fears the justice and wrath of some civil Prince, or magistrate, it may be called civil fear, but when one fears the justice and authority of an Apostle, a Prophet, etc. whose power is drawn from Religion, it may be named a Religious sear. 
Gen. 3.10.  Thus the fear of Adam, hiding himself from God, was a divine fear. 
1. Kings 1, Acts▪ Acts 5, ●▪  The fear of Adonias flying from king Solomon, was a civil fear: but the fear of the Primitive Christians of S. Peter, when Ananias fell down dead at his feet, was a Religious fear. And the same distinction is in different ordres of love. S. Peter loved our Saviour as his God and Redcemer, with divine love. I'fack loved Esau, with a civil love; 
john. 21. ●7. Gen. 25.28. Acts 20, 37.  but the Primitive Christians loved S. Paul, with a Religious love. And in the same manner, as I have already Proved, Moses worshipped the infinite majesty of God, with a divine worship, the children of jacob worshipped the power and excellency of joseph, with a civil worship, but the Sunamite worshipped Elizeus, and the captain of fifty men, Elias, (whose authorities were derived, known, and acknowledged only from faith, and Religion) with Religious worship.  
And the giving such a Religious worship as this, which I have described to a creature is so 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 injury to God, And horrid Sacrilege, to affirm that he is to be worshipped, with any such worship for that were to acknowledge in him only a created, finite, & imperfect excellency, which were to make him an Idol, & a false God. Neither can his honour be any thing diminished by exhibiting this kind of Religious worship, to a creature endued with spiritual graces, for his honour cannot be injured, but by giving to a creature the wotship proper, and due to him only, seeing therefore this is no worship due to him neither only nor at all, it cannot be any way a prejudice to his honour. For as civil and religious fear, and love commanded to be given to creatures, is no way preiudicious to the divine fear and love which we-owe to God; So neither can civil, nor religious worship commanded to be exhibited to creatures, (as I have proved) be preiudicious to the highest divine worship which we owe to God. And thus much Allm: God seems to say by his Ptophet Isay. 
Isay 42.8.  I am the Lord this is my name, I will not give my glory to any other, nor my praise to Idols. where he saith not, I will not give 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 give my glory to an other, that is that infinite glory which properly belongs to God only, which is specified in the precedent words, I am the Lord, this in my name, so that God will never give that which is his proper name and title, to be Lord of all things, to an other; which is yet more expressly set down, by the same Prophet, And I will not give my glory to an other: hear oh jacob and Israel whom I call. ay, 
Isay 48. 11.12.1●.  I myself am the firrst, and I am the last. And my hand also laid the foundarions of the earth, and my right hand measured the heavens, etc. This is that glory proper to him alone, of being the eternal God, creator of heaven and earth, which he will not give to an other: which so long as he keeps inviolable to himself, all under glories limited and created, which are like so many little motes compared with the infinite extent, and light of his glory, he both liberally gives himself, and wills they should respectively be given to his creatures. If not withstanding all these evidences both of Scripture and Reason, any one should remain so strangely wilful, and immovable, by force of education, and continual custom from his infancy, as to deny all kind of Religious worship in how large a sense soever it be taken, to be lawfully exhibited to any save God alone. I say if any such should be found; so long as he yields to the thing itself, that is, to exhibit reverence, and worship to persons, and things in acknowledgement of the supernatural, and free gifts, graces, and blessings of God, where with they are enriched. (as I have showed many holy persons mentioned in the Scriptures, have done) let him call that worship supernatural, or christian, or pious, or an exterordinary rank of civil worship, I shall not much contend about the name, when the thing is done. For what soever he call it, it is, and cannot but be, a Religious worship in itself, at least in that large sense, so clearly drawn from the Seriptures. And Thus much of the discovery & redress of the second mistake.   

THE THIRD MISTAKE. The word serve in Mat. 4.10. is misunderstood.  
THe opponent endeavouring to prove that God, only is to be worshipped, and therefore neither S. nor Angel, from the text of Mat. 4.10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Seeing there is no proof in the former part of the text, as I have showed, must have recourse to the latter, and him only shalt thou Serve, and that this clause may have any appearance of force it must suppose, that the word Serve here used, signifies all kind of Service; So that these words, and him only shalt thou Serve, must signify thus much that no service must be done but to God alone. which must needs be a very gross mistake, for the word Service taken in this general sense, plainly contradicts the Precept of S. Paul. 
Ephes. 6.7.  Obey your temporal Lords, etc. Serving them with a good will, as to our Lord, and not to men. And that Prophesy in Genesis of jacob, and Esau. 
Gen· 25.21. Rom. 9▪ 12.  The greater shall serve the Less. So that it is manifest, that not God only is to be served. Whence may briefly be noted, that before one cite any text of Scripture, for the proof of any thing, one must first consider, whether the sense in which that text must be taken to be of force to prove what we intent, contradict not other plain places of Scripture, as this does, which if it do, we must seek some other proof, for that will not be a proof, but a mistake. But the mistake in this place of Mat. 4.10. proceeds not only from want of reflection upon other places of Scripture, but from want of knowledge of the greek word used here by the Evangelist. For though both in English, Latin and Hehrew, there be only one word to signify the serving of God, and creatures. Yet in the greek there is a proper word, which signifies only the service, of God, or proper to him alone, and is never used for the religious service done to any creature, as a creature, but as esteemed by those, who exhibit that service to be a God. This word in greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, latrevin, used by the holy Ghost in this place, Mat. 4 10. to signify serve. That this may be understood, the Reader may please to note, that many words have two kinds of significations, the one by force of their first institution, which they anciently had, and have amongst heathen Authors, the other by use and application, to some one particular Sense, by virtue of common use and custom, which hath in process of time obtained force, to limit them to that particular Sense. Thus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tyrannos, amongst the ancient greeks first signified a king, and was taken in a good Sense, but amongst later Authors, and now universally it signifies a Tyrant, or cruel, and unjust oppresser, of such as are under him.  
And as the unanimous consent of approved Authors, and common wealths, hath a power to give a new signification to words, or rather to limit or restrain the old, to some determinate part of what they signified, by force of their first institution, so hath allsoe the universal consent of ecclesiastical approved Authors, and the common voice of Christendom, the like power, so to alter the ancient signification of some words, that it determines the indifferency, and universality of their original Signification to some one part or member of it, when they apply it to express something in Christian Religion. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Baptismus, which anciently signified any kind of washing amongst ecclesiastical, and Christian Authors, is taken for a Sacrament, known by that name. Thus Evangelist, which originally signifeyed any one who told good tidings, signifies a writer or promulger of the Gospel. In the like manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signified amongst the ancient infidels, any kind of service, amongst Ecclesiastical Authors, signifies only that kind of Religious service, which is done to God. So that it hath two significations, the one moral, the other Ecclesiastical, as Scapula a Protestant author, of our nation acknowledges in his Lexicon both of this, and the former, and many other words, granting that according to the Sense, which it hath amongst Ecclesiastical authors, and in the new Testament, it signifies a Religious worship only, and in proof of this, citys the epistle to the Hebrews, where being put absolutely it signifi●es the worship of God. This double signification supposed, 
Hebr. 9.9.  I urge further that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Latrevin, in the Scripture, signifies that Religious worship only which is exhibited to God, or divine worship, and is never used through the whole Scripture, for a religious Service done to any creature, as to a creature, I have bestowed some day's study, to examine this matter, and having searched all the places of Sctipture where this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, I never found it signify any religious sesuice save divine, and I Provocke any Protestant author to prove the contrary.  
True it is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doulevin, is indifferently used very commonly in both Testaments, to signify the religious serving of God, or creatutes; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latrevin, never but for serving, either 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 proof which he brings for it out of the epistle to the Hebrews convinces that being absolutely put, that is alone without any oblique case, it signify, as he acknowledges, the Service done to God only. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, perfectum facere seruientem, 
Heb. 9.9.  that could not make him that did the service perfect. And he might alsoe have cited the same word put absolutely, and signifying only the service of God, 
Luc. 2.37.  in S. Luke, where he saith Anna the Prophetess was night and day in the Temple. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, serving, that is doing service to God. This text, Luke the 2.37. The Protestant bible of 1589. with Fulks commentary translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Serued God. And Heb. 9.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, servings of God, and the later Bible's translate it, divine service. whence it appears that the absolute significarion of this word, is the service of God, or divine service. In the like manner I find it, Acts 7.7. Rom. 1.9. and Reuel. 22. taken for the service of the true God, and for the service of Idols, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Latrevo, signify no other Religious Service, save that which is due to God, through the whole Scripture, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doulevo, signify in hundreds of places, as well that which is due to God, as to creatures, hence the service done to finite 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 service of false Gods or Idols, is never called either in Scripture, nor in approved Ecclesiastical Authors, Noah nor by Protestants themselves, Idolodoulia, but Idololatria, Idolatry because it gives to them divine service due to God only, being derived from Larria, which signifies no other Religious service save divine. Seeing therefore no Roman Catholic teaches, that divine service due to God only is to be given to any creature, but the quite contrary they hold nothing against this text of S. Mat. 4.10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is with the service of Latria, or highest degree of Service, which (as I have demonstrated) by Scripture is due to God only.  
Thus have I discovered three plain mistakes in these few words of Mat. 4.10. to prove that God only is to be worshipped, where in I have been forced to be more large, than I wished, because upon what I have here delivered, depends the clearing of the ensuing controversies, in this matter of worship.    

The second Protestant Position, Forbidden the worship of Angels. This is proved by Scripture mistaken.  
I john saw all these things and heard them, and when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship, before the feet of the Angel, 
Revel. 22. ●. 8.9.  which showed me these things: then said he unto me, see thou do it not, for I am thy fellow servant, worship God.  

The first mistake. This text is made contrary to other plain texts of Scripturc, allowing the worshp of Angels.  

Gen. 19.7.1.  ANd two Angels came into Sodom at ninght, Lot sitting at the gates of the city: who, when he had seen them, rose and went to meet them, and he adored prostrate upon the ground, etc. which worship the Angels accepted, no way reprehending Lot, or forbidding him, as appears in the text. And when josua was in the field of Hierico, 
josua 5. v. 14.  he lift up his eyes, and saw a man standing against him, holding a naked sword: and he went unto him and said, art thou ours, or our adversary's? who answered, no; but I am a prince of the army of our Lord, and and now I come: josua fell grovelling upon the ground and adoring said, wy doth my Lord speak unto his servant? etc. where it appears that this Angel was a creature, and not God, for he is called a prince, That is one of the Princes of God's army.   

The second mistake.  
THis text of S. john proves no more that all worship of Angels is forbidden, than an other of S. Luke that the worship of Saints yet living is forbidden.  
As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at is feet and worshipped him. 
Act. 10. v. 25.26.  But Peter took him up saying, stand up, I myself alsoe am a man. And yet it is clear out of Scripture, that holy men yet living are to be worshipped, and have accepted of the worship, of others. 
2. Kings 4. v. 37.  Again he sent a third captain 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 lives of thy servants that are with me, etc. She (that is, the Sunamite) fell at his feet, and adored upon the groond. where we see that the Prophet Eliseus was worshipped and he refused it not. 
4. Kings 4. v. 37.  And it is the common practice of Protestants in Engeland to kneel down and ask blessing of their Godfathers and Godmothers, desiring them to pray for them to God; which is a true worship, and yet it is no civil worship, because the reason why they do it, belongs 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 weary same with that worship, which by Romain Catholics is given to Saints and Angels, as creatures, belonging to faith, and Religion.   

The third mistake.  
ONe may prove as well, that it is unlawful to weep, as ro worship Angels, because an Angel forbade S. john to weep.  
And I wept much because no man was found-worthy to open and to read the book, 
Reu. 5.4.5.  neither to look therein, And one of the Elders said unto me weep not. And yet certainly it is lawful to weep, for if it wear not, neither our Saviour would have wept over Jerusalem, 
Luc. 23.28  nor commanded the women of Jerusalem, to weep over themselves, etc.  

The text of S. john, Reuel. 22. v. 8. v. 8. ad 9 reconciled with the other texts of Scripture.  
IF any one would prove out of the 10. of the Acts, v. 25. and 26. now cited, that no Apostle, or saint yet living, were to be worshipped, because S. Peter refused the worship which Cornelius exhibited to him, I demand, what would a Protestant answer to such an objection. Either he must say that S. Peter refused this worshep (though he might lawfully have accepted it. as being due, no less than the like worship was accepted by Elias, and Eliseus) that S. Peter, I say notwithstanding, Refused it out of humility and respect, which he bore to Cornelius: and this supposed, Protestants must give us leave to apply (with the greatest part of the ancient Fathers and Doctors) the same answer to S. John's worshipping the Angel, and his refusing it; for some worship was no less due to this Angel than it was to the two Angels, which Let worshipped. Gen. 19 v. 1. and the Angel which josua worshipped, josua 5. v. 14. now cited: and yet this Angel refused it out of humility and respect, which he bore to S. john, as S. Peter did, Acts 10. v. 25. and 26. or if this answer seem, not so convenient to this plare of the Acts, a Protestant must answer, that Cornelius here gave him the worship which was due to God only, that is, the highest divine worship, which he therefore refused ' as injurious to God no otherwise then then S. Paul and Barnabas with all earnestness possible, 
Act. 14. v. 10.11.12.13.14.  refused the saerifice which the heathen Priest of Lystra would have offered to them, as to two Gods, jupiter and Mercurius, whom they took them to be. And if they like of this answer, they will give us alsoe leave to apply the same to the passage of S. john. Reu. 22. v. 8.9. not that S. john committed any Idolatry or false worship, willingly and sinfully, but that the Angel upon good ground either thought, or at least feared, that S. john took him to be our Saviour, & so gave him presently the worship due to the Divine Person which he thought him to be: for though it be wholly improbable, that Cornelius gave divine worship to S. Peter Act. 10. because he was no heathen, but a true believer, and so knew that divine honour, was to be given to God only; and religious and fearing God, as appears, v. 11. and so was far from committing Idolatry, and knew well enough that S. Peter was a man, v. 5. and the 6. and so could not suppose him, out of ignoranee to be God, and though it seem as improbable, that S. Peter conceived that Cornelius intended to worship him with divine honour, seeing he was sufficiently informed, that he was a true believer, and Professor of the law of Moses, v. 22. yet many ancient fathers teach that S. john did really think that this Angel which appeared to him, was not an Angel, but our Saviour, or at least it was very incident to the Angel, to conceive or fear (being ignorant of S. john's intention) that he took him to be our Saviuor, because the Angel said in the precedent verse behold I come quickly, which was the usual phrase & speech which our Saviour used to S. john 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 have been pronounced, either by our Saviour himself, or by an Angel in his place, and speaking in his name, because these words, I come quickly (as is clear in all the afore cited places, and particularly chap. 22. v. 12. presently following) can neither be meant nor verified of any one but of our Saviour: and this to have been the opinion of S. john, by reason of those next precedent words, Behold I come quickly, may have some ground in the text itself here cited by the opponent, And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship, etc. for the seeing of those strange visions, and hearing those precedent words. Behold I come quickly. So proper to out Saviour, gave this occasion to worship the Angel, as taking him to be our Saviour: and therefore the Angel presently disabused him, and let him understand that he was not our Saviour, but a creature and servant of God, as appears in this text objected v. 8. and 9 if it should be objected that c. 21. v. 9 S. john affirms, that this very Angel which he worshipped was one of the seven Angels, who carried the viols filled with the last plagues, and therefore could not think that it was our Saviour. I answer that though in the beginning and continuance of this vision he seemed to him to be an Angel, yet when he heard him pronounce words proper to our Saviour, he might have sufficient reason to think that his former apprehension was amiss, and that whatsoever he seemed before, yet it was our Saviour appearing under the form of that Angel. If it be further objected that S. john writes expressly that it was one of the Seven Angels, which appeared to him, and therefore could not after doubt of it, it may be answered that when the Euangclist writ this he was wholly assured that it was an Angel, because the Angel had, before this was written, determinaetly assured him, that he was not our Saviuor; yet whilst the vision happened, before it was either written, or the Angel had rectified the judgement of S. john, he had ground enough to think it was our Saviour, when he heard those words proceed from him, behold I come speedily. Neither is it any wonder that S. john was ignorant of some things, concerning the visions which appeared to him. For he thought that none could be found worthy to open the seven seals and therefore wept, and was as much forbidden to weep by the Angel, c. 5. v. 4. as to worship, c. 19 v. 10. He aeknowledges alsoe that he knew not who they wear who appeared in white Stoles. c. 7. v. 13.  
Though these answers may satisfy all that is opposed against them, yet because the matter is in itself obscure, and leaves a probability on both sides, I rather stick to the other answer that though S. john knew it was no more than an Angel, yet the Angel refused the worship he gave him, at S. Peter did that of Cornelius. And yet whatsoever may be thought of these two answers, that which is most clear and unquestionable is a third answers. That though S. john knew that he who speak to him was an Angel, and not our Saviour, and so gave him, the worship only due to an Angel, yet the Angel being ignorant of S. john's intention, might diseruedly fear, or conceive, that he took him to be our Saviour, and so gave him divine worship, and therefore, he presently dissabused him, telling him that he was one of his fellow servants, etc. And each of these answers may be equally applied 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 said that he refused this worship though in itself lawful, as S. Peter did that of Cornelius: or that he supposed him to be our Saviour, (and so gave him divine honour which was no way due to him) because he there used the phrase of our Saviour, when he said scribe, write, as appears in the three first chapters, and chap. 14. v. 13.14.15. neither can it be clearly proved that any one commanded S. john to write, saying to him, Scribe, write, but our Saviour, save only in this place, through the whole Revelation; and than it was spoken in the name and person of Christ by the Angel; so that S. john had great reason to think that it was the voice of our Saviour, and therefore gave him the honour due to our Saviour, till he was better informed: or according to the third, and clearest answer, the Angel had reason to think, that S. john worshipped him, (when he heard him use that phrase of our Saviour) with divine worship, as taking him to be our Saviour, though S. john, knew that he was but an Angel, and so gave him only the worship which was due to an Angel. And thus much for the text of S. john.   

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 Angels, 
Coloss. 2. v. 18.  intruding into those things, which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up in his fleshly mind.  

The First mistake. The worshipping of Angels missapplyed.  
I Answer, that this text speaks of a worshipping of Angels, whereby they are made equal to Christ, or that Christ is depending of them, which contains plain Infidelity, and blasphemy against our Saviour. Now that this is so, appears evidently, first out of the text itself if it had been wholly cited; for it follows immediately v. 18. in your own Bible, and not holding the head by which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Which is nothing but so to worship Angels, that they deny the sovereignty of Christ, and acknowledge him not to be the chief nourishing head of the church; which all Roman Catholics condemn as mainly injurious to Christ, and destructive of the church, because it takes a way his divinity, and exhibites worship to the Angels, not as Christ servants, and vassals infinitely inferior to him, and on whom he hath no dependence at all, but as to his equals, or Superiors.  
But Roman Catholics not denying Christ's absolute sovereignty and Divinity, but most constantly believing it, even whilst they worship Angels as his servants, do not any thing against this text of S. Paul. Coloss. 2. v. 18. and 19 wherein is forbidden only such a worship of them as destroys the belief that he is the Sovereign head of his church, worshipping of Angels, etc. v. 18. not holding the head, etc. v. 19   

The Second mistaken. The greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mistranslated.  
SEcondly, that not all honour and worship of Angels is forbidden in this text, but only such as destroys the Sovereignty and Divinity of Christ, may be gathered out of the greek word here used 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 Angels; which intimates thus much, that those against whom the Apostle here writes, did compose out of their own heads, a religion of Angels, whom they had never seen, nor did they understand, as the Apostle signifies in these words v. 18. intruding into those things which they have not seen; and feigning unto themselves certain subordinations and dependences amongst the Angels, and making our Saviour, a mere Angel as the rest, and not God. And so framing their whole faith and religion in Angels, that it might justly be termed by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, threskeia ton Angelon, the religion of Angels. 
Col. 2. v. 18.  And had your Protestant translations been so punctual and faithful in giving the full signification of the greek text as you imagine, they should rather have translated the greek word Threskeia (according to the prime and first signification) religion, then according to a secondary signification, worshipping: but they chose this rather than the former because it sounds in the ears of the unlearned, more against the doctrine an practice of the Roman Church, who are carried away much more by the words then the sense of Scripture, which the unlearned and unstable pervert to their own 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 greek or hebrew words have different significations, always to put that which makes most against us, leaving the rest; which notwithstanding they put when the other serve their turns better against us, though the greek 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 us, yet james 1. v. 26. and 27. they translate the very same word threskeia here used, religion, not worshipping, or worship: this man's religion is vain v. 26. pure religion etc. v. 27. because there it was no advantage. for them, nor disadvantage to us, to translate it Religion: but howsoever when such texts as these are used against us, Protestants must not think that we are bound to stand to their translation which we allow not of, but to the hebrew, greek, or Latin, (with proportion:) and so when the words in those languages have different significations, we are not bound to answer to the text as it stands in their new translations, but have freedom to take the word in some other signification, especially when antiquity hath so translated and onderstood it: & therefore I answer here that the greek word having different significations, it is not the worshipping▪ but the religion of Angels, which is here forbidden; for so the vulgar translation hath it, which is ancient about twelve hundred years: and how can any Protestant, though learned, ever convince out of Scripture, that the word threskeia, is rather to be translated worshipping, than religion? seeing the greek word signifies both, and the scope and context of the Apostle rather agrees with religion then worshipping; nay how shall the poor unlearned readers be certain that their translation is the word of God, and the true and only signification of the word in the original in that place, when the original word hath sundry significations? and further, how shall they not have cause to doubt of, and call in question the whole translation of the bible? seeing they know not when the words in the original have different significations, or only one, and so may doubt weather 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 controversy, where their Translatours use to take all advantages against us, as I have showed: And yet neither of those two inconveniences touch Roman Catholics, because their translation is commended and approved by the holy church, which thy beleeue cannot err in her definitions in points of faith; and so rest assured that their translation delivereth the true signification of the words meant by the holy Ghost in each particular place, though the words in themselves be indifferent to many significations in the original.  
Now it appears evidently, that S. Paul speaks of a Religion (or as the Protestants will have it, a worshipping) of Angels, which makes them equal to Christ, or Christ dependant of them, because the stream of holy ancient fathers affirm that the Apostle wrote here against Simon Magus, 
a Menander, Saturninus, Cethiani, Caiani.  and other Arch-heretikes in the Apostles time▪ who coined these errors of the Angels, forging certain subordinations, dependences, and preeminencyes amongst them, that our Saviour was one of them, & (as some 
b Cerinthiani.  thought) subject to them. The ancient Fathers, who affirm that the above said heretics held these errors about the Angels, are Clemens Romanus, who lived in the time of the Apostles, lib. 6. Constitut. c. 10. S. Ireneus, who lived in the next age after the Apostles, lib. 2. against hereseys etc. S. Epiphanius, who flourished about 300. years after Christ, in his Catalogue os heresies, speaking of Simon Magus and the rest: and Theodoret, who wrote about 400. years after our Saviour, witnesses that the holy Apostle S. Paul in this place writes, against these heretics: S. Epiphanius alsoe witnesses that Simon Mahus excluded our Saviour from the office of mediator, and put the Angels in his place, as the Apostle seems here to say.   

The Third mistake. This text is made contrary to other texts of Scripture.  
THirdly, the Religion, or worship of Angels here forbidden, cannot be all kind 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. josua 5. v. 14. where Angels were lawfully worshipped: and so this place cannot conclude any thing against us: for if some worship may be lawfully given to Angels notwithstanding this place, it can never be proved from hence, that the worship we give them is forbidden, unless it be first proved to be unlawful, which can never be deduced from this general prohibition.  
And if any one should object here that seeing this word threskeia signify religion and worship, thence may be gathered, that all worship appertaining to Religion, or all religius worship is forbidden, to be given to Angels. I answer, that if we take religion and religious worship as it is strictly and presly taken amongst the Doctors in its prime and formal acception, for a virtue whereby due honour is given immediately to God; it is true that all such religion or religious worship is there forbidden to be given to Angels: and in this sense no Catholic teaches that religious worship is to be given to Angels, or any creature, but only to the creator of all things, because he only it true God: but if by religion or religious worship be understood in a larger sense, a virtue or reverence belonging to religion, and exceeding the bounds of nature and civil worship; then religious worship to Angels is not forbidden in this place. Now that religion may be taken in this larger sense, is clear as I have already showed out of S. james now cited chap 1. v. 26. and 27. If any man amongst you seem to be religiows, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own hart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the father, is to visit the fatherless, and widows, in their afflictions, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.  
Where we 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 works of piety and mercy are called religion, or religious actions here by S. james. And thus much for the second place.    

We are commanded to pray unto God: therefore no presumption but a bounden duty. Proofs out of Scripture mistaken.  
Come unto me all ye that labour, 
Matth. 11.2.28.  and are heavy loaden, and I will give you rest.  
When you pray, say our father which art in heaven. And what soever ye shall ask the father in my name, 
Luke 11. v. 2. john ●6. v. 23. Luke 11. v. 9  he will give it you.  
Ask and ye shall have: seek and ye shall find knock and it shall be opened unto you.  
If the opponent mean here that we are to pray to God without all presumption of ourselves, or our own works (for the words are obscure) we most willingly admit this whole objection, and all the proofs of it, as most consonant with the doctrine of the Roman Church, and only against Pelagian and Semipelagian Heretics:  
For she teacheth that the good works of God's children are truly good, and pleasing to God, and meritorious of the increase of grace and eternal glory, 
Concil. Trid. sess. can. 1.2.3▪  yet she teaches also that all good works are the free gifts of God, proceeding from his grace, and not to be ascribed to any natural force of ours left to itself, which is not able to do any thing at all pleasing to Almighty God; and so we cannot glory in ourselves, but in God only, as S. Paul teacheth us: Again she teacheth, that though the good works 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 revelation) infallibly assured that he is the child of God, or that he ever did any one work truly good and pleasing to God; and so lives and dies wholly relying upon the mercies of God, and merits of our dear Saviour's bitter death and Passion, of which he is assured by a firm and steadfast hope, not presumptuously relying upon his own works, whereof he hath no sufficient assurance whereon to found his salvation: and so he is kept in a most humble and low esteem of himself, and all he ever did through his whole life: for it is not the believing that good works where thy are, are meritorious, but the believing that we have such meritorious works, which can give any show of reason to rely upon them: (I say beleuing with an infallible faith which Reformers teach) for we may and aught to have a steadfast hope that through the grace of Christ, we have done some good works and meritorious) as it is not the assurance that the abundance of money and gold, where it is, is able to purchase great possessions, but the assurance that one hath such an abundance of gold, which makes one confide that he is able to compass such a purchase: and yet, though a just man should infallibly know that he had done works truly pleasing to God, he would not be presumptuous, because he knows they proceed from the grace of God. If therefore this be all that is intended by this objection, that we are commanded to pray to God without all presumption, and upon bounden duty, we have nothing against it: but if hereby be intended, that we are commanded to pray to God upon bound duty, and therefore it is no presumption to pray to him, yet so that we are to pray to him alone, (as the ensuing, objections and proofs seem to insinuate) than we give our reasons for the contrary, in the ensuing answer: which will be alsoe common to this: only à word or two unto these four places cited for proof of this difficulty thus understood.   

The text of Mat. 11. v. 28. mistaken. Come unro me all ye that labour, 
Matth. 11. v. 28.  and are heavy loaden, and I will give you rest.  
THis text is in the mouth of every ignorant Protestant, to prove that we are neither to pray to saint nor Angel, but to Christ alone. Come unto me, saith our Saviour: he bids us not come unto Saints, ot Angels, say some illiterate Scripturistes: therefore we must neither come to Saints nor Angels according to our Saviour's command. But how far this discourse is from common sense, every understanding person will easily discover: for, to say that our Saviour bids us not here come to Saints or Angels expressly, is most true: but that shows only that coming to Saints or Angels 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 either in some other place of Scripture, or by other lawful authority commended in Scripture, it may be either commanded, or allowed: as if one should argue against Protestants even out of this place in this manner: our Saviour says Matth 11. v. 28. Come unto me all ye that labour etc. He says not here address your prayers expressly, and by name to God the Father, or the oly Ghost, by saying our Father which art in heaven etc. or come holy Ghost eternal God etc. but come unto me, therefore it is unlawful to utter such particular prayers to God the Father or the holy Ghost, expressing them by name, but all must be made to our Saviour only. who sees not how false and senseless this reasoning is? for though our express coming to God the Father and the holy Ghost be not commanded here, yet neither is it forbidden, and is commanded in other places, and practised by the whole church of God, yea and by the Protestants themselves.  
Others urge the Same text in this manner, Come unto me, saith our Saviour, Therefore to me alone and to no other, and so neither to Saint nor Angel; which hath as much force as this; Come unto me, saith our Saviour: therefore go not by name to any other divine person but to me, and so neither to God the Father, nor to God the holy Ghost expressly, who are two distinct Persons from him: or as forcible as this, come unto me all ye that are poor and needy, and I will relieve you, saith some rich charitable person, to the poor of the city where he dwells▪ therefore he commands them to come to no other but to him, and forbids them the ask alms of any ●aue himself. Or very like to this. Come unto me etc. saith our Saviour: therefore to no other but to him; and so forbids children to pray to their Parents, or to beseech other Christians yet living to pray for them etc. which notwithstanding Protestants daily practice: for if our Saviour's meaning be to exclude all save himself, when he said, come unto me etc. than the living must be excluded no less, than the Saints and Angels of heaven: and if the Saints yet living be not excluded, than our Saviour did not intend by those words to exclude all, and if not all, than it can never be prowed from this text alone, that the coming, as we do, to Saints and Angels is forbidden in this text.  
I answer therefore, that though our Saviour in these words command all sinners to come unto him; yet he commands them not to come unto him only; and so forbids not the coming unto 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 Catholics come by prayer unto any Saint or Angel, they still perform, what our Saviour here commands of coming to him: for we come by their intercession mediately unto him, when we beg of them to pray to him for us, no less than Protestants children come mediately unto him by the intercession of their parents when they desire them to pray to God to bless them: and as the Centurion who by one Evangelist is said to have gone to our Saviour; 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 speak to our Saviour for him; which was to come mediately, or by their means to him: especially seeing that when we pray to any Saint, or Angel, 
Concil. Trid. sess. 14.  we desire that all their prayers for us may be heard through the merits of Christ.   

The text of S. Luke mistaken. When you pray, say, our Father which art in heaven. 
Luk. 11.   
THis text if it were only cited to prove, that we ought to pray to God in this form, is not against us, but against those Novellists who disallow of it. If to prove that we are to pray in no other words nor form suave this; It concludes as much against Protestants, who use other forms, as against us: if to prove that we are only to pray to God the father, it contradicts the former of coming to God the Sun; and if to pray to God only and not to Saints, or Angels; it proves as well that one Christian living may not pray to another. So that Protestants must confess it proves either too much, or nothing. In a word, all that can be drawn from it, is, that it teaches an excellent form of praying to God, as appears by the Apostles demand, Lord teach us to pray, and the scope of our Saviour's doctrine, against the hypocrisy of the jews. Matth. 6. v. 7.   

The text of S. john mistaken. Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. 
john. 16. v. 23.   
THis is the constant and universal doctrine, and practise of the Church of Rome: for whether we pray to any Person of the Blessed Trinity, or to any Saint, or Angel, or to Father or Mother, 
Concil. Trid. sess. 24. Decret. de Inuoc▪ etc. suprà cit.  or any Christian yet living, we beg all Per Dominum nostrum jesum Christum etc. through our Lord jesus Christ, or in his name, knowing that nothing is to be demanded or granted in heaven or in earth but for his sake. which I repeat often. because it imports much.   

An other text of S. Luke mistaken. Ask and ye shall have, seek and ye shall find knock, 
Luke 11. v. 9  and it shall be opened unto you.  
THis text hath not so much as any show of proof against us: for we daily ask, and seek, and knock with full hope of what is here promised.     

The third Protestant Position.  
Christ our Saviour only mediator, our Advocate and intercessor. how dare we admit of any other?  
This is proved by Scripture mistaken.  
For there is one God, and one mediator betwixt God and man, the man Christ jesus. 
1, Tim▪ 15.   

The first Proof mistaken. The word mediator, misapplyed against us.  
THis text speaks of a mediator of redemption only as appears by the words following v. 6. One mediator etc. who gave himself a ransom for all, 
Concil. Trid. sess. 24. cit.  which all Roman Catholics grant to be but only one, to wit, our Saviour. If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, jesus 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 died, yea rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.   

The second Proof mistaken. The w●rd Advocate misunderstood and misapplyed.  
IN this whole text, is not found that Christ only makes intercession for us; or, that he only is our advocate, (which is to be proved) all that is said here, is, that we have an Advocate with the Father, Christ jesus &c, and who also waketh intercession for us; which hinders not but that there may be other advocates, and others who make intercession for us, in an inferior kind; besides, this text, (as the former) speaks only of an advocate, and intercessor, of redemption for sins, as appears by those words, If any man sin, we have an advocate etc. and, he is the propitiation for our sins, and, it is Christ that died &c. which we grant must be only one Thirdly, th●●e two texts speak of an advocate and intercessor worthy to be heard for himself and his own merits; which is our Saviour only, 
Concil. Trid. sess. 2. Decreto de Innoc. etc.  not of other inferior intercessors and advocates, who are not worthy to be heard for themserues, or by virtue of any merits proceeding from themselves, considered according to their own natural forces, or dignities, but have only access through the dignity & merits of Christ. This appears by the words now cited, that they speak of an advocate: worthy to be heard for himself. 1. Timoth. 2. v. 6. Who gave himself a ransom for all. 1. joannis 2. v. 1.2. He is the propitiation for our sins, it is Christ that died: so that if in the title of this objection, when it is said, Christ our only media●uor, our advocate, and intercessor, how dare we admit of any other? be meant, how dare we admit of any other mediator, advocate, or intercessor of redemption, and propitiation for our sins, and who is worthy to be heard for his own dignity and merits, all Roman Catholics unanimously grant that we dare not admit of any other save Christ: but if by the same words, be meant, how dare we admit of any other mediatuor, advocate, or intercessor, not of Redemption, but merely of praying to Almighty God for us as his servants, and our friends and fellow servants, and that to be heard not for themselves, but for Christ; we may return the same question upon Protestans, and demand of them, how dare they permit their children every night to kneel down and beg of their parents, that they will pray to God to bless them: for what is this but to be a mediator, advocate, and intercessor, betwixt God and them, not of propitiation, or redemption, but of praying to God for them through the metits of Christ? The same practice amongst Protestants is, of grandchildren, nephews, god-childrens etc. nay of all generally amongst them, commending themselves to the prayers of others. So that it is evident, that such advocates as these, even according to Protestants are not to be excluded by virtue of these texts, unless they will condemn themselves. And this is the very same intercession that we put amongst the Saints and Angels in heaven; because both the one and the other pray to God for us through the merits of Christ; 
Concil. Trid. cit.  neither imports it for our present question of one sole advocate, etc. that those to whom we pray, be in this world or in heaven: for if there be but only one, then no less those others on earth, than those in heaven, are excluded: or if the intercession for us upon earth be not excluded by force of this text, than Protestants must confess that they themselves must acknowledge Christ, not so to be our mediator, advocate, and intercessor, but that they dare, and do admit of others, and so are faulty themselves in what they aecuse us: or if they acknowledge no fault in this, as indeed there is none, than they must cease to accuse us, and use the same distinction and explications of the texts, here cited in the objection, with us; to wit, that they admit only one mediator, or intercessor, and advocate of Redemption and Salvation, where of the texts speak, but more than one, of praying unto Almighty God with us, and for us by way of charity, and society, 
Contra Fanstum Manicheum l. 22, c. 21▪  (as S. Augustine says) whereof the texts do not speak: or thus, that there is but one only intercessor which is worthy to be heard for his own dignity and merits; but more than one, who are made worthy by the merits of Christ, who is that only independent mediator, and all others depending of him, and his merits. Besides these are mediators, and intercessors to Christ as he is both God and man, for us, which Christ cannot be to himself, for à mediator must be betwixt two, as S. Paul saith. 
Gal. 3.20.    

The Third mistake. It hath been always the practice of God's Saints in their troubles, and at all times, to call upon him.  
When I was in trouble, I called upon the Lord, 
Psal. 119.1  and he heard me.  
Moses, and Aaron, and Samuel, 
Psal. 98.6▪  these called upon the Lord, and he heard them.  
And in the night Paul and Silas being in Prison, prayed, and sung praise to God; 
Acts 16. v. 25.  so that the prisoners heard them.   

The third proof mistaken. These texts are cited to no purpose.  
We grant all this as nothing at all against our doctrine or practice; for who can deny that we both teach, and use to pray to God in all occasions, and in all our tribulations. But if it be intended that these texts, prove that we are at all times to pray to God, and so at no time to any creature, to pray to God through Christ for us, it is a pure mistake, for the texts say no such matter.   

The fourth mistake.  
BY all this is plain, 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 God's word.  

This mistake discovered.  
No such mater can be draun, from the texts cited, for by all that I have answered, appears, that Protestans themselves, come not only to God in their prayers, but have recourse oftentimes one to an others prayers, and desire others to pray to God with them, and for them, no less nor otherwise then do those of the Roman Church, and therrfore this practice either must be ancient and agreeing with God's word, or the Protestants practice is new, and against God's word. Here alsoe may be added, as a further satisfaction to these above cited mistaken Proofs, that there is an other main difference betwixt praying to Christ, the Blessed Trinity, or any of the divine Persons; and our praying to an Angel, a heavenly Saint, or a good Christian yet living. For our prayers to God, and Christ as our only Redeemer, are stritly commanded, and are necessary means to Salvation, and are acts, belonging to the worship of God properly and primarily, and so are exercizes appertaining to the virtue of Religion taken presly, and thus the invocation, or praying, to either Angel, Saint, or living Chtistian, is neither universally commanded, nor a means absolutely necessary to salvation, (though it be a very great help towards it) nor an act belonging immediarely, and necessarily to the strict virtue of Religion, or the worship of God; burr an exercise good and profitable, and necessarily to be esteemed as such, by all true Christians, as I have already deduced out of the Council of Trent. 
Concil. Trid. sess. 24. ci●▪  which I thought fit to renew in the Readers memory, lest the contrary misconceipt amongst Protestants, of our doctrine in this point, might alienate his affection from our Religion. If any one desire to have the invocation of Saints and Angels, (thus explicated) prowed by Scripture, he may please to examine, job. 5.1. Call if there be any which will answer the, and to which of the Saints wilt thou turn? where the seventy Interpreters have it in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, & turn the to some of the holy Angels. And Gen. 48. v. 16. The Angel which redeemed me from all 〈◊〉, bless these Lads. which is a plain invocation of an Angel, as in the former verse 15. the like speech was an invocation of God. And lastly the first of Samuel, 28. v. 7. to the 22. where the Scripture affirms expressly. 1. thrice over that Samuel himself appeared, v. 15.16.20. 2. that Saul worshipped him, and Samuel did not forbid him, and so accepted of it, v. 14. 3. that Saul desired Samuel to assist him, and so invoked 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 sign that▪ he who appeared was not the devil, but a true Prophet of God, both because the devil hath no certain knowledge of accidental, and casual things to come, as those which Samuel foretold were, and because the Prophet jerem. c. 28. v. 9 gives this for the signc of a true Prophet sent from God, The Prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the Prophet shall come to pass, then shall the Prophet be known, that the Lord hath truly sent him. That he who here appeared to Saul, was Samuel himself, and that he truly prophesied, is witnessed by Ecclesiasticus c. 46. v. 20. And after his death he prophesied, and showed the king his end, and lift up his voice from the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people: which book though it be not accounted canonical by Protestants, yet they must acknowledge it to be of greater authority, than any they can allege of their party, to prove that it was not Samuel. neither concludes the reason, brought commonly by Protestants any thing against this, for though Saul had recourse to that witch to raise him up Samuel, and she had consented to do it, yet the text says not that her conjuring raised him, or that he was enforced to come by force of her witchcraft, for first Samuel attributes his coming up not to her, but to Saul, v. 15. why hast thou disquieted me? secondly, it seems that so soon as the woman had consented to Saul's petition, that Samuel (by the power of God) preventing her wicked conjure, came up unexpectedly, and suddenly, and in a terrible, and unusual manner, and therefore the text says, v. 12. And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. 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 prove, but to defend.      

THE SECOND CONTROVERSY Concerning the making and worshipping of holy Images.  
The Doctrine of the Roman Church, concerning the use and veneration of holy Images, delivered in the Council of Trent sess. 24.  
Mandate sancta Synodus omnibus Episcopis, & caeteris docendi munus curamque sustinentibus, ut— fideles diligenter instruant, docentes eos— Imagines— Christi, Deiparae Virgins, & aliorum Sanctorum, in templis praesertim habendas, & retinendas, eisque debitum honorem, & venerationem impertiendam, non quod credatur inesse aliqua in iis divinitas 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 ut 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 have the office and care, of teaching, that they diligently instruct faithful people, teaching them that the Images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of other Saints, are to be had, and retained, especially in churches, and that due honour and veneration is to be given to them, not that one believes that there is any divinity 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 their hope in Idols, but because the honour which is done to them, is referred to those whom they represent. So that through the Images which we kiss, and before which we uncover our heads, and prostrate ourselves, 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, expressly commands that all Bishops, and Paslours etc. teach this doctrine to all faithful Christians, no Adversary of the Roman Church, can either doubt in prudence, whether this be her doctrine, nor in charity judge or affirm upon a mere conjectural supposition, without any certain and particular information, or proof, that Roman Catholicques commonly, and ordinarily pray to pictures, and put their confidence, and hope in them, believing that there is power, life, and divinity in those carved, or panited Images which they have before them, and so hoping to be heard and helped by them, as the heathens did by their Idols, this I say, no man can say, or judge in charity, because he must either judge that the Prelates, and Pastors of our church, are generally neglecting to teach the faithful under their charge, what they are here commanded, which would be to accuse them of a high, and heinous neglect, or he must judge that faithful people, being sufficiently taught this doctrine by their respective Pastors are proudly dissobedient to their Pastors, and the whole church in doing the quite contrary to what thy are taught, which were to condemn them of a grievous sin, and that without any sufficient reason, upon a mere conjecture, or voluntary and rash judgement contrary to the express command of our Saviour, Luc. 6.37. Nolite iudicare, & non iudicabimini. judge not, and you shall not be judged. 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 judges an others servant, he stands, or falls to his own master.  

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 ut nullae falsi dogmatis Imagines, & Rudibus periculofi erroris occasionom praebentes▪ statuantur.  
But if any abuses have erept into these holy and prefitable observations, the holy Council vehemently desires that they be wholly abolished, or taken away, so that there be not exposed any Images teaching false doctrine, and giving occasion of dangerous error to the common people. And then the Council adds these wrds.  
Quod si aliquando historia● & narrationes sacrae Scripturae cum id indoctae plebi expediet, exprimi, & sigurari contigerit; doceatur populus, non propterea divinitatem 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 unlearned, let the people be taught, that thereby the divinity is not painted, either as if it could be seen by corporeal eyes, or expressed by colours or figures. And presently after.  
Omnis porro superstitio in Sanctorum invocatione, reliquiarum veneratione, & Imaginum sacro usu tollatur, omnis turpis quaestus eliminetur, omnis denique lascivia vitetur.  
Moreover let all superstition in the invocation of Saints, the veneration of relics, and the holy use of Images be taken a way, let all base lucre be banished, and let all immodesty be avoided.   

And lest any Protestant should conceive that the second Council of Nice, cited here by the Council of Trent, delivers any doctrine contrary to what is here delivered, I thought fit to adjoin the words of that Council.   

The second Council of Nice Actione 3.  
NOn materiae vel coloribus cultum offerentes, sed per haec invisibilibus 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 colours, but through these being brought to the person represented by them, we give due honour to him. Knowing according to Basil the Great, that the honour of the Image passes to him who is represented by it.   

Having delivered the doctrine of the Roman Church in this point of Images, let us now see what her Adversaries produce against it out of Scripture mistaken.   

The first Protestant Position.  
It is not lawful to represent God the Father in any likeness whatsoever of any Image.  
This is proved 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 four footed beasts, and to creeping things.   

The second Proof.  

Deut· 4. v. 15.16.  TAke ye therefore good heed unto your selves: for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spoke to you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire.  
Lest you corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female.   

These proofs mistaken·  
THese texts are missappleyed against the doctrine of the Roman Church, we grant most willingly all that is said here: neither do we ever represent God the Father by any image at all immediately or directly: that is to signify that he is of a figure or shape like that image: but chiefly (as we have now showed in the Council of Trent) we represent by our Images, 
Concil. Trid. cit.  the figures wherein 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 days did sit: whose garments were white as snow; & the hair 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 alleged, or any other of holy Scripture, to represent the figures wherein Almighty God hath pleased to represent himself: 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. john in the Apocalypse, more than any other histories of Scripture? Let any such place be produced: neither by such representations, do Roman Catholics more believe that God the Father is an old man, than did Daniel the Prophet believe he was one, when he saw this vision. For the Roman Church both steadfastly believes herself, and strictly commands all her Prelates, Pastors, and teachers, to instruct all her children, that God is a pure spirit in himself, and hath no body, or figure, at all; and that such like pictures are not to represent God immediately, but the figures wherein he appeared: And this even the little children are taught in their catechisms: and if some chance to be ignorant of it, it is not the Church's fault, but the fault of her particular Pastors, who are negligent in instructing their flocks: as also ignorant people may easily fall to think as well amongst Protestants, as Catholics, that God the Father hath a right hand, & consequently a body, because they have 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 said to have feet, hands, head, face, mouth, eyes, ears, and particularly in this vision of Daniel, and others of S. john in the Revelations, if these words be not, by negligence of Pastors, 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 Pastors' negligence, may fall into error 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 Catholic Church. Yet if any one would urge that some attributes of God may be signified by some pictures which are used in the Catholic Church, I answer, that thence follows not that we intent to picture the Divinity, or nature of God, or to signify that it is a visible, corporal thing like to that picture, but only to make a hieroglyphical expression of certain attributes as we do when we represent virtues or vices in certain shapes, of men or women, the better to express the nature of them, not to signify that they are corporal, or like to those persons. Thus the white hair mentioned by Daniel, signifycs the never beginning, nor ending eternity of God: the crown, sceptre, and world his absolute dominion over 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 above cited) The Church of Rome, hath not commanded, nor ordained, that the Pictures, which thus represent the apparitions of God the Father or God the holy Ghost, should be had, and retained espeacially in churches, for there the Council mentions only the Images of our Saviour, 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.  
No Image whatsoever ought to be worshipped.  
This is proved by Scripture mistaken.  

The first Proof.  

Levit. 26. v. 1.  Ye shall make you no Idols, nor graven Image●; neither rear ye up a standing image: neither shall ye set up an Image of stone in your Land to bow down to it; for I am the Lord your God.  

The first mistake.  
No word in this text, neeessarily signifies Image in the original which is here translated Image.  
HEre is named Image three times, in so few words; and yet neither the 70. interprete in greek, nor the vulgar translation in Latin, have so much as once this word Image in the whole verse: neither is there any word in the Hebrew text, which necessarily signify Image, in this place, as is clear out of Pagninus his translation, word for word; So that this appears alsoe to be a mistake like the former, Coloss. 2. to deceive the ignorant reader, by making him abhor 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 reverence due to them: and it belongs to Protestants to prove it, neither will it be enough if they prove that some one of these words may be taken to signify an Image; for they must show that it must needs signify an Image, in this very place, if they will convince any thing against the worship of holy Images, out of it, for it may signify also that which is no Image: and till they prove that it necessarily here signify 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 do not: both because the 70. Interpreters, and the ancient vulgar translation, and Pagninus, and almost all (save the new Protestant translations) put it otherwise; and because the first word, 
Elilim.  Elilim in Hebrew signify an Idol or false God, as it is here translated by Protestants, and consequently all the words following must be taken for Idols to agree with it; the difference betwixt an Idol, and an Image, I will give you presently.    

The Second Proof.  

Exod. 20. v. 4.5.  THou shall not make to thyself any graven Image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven, above, or in the earth heneath, or in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them.  

The Second mistake. The Hebrew, and Greek words here put, Graved Image are mistranslated.  
HEre again is the word, graven Image, put in to the English text, contrary both to the Hebrew and Greek text: the Hebrew word here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pesel, which the 70. Interpreters in this place translate in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Idol, or false God, and the Latin, sculptile, which in the eeclesiastical 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 never taken in a good sense for any Image truly representing anything existent as it is really in itself, as carved or graven curiosities.  
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 manner wherein he who makes or uses the Image, intends to represent it as the paintings or carvings of trees, of flowers, of beasts, of men, or women, which we ordinarily use 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 Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ikon.  
But an Idol is a representation of what neither is, nor can possibly be as he who makes, or usees it, intends to represent it; and therefore is called Abacuc 2. v. 18. a false fantasy in the 70. Interpreters, and according to the Hebrew, a thing which tells a lie, that is, represents 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 Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, an empty and Idle fiction of the brain. Hence it comes to pass that the very same material representation, may in divers 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 falsely and lyingly. Thus the picture of the Sun is an Image thereof, so far as it represents the face, beams, and figure of the visibile sun, and puts us in remembrance of it: But the very same material picture will be an Idol in as much as it is made to represent the sun as a God, and a sovereign divine power, as the heathens represent it in their Idols; And hence by different persons, the same material 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 sune in it; but the Heathen will esteem it as containing, or representing some divinity or deity, and so to him it will be an Idol. That which here I exemplify in the Sun's picture, is to be extended to all other representations of men, or other creatures: for if any one, in an historical way would represent some real passage in the life of Mars, juno, jupiter, Saturn, Venus etc. as they were men, or women once here living upon earth, and go no further; those very pictures will be Images only, that is, true representations of that which once was; but if one intent to draw their pictures, or carve their statues, with design to represent them as Gods and Goddesses; it will be in that regard no Image, but a pure Idol, falsely 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 have the pictures of Queen Elizabeth, or King james, 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 used to do of their ancient Kings and Queens) and intent to acknowledge them, by that picture, as such, those very pictures would become Idols, falsely representing, what neither was, is, nor can be. And the same rule is to be verified in the Catholic pictures of Saints: for if they be only represented as holy persons, as Martyrs, as Virgins, as glorious in heaven with their and our God, than 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 divine 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, between an Image and an Idol, I answer to the text of Exodus cited in the objection, 
Exod. 2. v. 4. d.  that both according to the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pesel, and the greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, idolum, and the ancient Latin sculptile, that which is here forbidden, is an Idol, and not an Image, as the Protestants English Translation falsely 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 signify, that is an Idol; which the conjunction ve (and in English) not obscurely declares to such as are skilful in the hebrew tongue, which joins two words together, in the same signification for greater explication: and yet this is made wholly out of doubt Deut. 5. v. 8. as it stands in the hebrew Lo tegase lecha, pesel, col temounach etc. where the very same words of Exodus 20. are repeated, thou shalt not make to thyself an Idol, all the likenesses in heaven: where the sense is nothing but this, thou shalt not make to thyself an Idol, that is any likeness or figure in heaven: 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, Idols, or representations of false Gods. And this is further confirmed out of Exod. 20. v. 33. where God himself explicates those former words in the same chapter. v. 4. you shall not make to yourselves Gods of silver: nor you shall nor make to yourselves Gods of gold, which are pesel, and temounach, Exod. 20. v. 4. and yet lastly that pesel put there in the Hebrew, signify the same with el, a God, is most clear out of Esay 44. v. 10. who hath form a God, or molten a graven Image which is profitable for nothing. in hebrew the word here is pesel; and though the Protestant English translation have it, graven Image falsely, as I noted before, yet certain it is, that even according to your own translation, it here signify the same with a false God, as is clear out of the words, and yet much clearer in the 17. verse, and of the risidue of it he maketh a God, even his graven Image, saith your translation; where the same piece of wood carved, is called a God of the heathens, and a graven Image, in hebrew, lephislo, his Idol, or graven representation of a false God, and yet to show unanswearably that this word pesel, even by Reforms aught 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 graven Image, in the later translations, to be called Idol, or his Idol, v. 17. of the 44. of Isay in their more ancient, which in Hebrew is Phesel Phiselo, which in this 20. of Exodi v. 4. they always translate graven Image. (See the Bible's printed, in King Edward's time, and others of the most ancient Protestant Prints,) comimg of the word pesel so often cited.  
Having therefore demonstraded, that in the two places cited in the objection, Exod. 20 v 4, and Leviticus the 26. v. 1. no other picture, representation, or likeness of any creature is forbidden, but only such as are intended, to represent them, by way of Idolatry, as Gods, and deities, (which they neither are, nor can be) and not as creatures, Saints, Angels, etc. which they truly are. The second point propounded in the objection, about the worship of pictures, or Images, of our Saviour, or Saints, etc. 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 divine worship, or an homage given to a divine power: and this is so clear, that none who understand it, can doubt of it. Yet because I intent, as much as may be, to confirm every thing I say, by clear 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 material graven, or painted thing (which they had before their eyes) as a God: This is so evident out the 44. of Esay, v. 17. just now cited, that it puts the matter out of question, even as it stands in your own Bible: And the residue thereof he maketh a God, even a graven Image; he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, deliver me, for thou art my God. So also is this matter clearly set down in the book of wisdom, chapters 13. and 14. in many verses at large which, though Protestants receive not as Canonical Scripture, yet they put it in their Bibles, and therefore esteem it not to be a lying fable, especially agreeing so well in this matter with other parts of Canonical Scripture. So also jeremy 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 brevities sake: where it appears clearly that the Heathens, and Idolaters esteemed that visible picture befote them to be a God, and to have power to hear their prayers, and to help them, and so they bowed unto it, worshipped it with divine honour, prayed to it, and put their hope in it. This supposed as certain, it will presently be thought most reasonable to understand that worship of pictures, or resemblances of things to be forbidden, Levit. 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, even according to Protestants: Seeing therefore, the word bowing down, and worshipping in the Protestants translation is set down in the two said 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 delivered: and indeed, though the text in the 20. of Exod. be obscure, and general in Protestants translations in these words, thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them, yet in hebrew, and the 70. in greek there is light enough given to direct us in the true understanding of them, namely, that it is a divine worship alone, which is forbidden; for the hebrew words ve lo tagauethen● signify, and you shall not serve them; which word shows an homage or service done to those Idols, as to things capable of such offices done unto them, and endued with knowledge, understanding▪ power, and divinity: for no man is strictly and properly said to serve that which is wholly void of knowledge to exact or accept of that service: and hence appears, that if the Protestants had followed closely the first and ordinary signification of this word in the original (as they profess to do) and translated it thus, thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them, the word serve would have given occasion of understanding a right the word bow down, that is such a bowing down as is used to those whom we serve, who are only in the proper & ordinary understanding of service, such as we esteem to be endued with knowledge understanding, and power, able to receive our service, and assist us in our petitions. And to demonstrate that this translation of yours is not without partiality and double dealing, of putting worship for serve, the word worship being put in of purpose to bring the ignorant people from the reverence of holy Images, as they are reverenced amongst Roman Catholics; you must know, that in a hundred other places of Scripture where Moses, Caleb, josua, David, and others are called servants of God, in your translation, not worshippers, the hebrew hath the very same word gavedy my servant, which is used here in the 20. of Exodus; end yet further the fraud appears 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 applied to false Gods, are always translated adore, and serve, because it served 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 people's minds, it must be translated fall down and worship: and yet more clearly by their own translation they convince themselves of partiality; for in the Psalm 96. aliter the 97. v. 7. they have these words; confounded be all those who serve graven Images, who boast themselves 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 falsely to translate graven Image, is the very same with a heathen Idol, as being joined with it as the same thing in signification. And to urge an other place, this partiality is clearly convinced 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 serve: where the 6. of Deut. v. 13. (from which that of S. Matthew is taken) hath the very same hebrew word gavedth, which is here translated worship in the 20. of Exodus, and there serve. But to put all out of question, and to bring an undeniable discovery of their fraud and falhood in the translating of this hebrew word gavedh worship, not serve, 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 unto them, nor worship them, as appears by the text here cited in the objection, and by the Bible's themselves: but in their later impressions and translations of the year 1638. and somewhat before, and since, they have corrected this error, and put it, thou shalt not bouw down unto them, nor serve them, both in Eod. and Leviticus: yet because they had taught all the common people to say it after the ancient erroneous manner, it is still in the catechism set down in the common prayer book, thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor worship them, lest if they should have changed it there, the people might have discovered that they had been taught their commandments amiss, and that in the ancient editions of the common prayer, the commandments 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 commandments as they stand there. But that at one view may be seen the manifold tricks and diuises, frauds, and deceits used 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 greek, and Latin, and all antiquity, they translate, pesel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sculptile; graven Image. Secondly, they add the word any; thou shalt not make to thyself any graven 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 have been a graven Image, not, any graven Image. And this they seem to add, thereby to make the ignorant beleeue that all sorts of Images whatsoever, even of our Saviour, and of his Saints, are here forbidden by this general clause, thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image▪ Thirdly, to make the text yet more to sound against us, in the ears of the vulgar, they make it say, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above etc. when it should be according to the hebrew, col tegumach asher, nor any likeness which is in heaven, or verbatim thus, or all and every likeness which is in heaven, not of any thing which is in heaven, these words any thing being added unto the hebrew text; thereby to persuade the unlearned, that the likeness of all things in heaven and consequently of our Saviour, the Angels, and Saints, are here prohibited: where as the direct meaning of the text is, to forbid these likenesses to be made which appear visibly in the material heaven to the corporeal eyes, as the sun, moon, slarrs &c. as is clear Deut. 4. v. 19 which agrees well with the hebrew text, any likeness which is in heaven; for at that time, when this commandment was given, there was nothing in the imperial heaven, which had any visible figure, or could be immediately expressed by any visible picture, as a true Image of it, for there was nothing then in heaven but God and his holy Angels. But the English translation, the likeness of any thing which is in heaven, is subject to give occasion to the simple reader (who being taught that our Saviour with his Saints are in heaven, and that they are forbidden in this commandment to make the likeness of any thing which is in heaven, to think that they are clearly forbidden to make the likenesses or Images, of our Saviour, & the Saints: and thus the common people of our nation ordinarily understand it, and their ministers, and teachers, nuzzle them up in this error. Fourthly, yet further to extend the words of this commandment to all sorts of holy likenesses, and similitudes, though in the little catechism contained in their common prayer-book, they put the commandment thus, nor the likeness of any thing mhich is in heaven above etc. which was less intolerable, yet in their Translations from the year 1638. they add another any to the text, thus, nor any likeness 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 original; yet in their little Catechism they are still put in the very same letter with the rest, as if they were no less in the original than the other words; which may be noted for an other fraud: and I find these words of Exodus thus translated, in a book called the confession of faith, reprinted at London for the company of Stationers, 1652. all the words being in the same letter: pag. 167. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image, nor any likeness of any thing. Lastly, for serve, they have put worship, as I have now declared. So that in these few words, thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, nor any likeness of any thing etc. thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor worship them, are six mistakes, corruptions, or additions to the text. And though some of these, in themselves, may be judged to be of no great moment, and might pass 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 press this text to common people above all others, against us, and about the meaning whereof we are in great Controversy: and who profess, rejecting all other Translations, to stand closely and strictly to the hebrew text, they are wholly inexcusable. Now if any illiterate Protestant much devoted to his ministers, and teachers, and confident of their sincerity in Translating God's word, should not be brought by what I have yet said, to believe that they would put Image, in the place of Idol, and add other words to the text, which are not in the original, thereby deceiving the people: for a clear and undeniable proof of their partiality and deceit in this particular, let him examine 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 have added the word Image to the text: for he shall find in the Translations of the year 1648. and about that time, these words, Rom. 11. v. 4. who have 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 greek, Latin, nor hehrew for it should be, who have not bowed the knee to Baal. Not as they have it, to the Image of Baal, the word Image being added of putpose (as it seems) to create a hatred in the hearts of the common people, against the use of holy Images, seeing them so expressly forbidden in their Bibles, even in the new Testament. Now that it may unanswerably appear, that this word Image is added to the text, look 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 have not bowed unto Baal, without these words, 
Rom. 11▪ v. 4.  the Image of Baal. And that they may undoubtedly 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 Edward's, or Queen Elizabeth's time, and they mill find this text to the Rom. c. 11. v. 4. without this addition, thus; which have 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 original, 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 original; thus, which have not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal; and for what belongs to the unlearned, 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 less letters, and all they find in the text, they take to be equally Scripture, and the word of God, as I have had experience of about a hundred together, who all esteemed the words the Image to be no less Scripture, than the rest of that text, yea I found one who very eagerly and strongly urged this text, against Images, telling me, and glorying in it, that Images were condemned expressly in the new Testament by these words of S. Paul. Neither can it stand with the rules of true and sincere Translatours, to add when they please, and when it makes for their advantage, and endangers the deceiving of the unlearned in matters of Religion; (as here it doth) by adding certain words, which are neither found in the hebrew, greek, nor Latin, (as these are not) though it be in a different letter. In the Bible's printed, 1648. at London, by Robert Barker, I find the said words in the same letter with the rest, thus, which have not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal, by which the unlearned Readers cannot judge 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 letter, with the other words of the text, especially when they mark, that in a hundred other places, the words which are not in the original are printed in a different letter, from the others in that very Bible. which makes it probable in a high degree, if not certain, that the manner of printing in this text, is a mere corrupt dealing of our adversaries, and a wilful adding to the word of God, to incense the ignorant against Images.  
M. Fulck, in his English translation, and commentaries upon the new Testament. Printed at London by the deputies of Christopher Barker, 1589. exuses this addition by alleging that in the greek text here in S. Paul, Rom. 11.4. the article is of the feminine gender, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. & therefore must agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, image, being also of the feminine gender, which word though it be not expressed in the greek, yet saith Fulck, it is to be understood, and so might lawfully be expressed in the English translation. But that this answer is a mere evasion, grounded upon a false principle, I will presently make manifest for first it is not the custom of Greek authors, speaking of the statues, or Idols of their Gods, to express them in the feminine, as referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the masculine article, as referred to the God, whose name that statue bears.  
Secondly Acts 19.35. those words which M. Fulck and other Protestants understand, of the statue, or Image of Diana, are not put in greek with the feminine, but with the masculine or neuter gender, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereby is manifest, that when the greeks speak of their Idols, and statuas, they refer them, not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & the feminine, but rather to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the neuter 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 have it in the masculine gender, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and yet both this place, and that of S. Paul must necessarily be understood to speak of the same thing, and in the same sense, which seeing the Protestants will have to be only, the statue, or picture of Baal, it must needs follow, that the reason why S. Paul hath it in the feminine gender, is not because it speaks of that visible, and artificial 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 wear adored by the jews, thus nothing is more familiar in the old Testament, then to put that word in the plural number, Baalim, because it was common to many false Gods, which wear comprised in that name- now those Gods some were males, and some females, and so of both genders; amongst which Astarthes' Queen, and Goddess 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 book of kings speak of a general worshipping of Baal through the whole kingdom of Israel, which must be extended to all their false Gods whether men or women, 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 Romans, as comprehending both. And so S. Paul hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the feminine, not in reference to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Image, as Fulk would have it, burr in reference to Astarthes', or other women Goddesses, comprehended in that general word Baal, as Catholicque doctors understand it, for according to this exposition, both the old and new Testament are easily reconciled, but according to Fulk, neither can the old be here reconciled with the new, nor the new with itself, as I ha●e declared. whence appears, seeing this reason fails, which Protestants folly allege for their defence, that the word Image, is here added to the text, with out any sufficient reason, and so falsely and corruptedly.  
I find the like addition of the word Image, Acts 19.35. above cited, where though the greek word be of the masculine gender, (as I have declared) yet the word Image (which is not in the original as M. Fulk acknowledges) is put into the English text, thus, of the Image which came down from jupiter, where there was no reason at all to put Image, seeing the greek words are masculine, but the Reade● may easily discover by such indirect proceedings as these, that it is not the gender, but the general disgust against holy Images, which caused these additions, for whether the greek article be masculine, or feminine, Image must come in, as is evident from these two texts● Neither 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, jovis Prolis, jupiters' child, having rather relation to the Person, then to the Idol of Diana. Or if it be referred to that Idol which was reserved, with so great 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 living Goddess Diana, and therefore they made so loud, and strong acclamations, magna est Diana Ephesiorum, great is Diana of the Ephefiens, who was no other, than that dull, and dead Idol, which was adored by them in the temple of Ephesus. But though they had been wiser than the ordinary strain of Idolaters, and so had esteemed that Idol, to be a mere representation of their Goddess, yet seeing that the original, hath no word which signifies Image, but uses a general expression, which is indifferent, to the one, or other of these explications, why should not the English, as well as the greek have only said, that which came down from jupiter, neither expressiing Image, nor any other determinate thing, if they had as fully intended to follow the original, 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 their new Church, against the use of Images, I will briefly allege some other places of Scripture wherein their translations of the years 1562. and 1577. as M. Fulk acknowledges, and 1589. they have translated the greek words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, worshippers of Images, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Images. Thus Ephes. 5.5. where the greek hath, Idolater, these tranflations have, a worshipper of Images. And Coll. 3.5. where the greek hath Idolatry, they have worshipping of Images, and the like is Gal. 5.20. 1. joan. 5.21. for Idols in greek they translate Images, in the Bible printed, 1562. and though in Fulks testament it be translated Idols in the text; yet in the margin he puts, or Images. Now how great a difference there is betwixt an Idol, and an Image, I have all ready declared, and M. Fulk acknowledges, fol. 456. that the use of our English speech hath made the name of Idol odious, and of Image indifferent. whence follows necessarily, that the word Image according to him may signify no less a good than a bad representation, but the word Idol always a bad, so that the word Image, or Images cannot be put absolutely in those places of Scripture, where they are universally to be understood of things bad, or unlawful; thus therefore, 1. john 5.2. where the Apostle saith, Babes keep yourselves from Idols, being an indefinite, and so an universal precept he commands Christians to keep themselves from all kind of Idols what soever, and so is fitly, and truly expressed, by the word Idols, because that word is always taken in our language (even according to M. Fulk) in an odious, and bad signification: but it can neither fitly, nor truly, be expressed by the word Images put absolutely, and with our any adjunct, as it is in those first ttanslations of English Protestants, babes keep yourselves from Images, for then the precept could not be indefinitely, and universally understood, as it must be, to keep themselves from all Images whatsoever, for all Christians should be here commanded, to keep themselves from all money, 
Mar. 32.16. Gen. 1.27. 2. Cor. 4.4,  because it hath Images upon it, and the husband to keep himself from his wife, because she is an Image of God, nay Christians to keep themselves from Christ, because he is the Image of his father. But if Protestants would use the word Image, in this text, fitly and truly, they must have added some adjective, to it, which would have tied it to signify something which is universally unlawful, thus Babes keep yourselves from false Images, or from bad Images etc. but this they refused to do, first because there was no such adjective in the original, and and secondly, because the addition of that adjective, would have made the text to have had not so much as any seeming force, against the doctrine of the Roman Church, for we should presently have answered, that our Images are neither false, nor bade but true, and holy, and so not forbidden in that place. Thus though the word desire, be indifferent to signify as well bad, as good desires, yet this would be a very absurd command▪ keep yourselves from desires, for that were to oblige one to abstain from all desires, and therefore the Apostle, when he gives a command about desires, he speaks not indefinitely, but expresses by the adjective, which he adjoins, what desires he means, Abstinete vos à carnalibus desiderijs, 
1. Pet. 2.12  Keep yourselves from carnal desires, all which are bad and unlawful. whence appears that Protestants, by this their translation, make S. john, and the holy Scripture, to deliver a command, not only false, and senseless, but even wicked, and blasphemous; for it must command Christians to keep themselves from all Images, and consequently, not only from all Koyne, and Company, of men, which are Images, but even from Christ himself, who is the Image of his eternal father.  
The like inconveniences follow, from the other texts now cited, where Image, is put absolutely. for Idol. for when the Apostle, Ephes. 5.5. Reckons up those heinous sinners, who are excluded (dying without repentance) from the kingdom of heaven, he calls an avaricious man, an Idolater in the original, and the English Protestants, make the text say, an avaricious man which is a worshipper of Images, now every avaricious man is truly called an Idolater, because he commits spiritual idolarry, in making his gold, his God; but an avaricious man cannot be truly termed a spiritual worshipper of Images, absolutely taken, for that supposes, that all worshipping of any Image whatsoever is sinful, as all avarice is, which notwithstanding is not only false but blasphemous, for civil worship exhibited to the Image of some lawful Emperor, is not sinful even according to Protestants, and divine worship given to our Saviour, who is the Image of his father, is not only not sinful, but most lawful and holy.  
The like follows, from their translation of Gal. 5.20. where the Apostle giving a catalogue of those capital sins which unrepented deprive a soul of eternal happiness, amongst many others, names, Idolorum seruitus, in greek Idolatry, now as all the rest whensoever they are done; are sins, so whensoever any kind, or act of Idolatry is committed, it is a sin; but the Protestant changing Idolatry, into worshipping of Images, must make the Scripture say, that as whensoever any fornication, adultery, witchcraft, idolatry, or any other here named, is committed, sin is committed, so when any kind of worshipping of Images is committed, sin is committed, which notwithstanding is manifestly false, for neither is the civil worship of an Emperor's Image a sin, and much less the divine worship of our Saviour, who is the Image of his father; Thus is it made evident, that whilst Protestants show their vehement passions against holy Images, they make the Scripture to speak not only falsities, but even blasphemies. which the later Translators having observed, ashamed of so foul errors, have corrected (as any one may see) their former, and ancienter translations, and have restored Idols, Idolaters, and Idolatry, to the respective texts, which I have above cited. neither is that which M. Fulk alleadges in defence of those ancient translations, of any force at all, for though the vulgar latin 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 whole latin Bible, it is never taken for any thing save an Idol: neither citys M. Fulk, so 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 authors, both Heathens, and Christians, but also in holy Scripture, for true, lawful, holy, and divine Images. Notwithstanding all that I have said in manifest and undeniable proof of the false translation of the commandment Exod. 20. v. 4. etc. yet to show how little force these texts have, even as they stand in the Protestant Bibles, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image &c. to prove any thing against the use of holy Images practised in the Roman Church; ay most easily answer, that if they understand by graven Image such as are also Idols as it is taken, Isay. 44.17. Ps. 105.19. Ps 78.5. judg. 18. where that which v. 17. & 18. & 20. is called a graved, & a molten Image, v. 24. is called Gods, & in the Protestant Bibles in different other places, as I have already showed, nay through the whole Protestant Bible, the word graven Image, is never taken but for an Idol, or a false God, for as much I ever could yet discover in it: then I grant that such Images are neither to be made, worshipped, nor served: but this concludes nothing at all against the Roman Church, who abhors, detests, and anathematizes all such Images, with the wotshipping, and worshippers of them. But if they understand by graven Image, an Image which is no Idol, but a true representation of some holy person now in heavenly bliss, such as where the images of the two Cherubins Exodus the 25. then I deny that such graven Images are forbidden, either to be made, or worshipped, according to the explication already delivered. Now the reason of this answer, and distinction is clear; for if true Images of holy things and persons were forbidden Exod. 20. v. 4. then that place of Scripture would be contrary to the others, Exodus the 25. which command them: and if all kind of reverence, respect, and worship be here forbidden to holy Images, than 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 footstool of God, which was nothing but the Ark of the Testament with the two golden Cherubins in the holy of holyes. Adore, or worship his footstool, saith there holy David; 
●. Par. 18.2  where the very same hebrew word, and phrase is used 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 jews, and to be used in the old law, and so touch not christians any thing. I answer first, the forbidding of Images is also only in the old Testament, Exod. 20. v. 4. etc. Secondly, that command Exod. 25. to make some Images, was brought to show 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, given to Christians, it is lawful 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 expressly commanded to be made by Almighty God himself, that there is no way to deny or avoid it, if a christian will reconcile and agree these two places, he must grant that all kind of Images, even such as are no more Idols, nor less truly sacred and holy Images than those Cherubs in the Tabernacle were, are not forbidden in the commandment Exod. 20. v. 4. for if they were, than God should forbid Exod. 20. what be commands Exodus 25.18. and so contradict himself. And what is said about the understanding of the word graven Image, is respectively to be applied to the word, worship: for if all kind of worship of Images be forbidden in the commandment Exod. 20.4. then holy David will contradict God's command, when be commands the Israelites to worship his footstool, where those Images of the Cherubs were. There is therefore no other possible means to reconcile those two commands, but by saying, that Exod. 20. forbids not all kind, nor can be understood of that which holy David commands, but only such a worship as is wholly unlawful, superstitious, and Idolatrous, whereby the creature is worshipped and prayed to, as God; and the Image made an Idol, or a false God: which is neither commanded nor allowed in any place of holy Scripture, but always forbidden and condemned. Neither can it be said, that Almighty God. Psal. 98. dispensed with his command given Exod. 2. for if there were forbidden all kind of Images, as being superstitious and Idolatrous, and injurious to God's honour, and so of themselves, or intrinsically (as the school speaks) unlawful, and all kind of reverence or worship exhibited to them, as in itself dishonourable to God, as Protestants understand this command. Then it cannot be said without most high blasphemy, that God dispensed with this command: for than he should dispense with men to commit superstition, Idolatry, and dishonour to him by a command to do them, which were to make him not only author; but even favourer, and commander of sin.  
Neither can it avail Protestants to say, (as some others have said) that the making all kind of Images, and all reverence to them, was forbidden to the jews Exod. 20. v. 4. though not unlawful in themselves, by reason of the great danger they were in, to be broughr into Idolatry by them, as appears in the brazen serpent, and their perpetual falling, upon every light occasion, into Idolatry. This, I say, nothing avayls Protestant's: first, because I have already showed 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 themselves, was only directed to the jews as long as they were in so eminent danger of falling, by reason of them, into Idolatry, superstition etc. 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 lawful for them to make, and worship (according to my former explications) holy Images, as having no command to the contrary.  
From what I have now said, will easily appear how little reason the Roman Church hath, to blot those words, Thou shalt not make to thyself any Idol etc. out of the commandment, as vulgar Protestants are made believe by a most false aspersion of their ministers: for if they make nothing at all against her, as I have showed, why should she blot them out? But that I may give a full and complete answer to this mistake of common people, which I have learned by long experience to be one of the greatest stumbling blocks, that hinders them from embracing Catholic Religion: because, say they, we leave out the second Commandment: I will briefly clear this point, and convince evidently, that it is a mere device to catch the ignorant, having neither truth nor substance in it For first, there never was yet so much as one sole Bible, of ours in whatsoever language, place, time, or edition, which hath not these words, which Protestants, call the seeond commandment, as fully and completely as any Protestant Bibles have: and I challenge the best versed amongst them, to produce one only in the whole world, which hath them not, and that the more ignorant, who understand English only, may have what assurance they are capable of in this particular▪ let them press their ministers, to show them the Remish Bible set out by Roman Catholic Divines: and there Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. they shall find, all the said words fully an intyrely.  
Secondly, not only in all our Bibles, but in our larger and fuller Catechisms, this whole commandment is expressed. So Catechismus Romanus set out by order of the late Council of Trent, part 3. pag. 298. n. 8. and Canisius his Catechism, de Charitate & Decalogo 1. q. 5. p. 74. 75. where setting down the commandments, he puts the first thus: Non habebis Deos alienos coram me●non facies tihi sculptile, ut adores illud. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me: thou shalt not make to thyself any Idol to adore it: and then citys the commandments all at large, as fully as they stand in the Protestant Bibles Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. And in an English Catechism, called a Summary of Controversies, composed by P.C. of the Society of jesus, and printed in the year 1639. The third edition chap. 3 q. 5. pag. 68 hath it thus: Thou shalt not have any strange Gods before me: thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image to worship it. And in the same manner are they set down in an other English Catechism, which I have seen and read in a public auditory of Protestants.  
The ground therefore of this false imposition, if it may be termed a ground, may happily have been some small short Catechisms made for little children, and new beginners, for the help of their memories, to be learned by hart, wherein this commandment, (as all the rest of the longer commandments) set down Exod. 20. Deut. 5. is abridged and brought to so many words as merely serve to express the substance of them, omitting the rest, thus. 1. I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have any other Gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 3. Remember thou sanctify the festival days. 4. Honour thy father, and mother. where not only many words adjoined 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, lest, were they all set at large, as they are there, both the memory of young children might be overcharged, and their weak understandings confounded, not being able to distinguish the substance of the command, from the reasons and amplifications of it.  
Now if we delivered the commandments with this preface, as Protestants do in their common prayer book, The same which God spoke in the 20. chapter of Exodus, saying etc. we were obliged to put them all word for word as they are found there: For otherwise the commandments would not be answerable to the Title. But seeing we find them in other places of Scripture, set down in a much briefer manner than they are there; and find no precept neither in Scripture, nor in the Church, to deliver them to Christians as they are delivered in Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. rather then in other places; our adversary's can no more condemn us of falsifying them when we put them briefer, than they can the holy Scripture itself for abbreviating them more in other places than they are in Exodus now cited, and Leviticus.  
That they are thus abbreviated in Scripture, is manifest Levit. 19 v. 1.2.3. And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying; speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them; ye shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy; ye shall fear every man his father and his mother, and shall keep my sabbaths: I am the Lord your God: ye shall not turn undo Idols, nor make molten Gods, I am the Lord your God etc. where that which our adversary's account the second commandment, is put even shorter than many of our catechisms, have it: Turn not yourselves unto Idols, nor make unto yourselves molten Gods: as it is in Exod. 20. v. 23. Ye shall not make unto yourselves Gods of silver: neither shall ye make Gods of gold.  
Neither indeed is it any way convenient to deliver the commandments publicly and generally to Christian people word for word as they stand Exod. 20. Levitit. 26. because thereby they are endangered, either to take sunday to be saturday, or the jewish Sabbath; or must hold themselves obliged to observe Saturday with the jews, that alone being dies Sabbati, the Sabbath day, wherein only, God rested after the creation of the world▪ which only he also Sanctifyed, and commanded to be kept, as clearly appears by the words of the commandment: so that it is not any seventh day, or one indeterminately every week, which God commands to be kept holy in this precept, but one only, and determinately, that is the same seventh day, where in God rested from the work of the creation, as appears, Gen. 2.1.2.3. Et benedixit diei septimo, & sanctisicavit illum, quia in ipso cessaverat ab omni opere suo quod creavit Deus ut faceret. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, hecause that in it he had rested from all his works, which God created and made. now it is most evident, that God rested only, upon one determinate day, and that, no other than the jewish Sabbath, or Saturday. or if they understand well what day is meant in the commandemenr, they must needs be scandalised, to see a commandment universally delivered to them of keeping the jewish Sabbath, which is, and ever was, Saturday, and yet never observed by any of them, but Sunday in place of it.  
Hence therefore we see in general, that it is very inconvenient to propose God's commandments publicly to Christians word for word as they stand in Exodus: and so we can never be justly condemned if we put some of them as they are more briefly delivered in other places of Scripture, or now to be in observance amongst Christians.  
But there is an other point boggeled at chiefly by the ignorant, about the division of God's commandements. Ye (object they against us) put the two first commandments into one, and divide the last into two. I answer, that a Catholic seeing their division, may with much more reason tell Protestants, ye put the two last commandments into one, and divide the first into two. Briefly therefore to clear this point, it is to be noted: that though it be expressly declared in Scripture that God's commandments were ten in number, and written in two tables, yet through the whole Bible never is it declared which is the first; second, third etc. nor so much as one word spoken concerning the division of them: but this was left, either to tradition, or to the prudent determination of Doctors: so that, howsoever they are prudently divided, there will be nothing contrary to Scripture, so long as the whole substance be expressed, and the number of them be observed.  
Hence, in and even before S. Augustins' time, (as he witnesss) there was a double division of the commandments amongst Christians: some dividing them as we do; and others as our adversary's. Yet both S. Augustine himself, q. 71. in Exod. and S. Hierome Comment. in Psalm. 32. and Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 6. Stromatum, follow our division, S. Augustin proving it very largely to be the better, and putting in the first commandment, Idol, not Image; and serve, not worship; and S. Hierome setting down the three commandments contained in the first table, 
Item Lutherus impr. jenae 1589. pag. 117. Et Hus Norinbergae 1558. pag. 30.  as short, or shorter than any of our Catechisms do: and from them even to our times, it seems to have been the received division, at least in the western Church, and should have been followed by those of our nation, (who ever before the breach, were estemeed a part of it, and yet pretend to be so) had not the spirit of contradiction against the Roman Church induced them to the contrary.  
Now as we have authority, so have we solid reason to prefer this division, before that of our adversary's: for certain it is that each different commandment forbids a different main sin; so that neither are we to make two forbid one capital sin, nor one, two sins. This our division strictly observes, but that of our aducrsaryes, not so: for their two first commandments forbid only the sin of Idolatry, as being the capital sin forbidden in them both, and so can be but one commandment, as we put them: and their last prohibites two main distinct sins, the desire of adultery, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, and the desire of theft, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods &c. which are as different in thought, as adultery and stealing are in act: if therefore, as they acknowledge, there be two commandments 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 alleged.  
It is further most manifest, that these which are made two commandments by the Protestants, can be no more than one and the same commandment, for in the 2. of Kings 17. v. 35. the whole substance, of that which Protestants call the second commandment is put in one single sentence, together with the first in these words, you shall not fear strange Gods, neither shall you worship them, neither shall you serve them, neither shall sacrifice to them. now, what is meant by those strange Gods, is declared, v. 40. and the 41. How be it they did not hearken but they did after their former manner, so these nations feared the Lord, and served their graven Images. whence it is evident, that that which is called strange Gods, v. 35. is called graven Images, v. 41. and so to forbid the service, and worship of strange Gods, which is in the Protestants first commandment, and to forbid the service, and worship of graven Images, is the same command, as forbidding the same thing. Hence also appears, that the word Phesel, used Exod. 20.4. and is also used here v. 41. signifies an Idol, or a strange God, as I have often said: and no less is manifest from these words, th●t the service which is here mentioned, to those graven Images, Pheselim, v. 41. was to fear them, and sacrifice to them, as strange Gods, v. 35. And, moreover thus these which are here called strange Gods, v. 35. were material Idols, or as Protestants term them graven Images, is most clear, v. 33. They feared the Lord, and served their own Gods after the manner of the nations, whom they carried away from thence, for they could not carry with them, any other Gods, save such as these, from one place to an other.  
That nothing may me wanting to the full satisfaction of the Reader, I have here adjoined, the hebrew words as they stand in the original of this text which is so violently, and frequently pressed against us.  Exod. 20. v. 4. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Deut. 5. v. 5. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Which words out of what I have already alleged, may be thus translated.  
Thou shalt not make to thy s●lfe, an Idol, any figure which is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath or in the water under the earth, thou shalt not bow, down to them, nor serve them. or thus·  
Thou shalt not make to thyself an Idol, of any figure which is in heaven above, 
Bible 1629.  for the Protestants themselves, give the like translation to the like phrase, Deut. 4. v. 16. and Pagninus gives for the first signification, of Moun, or Temounach, figuram, a figure, not only artificial, but natural, or apparent, as when angels appear, in the figures of men. Deut. 4.15. Psal. 17.15. I shall be satified when I awake with thy likeness, Temounacb, which is nothing but the substance, and essence of God, conceived clearly in our understanding, as we commonly say in our language, let him appear in his likeness, that is in his own shape, figure, or person.  
So that the meaning of these words as they lie in the 20. of Exod. and 5. of Deutronomy compared with the 2. of Kings 17. where a strange God, & a graven Image are the same thing, as I showed just now, can only have this sense, that Almighty God here forbids, that we should have any strange Gods before him, that is, that we should not make an Idol, according to any visible figure which we see either in the material heavens, or in the earth, or in the waters, worshipping, and serving, that is, fearing those very Idols, and sacrificing to them, as to things endued, with life, power, understanding, & divinity. which horrible Idolatry is as far from the doctrine of the Roman Church, (which in the beginning of this controversy, I cited out of the clear words of the Council of Trent) as darkness is from light.  
To correspond to the desire of other Readers, I have also thought it convenient to cite the Greek text, of the 70. Interpreres.  Exodus 20. v. 4. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Where they do not only translate it serve, but show that it is a service proper to God, which is here forbidden, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and thou shalt not serve them with a divine or highest service, as I showed in the beginning out of Scripture to be understood by the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and S. Augustin q. 61. upon Genesis confirms the same.  
Now that the difference betwixt worshipping, and serving, may be better understood; and that worship, may in some true sense be attributed to things inanimate and without knowledge, but not service; the Protestants themselves grant that civil worship may be given to te chair of state, or picture, of a temporal King; but service only to his Royal person, not to his picture; so that no man can be rightly said to serve the King's chair of state or his picture, but to serve the King, and yet they may be, and are said truly, to worship or honour, by some external sign, his chair of state, etc. In the very same manner with proportion, one may truly be said to worship or reverence the picture of our Saviour, or his Saints, as things known and esteemed to be (as indeed they are) wholly dead, and inanimate, without any power at all, in themselves, to hear us, or help us, merely because they represent those holy persons whose pictures they are▪ but we cannot be said in any true or proper sense, to serve them, so long as we make only this esteem of them. And hence it is, that the reverence or worship which we yield to holy Images, is not intended to them, or to beg any favour of them, or think that any help can be conferred upon us by any power in them, 
Concil. Trid. sess. 24. c. 2.  and no Roman Catholic is to do otherwise. But we pray before them, that we having them before our eyes, may better and more attentively think of those whom they represent, and the reverence and honour which we give to them, is in a double respect; first we give them that reverence which is due to holy things, dedicated, and consecrated, or tending to the worship of God, as are altars, holy vessels, and such like; and in this respect we give them no more honour, nor worship, than the Protestants use to do to Churches in England, by keeping their hats of, kneeling &c. for as they do that to such places, rather than to their own houses, because they are the houses of God; so do we reverence holy Images, because they are holy things, putting us in remembrance of God, and heavenly things. Neither do we this without warrant of holy Scripture: for joshua 5. v. 15. an Exod. 3. v. 9 joshua and Moses are commanded to put of their shoes because the earth was holy whereon they stood; which was nothing but a reverence unto that earth made holy by the presence of God, or an Angel: and if a piece of ground must have been reverenced because it was holy, why not all other things, which are consecrated or referred to the worship and reverence of God?  
The second respect which we have 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 external reverence or worship, which we exhibit to them, is not directed to them, as the end or reason of our worship, but it is only to pass by means of them, to that which is represented by them; where it wholly and only rests, as in a thing intended to be worshipped by it. Thus when we do any reverence to an Image of the Virgin Mary, respecting it merly as her Image, the reverence or worship passes by means of that to the B. Virgin, and there only rests and terminates itself; 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 give any honour to God, or his Saints, otherwise then by means of one Image or other either corporal, of spiritual: for it is impossible to honour or worship any thing unless we think upon that which we worship: and it is impossible to think of any thing unless there be framed in our heads, or understandings a representation of that thing which we think of: now nothing can be represented, without some representation, as is clear, and every representation is an Image and likeness of that thing which is represents. So that we always honour whomsoever we honour, through that Image of our thought, which we frame of them; and all our acts of honour of worship pass through that interior imagination or thought which we have framed, to the object or thing, which is represented by it. Now for the better help of our imagination, or internal thought, we use some external thing as an object of our senses, to excite us to such thoughts, and keep us more lively and fixedly in them: thus words and discourses (wherein the things which we intent to worship, are described, or signified) help us to a more strong and attentive thought of them, and are the Images of the ear; through which as through representations of what we worship, we give honour to that which they represent to us: thus pictures and images, painted or carved, help the eye to frame a more full and ferme imagination, or thought of that we worship; now we have warrant enough in holy Scripture, to give honour, or adoration, to such things as help us to think of God, and have a reverence given them to that end.  
Thus in the 98. Psalm alias the 99 v. 5. Adorate scabellum pedum eius, worship or adore his footstool, which was nothing but the Ark of the Testament, as all agree, and notwithstanding here is a command to worship it. Your English translation to avoid the force of these words, translates it in this manner worship at his footstool: as though indeed no worship at all were commanded to be given to it; but only that God were to be worshipped at it. But this is another manifest fraud: for the hebrew word, and greek is the very same here with that of the 20. of Eodus, lo tishtachave lachem, and here, ve hishtacavou lafoy hathom ragluau. and in Exod. 20. because they will exaggerate the command against holy Images, it must be, thou shalt not bow down unto them: and here, Psalm. 98. v. 5. because they fear that the people might gather from hence, that creatures, and Images, (such as were the two Cherubins in the tabernacle, putting us in mind of the true God, were to be worshipped, it must be with them, worship at his footstool. Thus they change and chop the words of holy Scripture, to serve their own turns, at their pleasure so far, that even two Psalms before Psalm. 97. v. 7. they translate the same word and phrase in hebrew, worship him all ye Gods: and here it must not be worship his footstool, but, worship at bis footstool: 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 have it, worship at his footstool: but both the hebrew, and greek, and the Septuaginta, and the ancient vulgar Translation have it plain enough bow down unto his footstool, or, worship his footstool. whence I gather, that it is warranted in holy Scripture, to give reverence and worship as I before explicated, to such things as put us in mind of Almighty God, and consequently to holy Images. And as this is clear in Scripture, so is the practice thereof no less clear even amongst Protestants: for what more common amongst the more moderate of them, then to make a profound adoration at the name of jesus? which is nothing but a representation, or Image of our Saviour, to the ear: which practice seeing it is grounded (according to them) in those words, Phil. 2.10. In the name of jesus every knee shall bow, and those words, extend themselves as much to that sacred name seen by the eye, as heard by the ear, brings in a necessity, of granting a religious worship, to that most divine name, when we see it either printed in a book, or carved in a stone etc. what worship soever therefore, a well minded Protestant should judge to be given to that name thus engraven, with out all superstition or Idolatry, or breach of this commandment, let him give the same to any Image of our Saviour, and in the same manner, or at least judge that the like may lawfully be given to it, and no more in this point will be required of him, to be esteemed conformable to the doctrine, and practice of the Roman church. & what more generally practised before these troubles then to kneel in receiving the communion, which is only a resemblance or likeness of our Saviour's Passion with them? and so giving the reverence of kneeling to it, they properly worship an Image, or similitude, or remembrance, of our Saviour's death. And if any should answer that they worship not the bread and wine in the Lord's supper, nor kneel to them, but only to God when they receive them, I demand presently, whether they exhibit any kind of reverence to the bread and wine as a representation of our Lord's Passion, or no? if they answer that they give none at all to them: why then do they make an exterior show, and that by way of command and obligation, of exhibiting reverence and respect to those signs, seeing that in the exterior, none who see them, can judge that they give not some reverence even to them? again, if they give no reverence at all to them, what greater respect do they bear to the Lords supper, than they do to their own in their houses? so that if a zealous brother would kneel to God at the same time when he eats his supper, he whould show as much respect to a brown loaf, as he does to the Lords supper when he kneels only to God, in receiving it. And yet further, if one who goes to their communion, had no maw to adore God at that time, but should put it of to some other, when he found himself more moved by the spirit, why could not he receive sitting, or standing, and that without any external reverence at all, to what he receives visibly?  
Nay how could he in conscience receive kneeling ' or showing any external reverence? If they answer that they exhibit some reverence, to the external signs, as representations of our Lord's death; I demand, whether it be a civil or a religious reverence: to say it is a civil reverence, were absurd: for that is in matters of state and civil authority only; and this is in matter of Religion. If they say that it is a religious reverence, than I have my intent, that even Protestants do exhibit Religious reverence to signs, figures. and representations of our Saviour, no less than Catholics: and then I demand further, by what external sign they make profession of such a reverence to the signs of their communion: certainly they will find no other which shows it more clearly and fully, than their kneeling; or whatsoever they name, it is an external exhibition of religious reverence, which is nothing but worship in a true and Christian sense: whence appears that Protestants themselves are guilty of what they accuse us, that is, of giving woiship to an Image or figure, of our Saviour dying upon the cross for us. That which I have answered to the 20. of Exodus, is in like manner appliable to the 26. of Leviticus, v. 1. and to the 6. v. 73. for they speak only of Idols, and false Gods: from which, all Roman Catholics abhor far more than Protestants.  
It is not my intention here to enter into any school questions, which can neither easily be made plain enough to be rightly conceived, by all those whom I intent to inform in this treatis, nor are they necessary to be known by all Catholicques, nor if they were known, is it necessary to believe them. So long therefore, as the doctrine of the Council of Trent cited in the beginning of this controversy is believed and observed, no more will or can be required, (for so much as belongs to this point) of any one who either is, or intends to be, a Child of the Roman Church. which doctrine is not only without all danger, but even without all possibility of Idolatry: for seeing an Idolatrous worship must acknowledge a divine power, and virtue in that which it worships, and the Council expressly theaches that no such divine power is to be acknowledged in any Image, it is impossible to follow this doctrine, and to commit Idolatry in the worship we give to any Image, all therefore which is required to unite a Protestant in this particular to the doctrine of the Roman Church, is only this, that he believe no more that there is eyher life, virtue, or divinity in any Image, than he now believes there is in the name of JESUS spoken or written; that he put no more confidence, nor hope in the picture, than he now puts in the name, that he pray no more to the picture, than he now prays to that name, if kneeling before the name of JESUS graven upon some stone, he pray to our Saviour: but as he now puts of his hat and boweth his knee or body, when he sees or hears that name, he hold it lawful to exhibit the same reverence when one sees the picture of our Saviour, and as he may now kiss that sacred name in devotion to our Saviour, so he hold it lawful to kiss our Saviour's picture in devotion to him, or in his regard.  
If a Protestant should demand, whether there be as clear proofs of Scripture for the worship of Images, as there are for the worshipping the name of JESUS, I answer there are. That some Images may be lawfully made, is clear in the Brrazon serpent, Num. 21.8.9. That they may lawfully be put in places dedicated to the service of God, is evident in the two cherubins of gold, Exod. 25.18. That they may have a reference to divine service, and be ordinances helonging to it, is manifest Hebr. 9.1.5. That it is lawful to exhibit some worship to them, is all ready proved, Ps. 99.5. Adore his footstool. 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 undeniably prowed, Reu. 13. v. 15.16.17. And he had power to give life to the Image of the beast, that the Image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the Image of the beast should be killed; and he causeth all both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sall, save he who had the mark 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 never have compelled men to worship it, and that he was honoured no less in this, if not more, then in carijng his mark, and his name. which can be deduced from no other principle than 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 Saviour and the Saints are honoured as truly as any other in their Images.  
If any Protestant, demand farther whether there be any express command in the new Testament, to worship holy Images. I answer there is no express command. If it should be replied, that nothing is to be held, or practised by Christians which is not set down in express words in the new Testament. I answer that that is manifestly untrue, and must be confessed to be so even by Protestants themselves, for they can never find any express mention in the new Testament: that nothing is to be believed, or practised lawfully by Christians, save 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 baptism were put in those churches, 4. that childerens were ever actually baptised in those fonts, 5. that Godfathers, and Godmothers were to be used in Baptism of childerens, 6. that any spiritual kindred arises by virtue of Baptism, betwixt those Godfathers, and Godmothers, on the one side, and the childerens Baptised, & their Parents respectively on the other. If therefore none of those can be found mentioned expressly in the new Testament, with what show of reason, can Protestants demand, that the worship of Images, should be mentioned in the new Testament, seeing they practise these particulars, no less, than we the worship of Images? But in these, and such like religious practices, it is sufficient (even according to the Protestant Principle of sole Sctipture) that either there be express mention made of them, either commanding or allowing them in the old Testament, which is never revoked or dissallowed in the new (as is that of the worship of Images) or at least, that the lawfulness 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 Revel. now cited, for if the worship of the Image tend to the honour of him who is represented by it, (as is there evident) and that it is lawful to do all that which tends to the honour of our Saviour, than it follows inevitably, that the worship of his Image, is lawful, and the like is of the Images of Saints.  
Thus have I endeavoured to discover the different mistakes of Protestants, in the texts of Scripture cited by them against the use of holy Images, taught, and peactized in the Roman Church, and with all the strange mistranslations invented by them, to make holy Scripture speak to the vulgar, against the doctrine, and practice of the Roman Church in this particular. and this may sfuffice for the second Controversy.      

THE THIRD CONTROVERSY Concerning justification.  

The Doctrine of the Roman Church delivered 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 divina per jesum Christum gratiâ, posse iustificari coram Deo; Anathema sit.  
It any one shall say, that a man can be justified by his works, which are done by the force of human nature, or by the doctrine of the law, without divine grace through our Lord jesus Christ; let him be accursed.   

Ibidem. can. 2.  
Si quis dixerit ad hoc solùm divinam gratiam per jesum Christum dari, ut facilius homo iustè vivere ac vitam aeternam promereri possit; quasi per liberum arbitrium utrumque, sed aegrè tamen & difficulter possit; anathema sit.  
If any one shall say that divine grace through jesus Christ is given only to this end, that a man may more easily live justly, and deserve eternal life, as if he could do 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, ut ei iustificationis gratiâ conferatur; anathema sit.  
If any one shall say, that without the preventing inspiration of the holy Ghost, and his assistance, a man can believe, hope, love, and repent, as he should do to have the grace of justification bestowed upon him; let him be accursed.  
Here I demand upon what ground the 13 of the 39 English Protestant Articles, speaks thus of the school men of the Roman Church, Works 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 jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to recrive grace, or (as the school Authors say) deserve grace of Congruity. I would gladly have those school Authors named and cited, who affirm, contrary to the express words of the Council of Trent, so great a semi-Pelagian Heresy, as this is whereof they are here accused. And if none attall can be produced, how great an untruth is contained in this article, where it is said, not as some of the school Authors, but, as the school Authors say, that is, either universally, or commonly affirm; whence may clearly be collected, that those new Prelates and Doctors, who composed those 39 articles, which have been (ever since they were composed) esteemed the sum and substance of the Protestant Religion, and faith in England, were either grossly ignorant, in the doctrine of the school Authors, and exceeding temerarious in affirming that of them, which they never understood, or insufferably deceitful, and malicious, in accusing them (against their own knowledge and conscience) of holding generally an error, which not so much as any one of them ever held, but the quite contrary.   

Conc. Trid. ibidem cap. 8.  
cum verò Apostolus dicit iustificari hominem per fidem & gratis, 
Rom. 8.  ea verba in eo sensu intelligenda sunt, quem perpetuus Ecclesiae Catholicae consensus tenuit, & expressit; ut 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 pervenire: 
Hebr. 11.  gratis autem iustificari ideo dicamur; quia nihil eorum quae iustificationem praecedunt, sive fides, sive opera, ipsam iustificationis gratiam promeretur; si enim gratia est, 
Rom. 11. Ephes. 2. Tit. 5.  iam non ex operibus, alioquin, ut idem Apostolus inquit, gratia iam non est gratia.  
When the Apostle saith that a man is justified by faith and gratis, or freely, those words are to be understood in that sense, which the perpetual consent of the Catholicque Church always held, and expressed; to wit, that we are said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation, and root of all iustifieation: without which it is impossible to please God, and to come into the number, of his childerens. But we are said to be justified gratis, because none of these things which go before justification, whether it be faith, or works, deserve the grace of justification; for if it be grace, it is not of works, 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, renovantur, ut 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 justified, and made the friends, and of the household of God, going on from virtue, to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle saith, from day to day and using those arms of justice to sanctification, by the observance, of the commandments of God, and the Church, their faith cooperating with their good works, they increase through the grace of Christ, in the justice which they have received, and are justified more and more, as is it written, he who is just, let him be justified still.   

Conc. Trid. ibidem. can. 9  
Si quis dixerit, solâ fide impium iustificari, ita, ut 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 justified by faith only, so that he means that nothing else is required, which may cooperate to the obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is no way necessary that he be prepared, and disposed by the motion of his will; let him be accursed.  
From these authorities of the Council, it is manifest, that in this matter of justification, the Church of Rome, theaches, 1. that no works done by the mere natural force of our freewill; 2. nor by the sole doctrine or knowledge of the divine law, can justify a sinner in the sight of God. Can. 1. 3. That no unjust person, can without the preventing inspiration of the holy Ghost, do any thing (as it should be done) to obtain, the grace of justification. can. 3. 4. That neither faith, nor works, done by the inspiration of the holy Ghost, before justification, can merit justification, for it is a free grace of God, given not of works, but by the sole mercy of God, and for the sole merits of Christ. cap. 8. 5. That though the justification 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, prevented and assisted by the grace of God. can. 9 7. That being thus freely justified, & become the childerens of God through the assistance of God's grace in Christ, we may do good works, and by them (accepted through Christ's merits) become more and more just, in the sight of God. cap. 10. where in chiefly, consists the Roman doctrine, of justification by good works.  
This doctrine supposed, we will now take a view, of those texts, which Protestants usually press, out of Scripture mistaken against it, having first proved the Roman doctrine.    

The Catholic Position. Faith only justifieth not.  
YOu see that a man is justified by works, 
james 2▪ v. 24.  and not by faith only. which must needs be understood of a true and internal justification before Almighty God: for it must be that justification which comes by faith; but that is true and internal justification, as appears by all the texts cited hereafter in the paper, for proof of justification by faith only: that the justification which S. james speaks of here, is the very same with that which comes by faith, is most clear out of the words themselves. Ye see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. For it would be quite contrary to common sense to understand a justification before men, in the first part of this sentence, ye see that a man is justified by works, and a true internal justification in the sight of God, in the latter part, and not by faith only. For the word only, clearly demonstrates, that the same justification is to be understood in both parts of the sentence. Now that the justification common to both members of this place, must necessarily be meant of a true justification only in the sight of God, is out of all question to such as ponder what is delivered in it: for it would be most false, were it understood of a justification only before men●; no less than this manner of speech, ye see that this man is understood by his words, and not by his thoughts only, would be wholly false, were there only mention made of a man's being understood amongst men: for amongst them he is not understood 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 understood by Almighty God who only by his own power understands both thoughts and words; and so it is truly said, ye see that a man is understood (to wit, by Almighty God) by his words, and not by his thoughts only. And for the very same reason, this proposition of S. james we see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only▪ cannot be understood of a justification before men: for we are no more justified by saith before men, than we are understood amongst them by our thoughts: and therefore it must be interpreted of a justification before Almighty God; who only understands our faith as he does our thoughts (by his own power and knowledge) and can only see whether our faith be true, sincere, and justifying, or no; faith being nothing else but a thought, assent or judgement of the soul. And as all Protestants, in the ensuing texts urged for justification by faith only▪ understand an internal justification in the sight of God, so must they (will they not be unreasonably and willsully partial) understand the same by justification by faith, in this place of S. james, which is cleared v. 2. was not Abraham our father justified by worket when he had offered Isaac his soon upon the altar? for this having been done privately in the desert could not, when it was done, justify him before men. and yet more clear v. 22. seest thou not how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? what is here spoken of but the operation of faith and works in the soul, justifying in God's sight? For faith cannot be truly made perfect but declared to be perfect, by works so far as they justify only before men. And it is further demonstrated v. 23. And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, 
Rom. 4. v. 1.2.3.  and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God. Can any Protestant deny this to be meant of an imputation of righteousness, as they term it, or a justification before Almighty God, seeing it is the very same justification which is mentioned by S. Paul to the Romans which they mainly contend to be a true justification in the sight of God: or if they will have it here a justification only before men, they must acknowledge that the same mentioned to the Romans is no other than before men; and so, by endeavouring by such shifts to weaken the force of this text against themselves, they take away all force from that of Rom. 4. to conclude any thing against us. Besides, this justification of Abraham here mentioned by S. james, can be no other than that which is true and interval before God: for, as it follows in the text, he was called a friend of God; and that truly, for he was indeed, as he was called, a friend of God: and hence it follows inevitably, that the justification which S. james deduces from that of Abraham, by works, and not by faith only, as appears by the word then, we see then etc. is a true intrinsical justification in the sight of God; for no other, save that, could be rightly inferred from the former. And indeed though we had none of the foresaid evidences, to convince the true meaning of S. james, yet what man of judgement can imagine that this holy Apostle would labour so much to prove that Christians are justified by their good works before men, when that is a matter too clear and known, to need proof, and too light and frivolous to deserve it? or what considerate man can think 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 justified before men? seeing corrupt human nature is too too prone to do good works for such by ends as these, and hath more need of a bridle then a spur in this particular, and rather to be deterred from it, then put upon it, as our Saviour did the Stribes and Pharisees, who did their works to be seen, and consequently to be praised and justified before men. This text therefore having been demonstrated to be meant of justification before Almighty 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 ensuing text, cannot possibly contradict S. james here, as he must needs be thought to have done if he said (as Protestants would have it) that we are justified 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. james describes them here. we will now see in what sense S. Paul's words are to be understood, 
james 2. v. 22.26.  and reconcile them with this text of S. james.   

The Protestant Position. justification by faith only. This is proved by Scripture mistaken.  
Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith. 
Rom. 3. v. 28.  without the works of the law.  
Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord jesus Christ. 
Rom. 5.1.   
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed, from faith to faith, 
Rom. 1.17  as it is written, the just shall live by faith.  

Gal. 2.16.  Knowing this, that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Christ jesus: that we might be justified by jesus Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no living 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 proved by them. Neither i● i● consequent: a man is justified by faith without the works of the law; therefore a man is justified by faith only: no more than this follows, a man is nourished by bread, without the grass of the field; therefore a man is nourished by bread only. for though the grass of the field do not nourish us, yet many other things besides bread de nourish us. in like manner, though the woreks done by force of the grace of God, and not by force of the law, do justify us, and so we are not justified by saith only, nor at all by the works of the law; but by faith and good works done by the grace of jesus Christ, and not by the knowledge of the law.   

The Second mistake. The works of the law misunderstood.  
That S. Paul here understands 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 enlightened and assisted by his grace: and by this law is understood the law written in the books of Moses, both moral in the ten Commandments, and ceremonial, as circumcision, and other rites and ceremonies of the jews.  
That by works of the law, I say, are understood by S. Paul, only such works as are done by force of knowledge of the law, befotc the enlightening of the faith, and grace of Christ, is evident out of this chapter, Rom. 3. v. 14. Now we know, that what things soever the law saith, it saith to thcm that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Here he speaks 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 the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. The reason why the deeds of the law justify not, is, because they come from the knowledge of the law, & by the law is the knowledge of sin. whereunto he opposes the righteousness of God, which is by faith of jesus Christ unto 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. even the righteousness of God which is by faith of jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference. This is the known doctrine of all Roman Catholics against the Pelagians, that no work can justify which comes only by doctrine and light of the written law; but all justifying works must come from the faith and grace of Christ so that we all confess and conclude with S. Paul, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, that is, wirhout such works as are merely 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 understood, both the motall law written by Moses in the ten Commandments; and the ceremonial, contained in the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomij etc. for the moral law, Protestants themselves, doubt not that the Apostle speaks of it, and that the ceremonial is here meant is evident in the two next following Verses, speaking of jews and Circumcision, v. 24. Is he God of the jews only, and not also of the Gentiles: yea, of the Gentiles also. v. 30. Seeing it is one God which shall justify circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. and ●. 1. What advantage then hath the jew, or what profit is there of circumcision? and the seven last verses of the second chapter make it yet clearer; seeing that the Apostle's intent is there to prove, that justification did not only belong to the jews, but to the Gentiles also, and therefore the jews: were not to think that justification came by the observance of their ceremonial law which Moses had given them: and whereby they were chiefly distinguished from the Gentiles, who had knowledge of the moral law, and esteemed themselves obliged to observe it. Which is the present doctrine of Roman Catholics.   

The Third mistake. The word justify missapplied.  
Thirdly, by justification here, is understood, only the fitst Iustification from sin to justice, whereby a believer is made of a child of the devil, the child of God. this is clear v. 23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, v. 23. being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in jesus Christ. v. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation trough faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearante of God. And in this all agree that the first justification of a sinner is a work of the mercy and grace of God, through the merirs of our dearest Saviour; 
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 justification, or increase of that justice and grace which is given us in the first justification, and whereof S. John speaks Reu. 22. v. 11. Qui iustus est, iustificetur adhuc, he that is righteous, let him be righteous still, saith your English text, which signify only a perseverance in that righteousness or justice which was first received; 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 adjoined, show not only a perseverance, butsalso an increase, of that wickedness, or holiness wherein they were before: or, let him work righteousness, or justice still, as the greek hath it, which comes all to the same purpose. Now the question between us and Protestants, is only of the second justification, or increase of justice acquired in the first; which we only affirm to be augmented by good works done in and through the grace of jesus Christ.   

The fourth mistake. The word faith misconstu●ed.  
Fourthly, by faith is not to be understood a bare, sole, act of Christian faith; and much less of particular confidence, and application of Christ merits to ourselves, (whereof the Apostle speaks not one word in this place) where on Protestant's rely so much; but a faith vivificated, informed, and animated with charity, and other Christian vertus joined with it. This is cleate chap. 4. v. 1.2.3. where the faith of Abraham is brought in by the Apostle in proof of what he had said. Now who can deny but this faith was vivificated with charity? seeing S. james, 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 treats of the same justification by faith, maketh this matter out of question: for in jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor incircumcision; but faith, which worketh by love, or charity. This truth is embraced by all Roman Catholics, though it be not, as they hold, our formal justification, nor a condign merit of our first justification; but only a congruous, and yet sure disposition to it, through the merciful and faithful promise of God, and through the only merits of our Saviour. By all these particulars duly pondered, appears, that this text of the Apostle, Rom. 3. v. 28. therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, says nothing but what is taught by Roman Catholics universally. But if Protestants would conclude any thing against us, they must produce a text which says, good works of such as are justified already, done by virtue of the grace of Christ, and not by the bare knowledge of the law, do not justify, (and this only is in question betwixt us) that is, augment and increase that righteousness or justice already acquired, and make us more just. The former answer is likewise to be applied 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 intent to give full satisfaction to each text objected against us, I will add a word or two to these several texts.  

The second text. Rom. 5. v. 1. Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through out Lord jesus Christ.  

This text is mistaken.  
Here S. Paul speaks of the fitst justification, whereby a sinner is made a servant and friend of God (agreably to Roman catholics now delivered) as appears, v. 8. But God commendeth his love to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, and v. 10. for if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, by the death of Christ, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life: and the whole sequel of the chapter shows evidently that his main discourse is of the first justification and atonement of sinners and enemies to God through the death of Christ: yea even the text itself v. 1. here objected, declares itself sufficiently to be meant of the first justification, Therefote being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord jesus Christ, saith the text; for this having peace with God by justification, argues that before that justification, we had not peace, but enmity with God, and so were in state of sin and damnation; which is only true of the first justification; for before the second justification or increase of justice we have that peace with God, and so receive not peace by reason of it. And though there were no other answer save this, that, of whatsoever justification this text speaks, Rom. 5. v. 1. yet justification by faith only, (for proof of which it is alleged, will never be proved from it; for it saith, being justified by faith, but no news here of faith only.    

The third text. Rom. 1. v. 17. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the just liveth by faith.  

This text is mistaken.  
These words prove nothing at all for justification by faith only, no more than this proposition, the just man lives by breath, proves that the just man lives by breath only: for as his living corporally by breath. hinders not his living by meat, and drink, so his living spiritually by faith hinders not his living by good works: for as breathe, meat, and drink concur to his temporal; so faith an good works concur to his spiritual life. and even Protestants themselves must confess that this text, the just man liveth by fatih, cannot possibly infer that he liveth by faith only: for S. Paul saith, Rom. 3.24. being justified freely by his grace: and v. 18. even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to the justification of life. So that according to S. Paul, the just lives by grace, and by the righteousnsse of Christ, as well as by faith; and so not by faith only. Neither can it be answered, that faith itself is that grace where of the Apostle speaks, and consequently this objection of mine is to no 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 preventing grace, or divine light, and inspiration, which the holy Ghost infuses into man's hart as the principles, and causes of divine faith in us, which is bestowed upon us, purely gratis, and out of mere mercy.  
The 4. text, Gal. 2. v. 11. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.   

This text is mistaken.  
These words prove as little as any of the former, that is, nothing at all for justification by faith only. For, as it is most manifest by the whole precedent context in the chapter, the whole matter there handled, is about Circumcision and observation of the ceremonial law of the jews, as different from the life and practice of the Gentills: see v. 2.3.5.7.8.12.14. and chap. 4. v. 10. Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years, saith S. Paul reprehending the Christians for returning to those empty elements of the ceremonial law, v. 6. and the like chap. 5. v. 1.2.3. about circumcision, stand, and be not held in again with the yoke of servitude, behold I Paul tell you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; and I testify again to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to the whole law.  
Now neither Roman Catholic, nor English Protestant beleeue that they are justified by the ceremonial law of the jews, which only is touched in this chapter. And it is no less clear that there mention is made of the first justification whereby a sinner becomes a child of God, v. 10. We sinners by nature Iewes, and not of the Gentiles. Nay the text itself objected, Gal. 2. v. 16. speaks clearly of the first justification of a sinner to the state of grace, for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified; the word flesh signifijng most familiarly in S. Paul's Epistles, that which is not yet spiritual, but carnal, under the guilt of sin, and corruption of nature. For though such as are already justified, retain the concupiscenses of the flesh in them, yet because they resist and subdue them, so long as they remain justified. they are not called flesh, by S. Paul, but rather spiritual men.  
And that he speaks of the law as known by its own force, light, and doctrine is evident also v. 16. For if by the law be righteousness, than Christ is dead in vain. which is most true if we speak of the law as known to us, and working in us by its own force, wholly independent of the grace and illumination of Christ; but can have no true sense if we speak of the law as justifying by the grace of Christ: for then Christ will not have died in vain; because by his death he merited that grace and light by virtue of which only the law iustifyes. And chapter 3. v. 2. Have ye received the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? whereby is manifest, both that he speaks of the works of the law, as working before the receiving the holy Ghost, and of the first justification, or receiving of the Spirit, by the faith of Christ. and v. 18. For if a law were given which could vivificate, righteousness were truly from the law. which shows evidently, that the Apostle speaks of the law as considered in itself, and its proper force: for if we consider it as illuminated by faith, and the grace of Christ, it is able to vivificate, and consequently to justify, as the Apostle here plainly affirms. And that he speaks of the law as preceding the faith of Christ, is out of all question v. 23. Before faith came, we were concluded under the law, into that faith which was to be revealed. Therefore the law was our schoolmaster in Christ, that we might be justified from faith.       

THE FOURTH CONTROVERSY Of the merit of Good works.  

The Doctrine of the Roman Church delivered by the Council of Trent in this Point. Sessione 6.  
THe Couneil of Trent having delivered (as appears in the former Controversy) that no work truly pleasing to God (which only we understand by good works esteemed by us meritorious) can possibly be done either 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 justification, the Council supposes that none can produce any good work truly meritorious of heavenly blessings, but such as are already justified, and in state of grace: and so delivers the ensuing doctrine. Sessione 6. c. 16.  
Bene operantibus usque in finem, & in Deo sperantibus, proponenda est vita aeterna, & tanquam gratia filiis per Christum jesum misericorditer promissa, & tanquam merces ex ipsius Dei promissione, bonis ipsorum operibus ac meritis fideliter reddenda.  
Eternal life is to be propounded to those who do well, and hope in God, both as a grace mercifully promised through JESUS Christ to childerens, and as a reward faithfully to be rendered through the promise of God, to their good works and merits.  
And yet the Council gives 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, & JESV Christi meritum ●i bene agendo, & divina mandata custodiendo, usque in finem perseveraverint; anatheme sit.  
If any one shall say, that just men are not to expect and hope for an eternal recompense for their good works, which were done in God, through the mercy of God, and the merits of Christ, if they persever, to the end in doing well, and keeping Gods, commandments; let him be accursed.  
And the full reason of this doctrine is gi●en, Sess. 6. c. 16.  
cum 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, divinae legi pro huius vitae statu satisfecisse, & vitam aeternam suo etiam tempore, si tamen in gratiâ discesserint, consequendam, verè promeruisse censeantur.  
For seeing Christ himself, infuses virtue continually into people already justified, as the head into the parts, and the vine into the branches, which virtue always precedes and accompanies, and follows their good works, and without which they could not by any means be grateful to God, and meritorious; it is to be believed that nothing else is wanting to them, but that by those works, which are done in God, they may be thought to have satisfied the divine law, proportionably to the condition of this present life, and truly to have merited eternal life, which is here af●er to be rendered to them, if not withstanding they die in the state of grace.  
And to show, that this doctrine, hinders not the humility of a Christian, the Council, gives this admonition.  
Absit tamen ut Christianus homo in seipso vel confidat, vel glorietur, & none in Domino: cuius tanta est erga homines bonitas, ut eorum velit esse merita, quae sunt ipsius dona.  
far be it notwithstanding that a Christian should either confide, or glory in himself, and not in our Lord: whose goodness to men is so great, that he wills that those which are his gifrs, should be our merits.  
And lastly to show what it is, which just men▪ merit by their good works, the Council delivers this doctrine. can. 32.  
Si quis dixerit— ipsum iustificatum bonis operibus, quae ab eo pcr Dei gratiam, & JESV Christi meritum, cuius viwm 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 just person, merits not truly by his good works, which are done by the grace of God and merit of Christ, increase of grace, eternal life; and the attaining eternal life, if he depart hence in state of grace, and the increase of gloey; let him be accursed.  
From these definitions of the Council, is clear, 1. that none save persons already justified can have these meritorious works. 2. That they must all be done by force and virtue of the gtace of Christ. 3. To make even such works which proceed from grace completely, and truly meritorious is required the free and merciful promise of God, whereon all merit is grounded. 4. That this Promise of God, to reward such works, and the acceptation of those works 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 increase of internal grace, eternal life, the obtaining of eternal life, and the increase of glory in heaven. amongst which seeing the Council puts not actual grace, that is the enlightening of our understanding by heavenly thoughts, and the inflaming of our will by pious affections, it gives free liber for all Christians to believe, that no just person, can by his good works or merits, deserve to have such actual graces, but that they all proceed from the free grace, and mercy of God, bestowed liberally upon every just person, for the sole merits of Christ, and not dew to any whatsoever of his good works. 6. Hence the Council affirms that all our merits are the true gifts of God, coming from his free grace, and that so we are neither to confide, nor glory in ourselves, but only in God. 7. Hence clearly follows, that this doctrine of merits, cannot possibly be any way injurious to our Saviour's passion, seeing it is grounded, both according to the grace where by such meritorious works are produced, and the free promise of God to accept of them, as meritorious, and to render a reward to them, for the sole passion of our dearest Saviour, the virtue whereof is applied to us by the meritorious force of such works. as it also is by the impetratory force of prayers, the first derogating noe more from the power of his merits, than the second of his prayers.  
That which is here said, of the impretatory, and meritorious, is to be extended to the satisfactory vertu of good works. For so the Council of Trent, speaks of them. Sessione 14. cap. 8. neque verò ita nostra est satisfactio haec, quam pro peccatis nostris exoluimus, ut non sit per Christum JESUM: nam qui ex nobis tanquam ex nobis nihil possumus; eo cooperante qui nos confortat omnia possumus, ita ut non habeat homo unde glorietur, sed omnis gloriatio nostra in Christo est, in quo vivimus, 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 so ours which we pay for our sins, that it is not through JESUS Christ. For we who of ourselves, as of ourselves, can do nothing, he cooperating who comforts us we can do all things, so that man hath nothing where of to glory, but all our glory is in Christ, in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we satisfy, bringing forth worthy fruits of penance, which have 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 Roman doctrine, I thought fit to add one clause of the 39 articles, which favours much the merit of Good works.  

Arti. 12. Of Goodworkes.  
All be it that good works, which are the fruits of faith, cannot put away sins, and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ.  
If pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, than no way sinful, but truly and absolutely good and just, for no 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 lover of sin, and Christ should not take away sins, but make them pleasing, and acceptable to God, which is a flat blasphemy. If truly and absolutely without sin, and just, then having in holy Scripture the promises of God annexed to them, to reward them, and that we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture, as saith article 17. sub finem, it is most manifest, that all the good works of just and righteous people, shall be rewarded in Christ, and so be truly meritorious in Christ: having such a supernatural goodness. comformable to that heavenly reward in them. which is all that is taught, in this point, by the Church of Rome.    

The Protestant Position. That the good works of the Regerate are not such, as can deserve heaven.  
This is prowed by Scripture mistaken.  

The first Proof.  

Rom. 8. v. 18.  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed unto us.  

The first mistake. Nothing against merits in this text.  
NO more is a grain of mustard seed worthy to be compared to that high and spread stalk, & those multitudes of increase which it bears; and yet it produces them: as also do the small sufferings of thy world that fair tree of life, and glory in heaven, as witnesseth S. Paul 2. Cor. 4. v. 17. For our light affliction which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding, and eternal weight of glory.    

The second Proof.  
So likewise ye, 
Luke 17. v. 10.  when you have done all those things which are commanded you, say; we are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was but our duty to do.  

The Second mistake. These words missapplied against merits.  
What is there here which denies the deserving heaven by the good works of the regenerate? is it because we have only done our duty? and why then deserves a servant his wages, by doing his duty, and nothing else? is it because we are unprofitable servants? and who can bring any profit to God who is uncapable of profit? Hence is only proved that Almighty God is no way beholden to us, but we to him for all our good works: and therefore we are all to humble ourselves before him; and to acknowledge that all our merits are his gifts, and the reward bestowed on them, grounded in his free promise, and acceptation of them, for the merits of Christ.    

The third Proof.  
We are not saved by works, lest any one should boast. if righteousness come by the law, than Christ is dead in vain.  

The Third mistake. The word works misunderstood.  
The answer to Rom. 3. v. 28. etc. is here to be applied: for he speaketh manifestly of the works of sinners before rheir first justification, as appears 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 workmanship, created in Christ jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.    

The fourth Proof.  

Rom. 6. v. 23.  For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life through jesus Christ our lord if a full gift, than no merit.  

The fourth mistake. The word wages, and gift missapplied.  
The true mearing of this text must be drawn from the greek word here used, where that which the English hath wages, is in greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, opsonia, which properly signifies the base and ignoble stipend which was wont to be given to common soldiers, as their ordinary pay: and therefore it is fitly. Used to express the wages of sin, which is death. That which in English here is called a gift, is in greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, charisma, which signify a donative, or noble an precious reward; which was used anciently to be bestowed upon such as had carried themselves famously and valiantly (where by they deserved it) for some service of war, above their ordinary pay: and therefore was fit to be applied to signify that high reward which shall be obtained in heaven by such as shall have persevered in good works till death.  
Which could not be signified by the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by reason of the baseness and lowness of it: so that both these words do properly signify a recompense: the one a high and noble one, and yet proceeding from the worthy and liberal disposition of the Prince, and so happily exceeding the precise worth of the service, as alsoe Almighty God doth in rewarding our works, qui remunerat ultra condignum, who rewards beyond the condignity and worth of the merit, as our Divines teach; and the other an ordinary low stipend due to common soldiers who have no particular worth in them. So that the true meaning of this text, according to the proper signification of the words in the original is this the base recompense and hirelings wages of sin is death, but the high, noble and rich reward of God is eternal life, and thus the text makes nothing against the merit of good works, but rather, makes plainly for them. Further if we take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a pure free gift we may answer with S. Austin, and the Council of Trent now cited that because the good works & merits themselves are the free gifts of God, so also the glory of heaven which is deserved by them, is called truly a gift; as if one should give any one a tree the fruit which it bear also may be called his gift who gave the tree. More over, seeing (as we have learned from the Council of Trent above cited) that the primary title, and right which all Gods childeren have to eternal life, is that of inheritaene; which is a free gift of God, before all merit of heaven, eternal life may be properly called the gift of God, as being absolutely decreed to be bestowed upon them as his childerens, before they had any merits, to deserve it, supposing that they die in state of grace.     

The Catholic Position.  

That the works of the regenerate are such as can deserve heaven.  
I have fought a good fight, 
2. Tim. 4▪ v. 7.8.  I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Hence forth there is laid up form a crown of righterusnesse (iustitiae, of justice, saith the Greek and Latin) which the Lord the righteous (iustus, the just) judge shall give me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reddet, shall restore unto me, at the last day, (the greek at that day) and not to me only, but unto them also who love his coming. By a crown of justice, he means a true reward, or prize, got by labour, as appears, 
1. Cor. 9 v. 24.25.  know ye not that those which run in a race, run all, but one receiveth the prize, so run, that ye may obtain and every man that striveth for the mastery, is temperate in all things: now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible: 
2. Cor. 4. v. 17.  for our light affliction which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.  
If our afflictions work a crown of eternal glory than 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 he reap for he that soweth to his flesh (latin in his flesh) from his flesh also shall reap corruption: but he that soweth in the spirit shall reap life everlasting. So that life everlasting is a proper fruit of a spiritual and godly life, and so such a life, is the true cause of salvation. Reuel. 3. v. 4. Speaking of the elect. saith: They shall walk w●ith me in white garments, because they are worthy. Therefore the true servants of God, have something in this world which makes them worthy of eternal life: and that is their innocent and unspotted lives, as the Evangelist declares in the next precedent words, but thou hast some in Sardis who have not defiled their garment. R. 3. v. 8. Behold I have given thee a door open which noman can shut, because thou hast some small virtue, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. where the virtuous life, and good works of that person, are affirmed to be the cause, why eternal happiness was to be bestowed upon him. Hebr. 6.9. for God is not unrighteous, to forget your work, and labour of love, which ye have showed towards his name, in that ye have ministered to the Saints and do minister, and v. 12. That ye be not flothfull but followers of them, who through faith, and patience inherit the promises. where it is said, both that it belongs to the justice of God to remember our good works, and that not only by faith, but by patience also (and the same is of all other virtues) we inherit the promises, as Abraham did, v. 13.14. Reuel. 3. v. 10. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will preserve the from the hour of temptation which is to come through the whole world to tempt the inhabitants upon earth. where the desert of good works is most clearly delivered.   

The Protestant argument against merit of Good works.  
The blessed saints were ever ready to acknowledge their unworthiness with humility.  

Mistake. This tutches not the merit of good works.  
THey are humble and ever will be, and must be according to our doctrine both because they are never fully certain, that they have any one work 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 works all good in them. And all their merits, are his gifts, as S. Augustin says, and rewarded through the free acceptation of them for the merits of Christ according to the council of Trent sess. 25. c. 16. But if by this title be understood, that no just man hath any works truly good, and pleasing to God, through the working of God's grace in them (as the mistaken proofs seem to insinuate) it will be a false humility, because it stands upon a false ground, and so no humility of Saints.    

This Protestant argument is proved by Scripture mistaken.  

The first proof.  

Dan. 9.7.  O Lord righteousness belongs unto thee, and unto us 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 time, because from the highest to the lowest they, and their Predecessors had grievously sinned against the law of God. As appears through the whole prayer of Daniel in that chapter, and he puts his own sins to the rest, v. 20. as having transgressed with the rest. But how proves this that neither he nor any other Saint had done any good works?    

The second proof.  

Ps. 103.3.  And David. If thou Lord shouldest be extreme to mark what is done amiss. O Lord who may abide it.  

The second mistake  
This text proves that all Saints have some sins, but not that they have no merits.  
How proves this that no Saint can have any good wotkes, or merits, for they do many things a miss, yet through the grace of Christ they may do some things aright?    

The third proof.  
Speak not thou in thy hart saying for my righteousness, 
Deut. 9 v. 2.  the Lord hath brought me in to possess the Land, but for the wickedness of this nation, the Lord doth drive them out from before thee, was the counsel of Moses to the Israelites.  

The third mistake. This tutches sinners but not Saints.  
The reason of this counsel was because the Israelites had grievously offended god in the wilderness as appears, v. 7.8.9. etc. where Moses reekons up the heinous Idolatry, and other great sins which they committed.       

THE fifth CONTROVERSY Of Purgatory.  

The Roman 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, ut 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 justification is received, the fault, and guilt of eternal punishment is so remitted to every penitent person, that there remains no guilt, or liableness to some temporal punishment to be paid either in this world, or in the world to come in Purgatory, before the entrance into the Kingdom of heaven can be opened to them; let him be accursed.   

Conc. Trid. sess. 25. Decreto de Purgatorio  
Praecipit sancta Synodus, ut sanam de Purgatorio doctrinam, à sanctis Patribus, & sacris Coneiliis traditam, à Christi fidelibus credi, teneri, doceri, & ubique 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, ewlgari, ac tractari non permittant. Ea verò quae ad curiositatem quandam, aut superstitionem spectant, vel turpe lucrum sapiunt, tanquam scandala, & fidelium offendicula prohibeant.  
The holy Synod commands the Bishops that they take diligent care, that the sound doctrine of Purgatory, delivered by the holy Fathers, and the sacred Councils be believed, held, taught, and preached, by the faithful of Christ. But that amongst the common sort of people, all difficult, and subtle questions, which make not for edification, & by which commonly there is no access to piety, be secluded from popular sermons. But those things which tend to curiosity, or which taste of base lucre, as being scandals, and offences of the faithful, they are to prohibit.  
In these two places we see, 1. That none but just people suffer in Purgatory, 2. That those pains are only the remainder of such temporal pains, dew after the remission of sin, and eternal punishment, which they deserved in this life. 3. That the Church of Rome, forbids all temporal gains to be made, of the doctrine of Purgatory, where by it appears how injurious the aspersion of some of our Adversaries is to the Church of Rome. in accusing her, to have invented Purgatory, not to gain souls, but money. 4. All difficult questions, are here excluded from ordinary sermons, to common people, and all curiosities forbidden.    

The Protestant Position.  
That the souls of the faithful (in their departure) are happy, we often read: but no news of Purgatory.  

This is proved by Scripture mistaken.  
Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord: from hence forth saith the spirit, that they may rest from their labours, and their works follow them.  

The first mistake. The text saith not they rest presently after their death.  
They are not said here to rest presently after their departure, but that they may rest: and yet they may be termed blessed, as our Saviour calls the poor in spirit blessed in this world, 
Mat. 5.3.  and in their misery: because the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them, as it does to those in Purgatory.   

The second mistake. The word labours misapplyed.  
They are not said to rest from all labour; but from their labours; that is such labours, persecutions, afflictions, sorrows, temptations, mortifications, troubles, anxietyes as they suffered in this world; from all which they rest after death. By their labours also may be fitly here understood their good works, and patience in suffering the miseries of this life with hope of eternal reward, so that they are said to rest from their labours, because the recompense and crown of their former labours are allotted 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 receive the reward of them which hinders not the resting of their labours, because they are not to have any reward for what they suffer after this life.    

The second proof out of Scripture mistaken.  
For we know that if the eartly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, 
2. Cor. 5. v. 1.  a house not made with hands eternal in heaven.  

This text is mistaken. These words say not that presently after death they shall go into that heveavenly house.  
How follows it hence, that so soon as they depart they must go into this house prepared for them? seeing that many may have houses that are hindered to live in them, especially in these distracted times: and our Saviour saith, Blessed are the poor in spirit: 
Mat. 5.3.  for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; even whilst they are living in this world. And the Apostle: 
Ephes. 2. u. 19  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and furainers, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God. 
1. ep. Io. c. ●. 13.  And yet more clearly S. john, these things I writ unto you that ye may know, that ye have life everlasting, ye who believe in the name of the soon of God. That is in full hope and expectation, not in actual possession, which yet i● said more clearly to belong to those in Purgatory, who have, an infallible certainty, of life eternal.    

The third proof from Scripture mistaken.  

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

Mistake▪ The word torment misunderstood.  
The Latin hath it, non tanget illos tormentum mortis: the torment of deach, shall not touch them. which is most true of all the just departed; because they shall live eternally: but Protestants regard not the vulgar Latin translation. The greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which, according to Scapula, particularly signify a torment, to which malefactors, or suspected to be so, are put to make them confess the truth, or to try whether they be guilty or no, as are the rack, or such like. Now no such torment as this; shall touch the souls of the just departed, because God hath sufficiently tried them, and approved of them in this life, as appears v. 5. and having been a little chastised, they shall be greatly rewarded, for God proved them, and found them worthy of himself.  
Which is a plain 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, divine Person, which not withstanding, are believed 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 manner. Purgatory is nothing else according to the Council of Trent now cited, but a place where temporal punishments are suffered by just people after death, which they deserved in this life. Now if any justified soul be and often is liable after death to suffer such punishments, then certainly there must be some certain place where they must be suffered. But justified souls 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 justified souls may be and often are liable to such punishments I prove thus. justified people yet living after the remission of their sins, and consequently of eternal torment, are liable to some temporal punishment, therefore souls departed of just people, may, and often are liable to the like. I prove the antecedent, out of the, 2. Sam. 12. v. 13.14. And David said unto nathan I have sinned against the Lord, and Nathan said unto David, the Lord also hath put away thy sins thou shalt not die: Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also which is borne unto the, shall surely die. wheat for that very sin which was put away, and forgiven, David was punished by the death of his child, because thou hast given by this deed, 
Rom. 6. v. 23.  etc. the child shall die.  
The same is proved by the example of Adam who after his sin was forgiven him, was notwithstanding liable to the punishment of death (which is the wages of sin) as are also all just people, for the same reason.  
The antecedent therefore being clear, I prove the consequence, by this argument. Seeing God is no respecter of people, 
Reu. 21, ●1. 1. Pet. 1.17.  and that he rewards every one according to their works, whosover deserves the like punishment that David deserved, shall surely be punished, as David wa●slet us therefore put this case, that at the same time with David, there had been an other Person, guilty of sins as great as were those of David, who should have also repent, with the same degree of sorrow, and consequently obtained pardon of his sin as David did, this sinner must have been liable to the same temporal punishment that David was, now suppose that this other sinners should have died, the very instant after his sin was forgiven him, according to the doctrine of the Roman Church he should have been punished temporally in the other world, with a punishment correspondent to that of David, and so God should not have been a respecter of people, but have rewarded every one according to their works, but according to Protestants, he should have had no punishment at all after this life, and consequently, he should not have been rewarded according to his works, not suffering the condign punishment, which he truly deserved, and God should have proceeded unequally, in inflicting his punishments, and have had respect to his person more than to that of David. neither is Purgatory any way injurious to the justice of God, because though he forgive the guilt of the sin, and the eternal punishment, for which man is not able to satistisfie, yet he reteynes a part of the punishment, which being finite and temporal, may either by works of penance and patience be remitted in this world, or paid in the world to come, or released by the prayers, and penances of other faithful Christians. And this may satisfy for the point of Purgatory.      

THE sixth CONTROVERSY Of the Real Presence of the Body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.  

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

Sess. 13. Can. 1.  
SI quis negaverit in Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento contineri verè, realiter, & substantialiter Corpus & Sanguinem, unâ cum animâ & divinitate Domini nostri IESV Christi, ac proinde totum Christum, sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo ut in signo, vel figurâ, aut virtute; anathema sit.  
If any one shall deny that in the most holy Eucharist is contained truly, really, and substantially the body, and blood, together with the soul & divinity of our Lord JESUS Christ, and consequently whole Christ; but shall say that he is in it, only as in ● sign, or figure, or virtue; let him be accursed.   

Ibidem. Can. 2.  
Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis & vini, unâ cum corpore Domini IESV Christi, etc. anathema sit.  
If any one shall say that in the holy Sacrament of the Eucherist remains the substance of bread and wine, together with the body and blood of our Lord JESUS Christ, etc. 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 usu dum sumitur, non autem ante vel post, etc. 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 JESUS Christ, but only in the use, whilst it is received, and neither before nor after, etc. let him be accursed.   

Ibidem. C. 6.  
Si quis dixerit, in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latriae, etiam externo adorandum, etc. anathema sit.  
If any one shall say, that Christ the only Sun of God in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, is not to be worshipped with the worship of latria, or divine worship, even external, etc. 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 conceit of this high mystery, and to inform him, upon what ground the Church of Rome teaches this doctrine, I thought it necssary to cite those texts of the new Testament, which deliver the institution of this Sacrament that the Reader may with one view, see how largely, and clearly the holy Scripture, if it be understood according to the proper signification of the words, speaks for this doctrine of the Real presence. And that I may not be thought to have cited the words, otherwise than Protestants admit of them, I will cite the texts as I find them in the Protestant English bible.   

Mat. 26. v. 26.27.28.29.  
And as they were eating jesus took bread and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it, to his disciples and said, take, eat, this is my body.  
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying drink ye all of it;  
For this is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.   

S. Mark c. 14. v. 22.23.24.25.  
And as they did eat, jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave to them, and said, take eat, this is my body.  
And he ●ooke the cup and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it, and he said unto them, this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many.   

Luc c. 22. v. 19.20.  
And he took bread and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them saying, this is my body which is given for you, this do in remembrance 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 have received of the Lord that which also I deliver unto you, that the Lord jesus the same night in which he was betrayed taken bread.  
And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, take eat this in my body, which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of me.  
After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new Testament in my blood, do this as often as ye drink in remembrance of me.    

The Protestant discourse of the Eucharist begins thus.  

Objection 1.  
THe institution of this Sacrament is expressed in the 3 first Euamgelists S. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and also by S. Paul, in all which they agree in these 4 things, that JESUS took, blessed, broke and gave bread: for he that saith, JESUS took bread, blessed, broke and gave it, saith plainly enough, that he broke, and gave bread, and not the species of bread as they hold.   

Answer.  
If this objection intent to prove (as certainly it doth) that our Saviour took, blessed, broke, and gave bread to his disciples so, that that which he gave them, was bread remaining in the same substance of natural bread which it had when he took it, I deny that our Saviour gave bread to his disciples, or that the three Evangelists and S. Paul cited agree in this: the proof that our Saviour gave natural bread to his disciples, because (saith the objection) he that saith jesus taken, bread, brake, and gave it, saith plainly enough that he broke and gave bread: is grounded in a false translation or addition to the text of holy Scripture in the English Protestant Bibles: for neither hath the greek nor latin the word it; and though the Protestant Bible, of the year 1630. and 1632. have these words, jesus took bread and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, all in the same letter and print, as if the word it were no less in the original than the others adjoined, yet the latter Bibles and namely that of the year 1646. put the word it in a different letter, to signify that it is nor in the original, but added (as they pretend) for greater explication, as appeareth in a thousand other places: and in the Bibles of the years 1630. and 1632. S. Mark and S. Luke have the words thus, jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave unto them: where the word it is not joined to blessed and gave, but only to brake, and then the word it is put in a different smaller letter than the other words. All which convince that the word it is not in the original; and so is not holy divine 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 appears, how cunningly the Protestant translatours detain the ignorant readers by putting in words serving, as they think, to their own purpose in the very same print and letter with the rest which are joined to them, and are in the original, as if they were in the Original no less than the others; which notwithstanding in othet editions, translations, and places of Scripture they signify, not to be in the original nor Gods word, by printing them in a lesser letter, after they were convinced 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 unlearned which are not able to examine, what is, and what is not in the Original, 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 their Church, which are of equal authority, some of them put a word in their text in the same tenor, as if it were no less Scripture than 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 have force, for though the text run thus, jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to his disciples, yet it may seem that he blessed, broke, and gave no other thing then that very bread which he took, remaining in its own substance and nature. For certainly he must have blessed, and broken, and given something to his disciples: and what can that be imagined to be but what he took? that therefore which he took, having been true natural hread, as the text expressly saith, jesus took bread, he must be supposed to have blessed, and broken, and given true natural bread to his disciples.  
I answer, that our Saviour, though he be supposed to have blessed, broken, and given some thing to his disciples, yet it follows not that he broke and gave natural bread: for he might take bread remaining in its own nature, and after break and give his Body, wherinto the bread which he took, was changed: as in the marriage feast of Galilé after the vessels were filled with water, and our Saviour said, draw now and bear to the governor of the feast: certainly they drew, and carried, and the governor of the feast drunk something; yet it follows not, that as they filled the vessels with water, so they drew, and carried, and the governor of the feast drunk natural water; but as it is said v. 9 water made wine, or wine wherinto the natural water wherewith the seruants filled the vessels, was changed. yea though the word it had been in the text, or were supposed to be rightly joined to it, could any one thence prove more, that, as our Saviour took natural bread, so he broke and gave natural bread remaining the very same which he took, than one can prove from the water of Galilé that as the servants filled the vessels with natural water, so they drew, and carried, and the master of the feast drunk natural water remaining the very same which was filled, because the text says v. 8. and they carried it, and v. 9 the ruler of the feast knew not whence it was.  
But the objection in prevention of this answer urgeth the former argument yet further in this manner.   

Objection 2.  
For the actions of brake and gave, were before the words of consecration This is my Body▪ and consequently, not being changed, it must be bread which he broke and gave.   

Answer.  
This argument proceeds from misunderstanding and mistaking this text of Scripture▪ for though it saith, our Saviour broke, and gave to his disciples, and said, This is my Body; yet it says not (as the objection would have it say) that our Saviour after he broke and gave to his disciples, said, This is my Body, these being very different senses: for though the Scripture first mentioneth brake and gave, and then sets down that our Saviour said This is my Body, yet it may well stand with the truth of the words, that at the same time and instant whilst he broke and gave, he said, This is my Body, and so gave not bread till it was changed into his Body, as if one should give a piece of bread to a person in want, one might say truly, he took bread and broke it, and gave it to him, 
Luke 22. v. 19  and said, take this alms, though he spoke these words, take this alms, at the very same time when he gave it. And that our Saviour spoke these words, This is my Body, whilst he was giving what he gave to his disciples. and not after, is manifest: first, because S. Luke affirms it to be so, he took bread, and broke, and gave to them, saying, This is my Body: that is, whilst he gave, he was pronouncing these words. and though in the institution of the chalice, S. Mark says, and he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them, etc. and said, This is my Blood of the new Testament, which shall be shed for many. 
Luke 22. v. 20.  Yet S. Luke says: Likewise the cup also after supper, saying, This cup is the new Testament in my Blood, which shall be shed for you. S. Paul also in the same manner▪ 
1. Cor. 11. v. 25.  also he took the cup when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new Testament in my Blood. Secondly, because all, as well protestants, as Catholics, agree that our Saviour gave his disciples a Sacrament; and, as they say, a sign of his Body which was made a Sacrament by virtue of these words, This is my Body: therefore it were an impiety to say that our Saviour gave bread to his disciples before these words were pronounced; for than he had given a mere piece of bread, and neither Sacrament, nor his Body, nor sign of his Body. Thirdly, if our Saviour had perfectly given that which he put into the disciples hands, before he had pronounced the words of consecration. the Scripture saying, he took bread, brake, and gave to his disciples, and said, This is my Body. than it would follow by the same argument that our Saviour gave bread, that is to say, put bread into the hands of his disciples before they took it into their hands, which is impossible: or, that he bade them take what they had already taken, which were absurd, because S. Matthew relates the institution so, that he mentioneth first gave, and then take jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to his disciples, and said, take, eat, this is my Body. If indeed the Scripture had affirmed that our Saviour gave to his disciples, after he had said, This is my Body, the argument had been of force: but s●eing it says not so, but only mentioneth first, gave, and after, the words of consecration, as it mentioneth gave before it mentions take, and that common sense tells us they must be done at, the same time, there is nothing against the real presence by this rather mistake them argument.   

Objection 3.  
S. Paul observes, that after he broke and gave, he said, This is my Body which is broken for you.   

Answer.  
S. Paul's words, according to the Protestant translation, are these, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat, This is my Body. where there is no express mention of giving to his disciples at all: and therefore what the objection here affirms, that S. Paul observes that after he broke and gave, he said, This is my Body, is very far from truth. Again, though S. Paul said, This is my Body, yet he says not that after he broke, he said, This is my Body, as the objection affirms. Neither said S. Paul, when he had broken, he said, Take and eat, as he says, when he had giuen thanks, This is my Body. for that would have some show of proof that he pronounced the words after he had broken; but only affirms, he broke and said, This is my Body: which words may as properly signify that he broke and spoke these words morally at the same time, as that he first beak, and then pronounced them. As when it is said in S. Matthew, In those days came john Baptist preaching in the desert, and saying, Repent etc. where, though saying be put after preaching in the text, yet no man is so senseless as to think that he preached before he said something; or, that he preached before he said what the Evangelist affirm him to have said as the subject of his preaching, Repent etc. 
job 21. & alibi▪  So also in job different times Almighty God, job, and his friends are affirmed in the English Bibles, than job answered and said etc. Then the Lord answered and said etc. where, though answered be put before said, yet no child will imagine they answered before they spoke, or spoke before they said what the text affirms them to have said.  
Whence it is most evident, that words which are set one after another, signify not always, nor ever certainly (merely because they are set one before another) that the actions done and signified by them, follow one another just as these words do. And so merely thence can be drawn no forcible argument in this particular. And yet if we should grant for other reasons and circumstances, that our Saviour broke the bread before he pronounced the words of consecration, whilst it was yet but bread; what would this help our adversary's, or hurt us? for than it would follow, that bread was broken whilst it remained in its own substance; but given to the disciples after it was changed into the Body of Christ, or morally speaking whilst our Saviour was giving it unto them.   

Objection.  
Here we see plainly (both by their own rules, and our Saviour's actions) that it was bread which he broke, and gave, and not the species of bread which was broken and given, that is to say the breadth, colour and taste of bread, but no bread.  
This word broken must needs have relation to that bread broken before he said, This is my Body, because he did not break it again after he said, it was his Body.   

Answer.  
If we understand by broken mentioned by S. Paul when he said. He broke, and said, Take, eat, this is my Body, that he broke the bread changed into his Body by consecration, or in a moral understanding, whilst he changed and consecrated it by these words, This is my Body, it might happily contain no great absurdity, to grant that this second word is broken may have relation to the former he broke: for in both of them (according to this opinion) his Body was mysteriously and sacramentally broken for us.  
But if we understand by brake, as the Objection supposes upon a false ground (as I have already demonstrated) the breaking of natural bread before he said This is my Body, than it is wholly false, and injurious to our Saviour and the work of our Redemption to understand that these words which is broken for you, have relation to brake which was mentioned before. For that were to say, that a mere piece of bread, before it was made either a Sacrament, or his Body, or so much as a sign of his Body, was hroken for us; which neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Christian doth or can affirm without blasphemy: for before these words, This is my Body were pronounced, all agree that the bread was neither made his Body, nor any Sacramental sign of it. Neither can it possibly stand with the other Evangelists, that broken here should be only a breaking of common and natural bread before it was made a Sacrament by these words, This is my Body: for it is certain that S. Paul here understands by broken for you, the same which S. Luke signify by this is my Body which is given for you; especially seeing that by breaking & giving things belonging to eating, whether temporal or spiritual, the same thing is signified in many places of Scripture, according to the Hebrew phrase. Now to say, that a piece of natural bread unconsecrated, was given for us, is an intolerable blasphemy. And yet this is clearer in the other species of the chalice: 
Mark. 14. v. 24.  for S. Mark 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 sins. 
Matth. 26. v. 28.  Which no hart truly Christian can imagine to have any relation to pure and common wine before consecration.  
To that which the Objection adds, that therefore broken for you must have relation to that bread broken before he said, This is my Body, because he did not break it again after he had said these words: I answer first, that it can never be proved from the words of S. Paul, that the first breaking here mentioned by S. Paul, was not presently (speaking in a moral sense) after these words were, pronounced; for though it be mentioned before, yet it follows no more thence that it was not presently after, then when S. Mark says, speaking of the chalice, and they drank all of it before he mention the consecration of the chalice, that the disciples drank not after the consecration of the said chalice, and after it was made a Sacrament, as all do and must grant they did. and so there will not be two actual break, but one actual or mystical or Sacramental together signified by these two words break, 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, signified something done after consecration, that is, the giving of Christ's Body for the remission of sins, as the Evangelists seem to signify, than it will not be necessary that either the bread should have been twice visibly broken, or that broken for you should have relation to the bread broken before he said, This is my Body, as the objection contends.   

Objection.  
But to proceed from his actions to the words JESUS added, Take, eat this is my Body. The understanding of these words depends principally upon the explication of the word this. we say, by the word this, Christ meant that which he held when he spoke the word this, because transubstantiation is not yet made till the words following, This is my Body, be fully pronounced. They expound all the four words This is my Body, thus: under the species is my Body: but inquire of them what is it which was under the species when Christ spoke only the word this; and they confess that it was as yet bread: which is the same that we maintain against them. It is bread then: and by consequence, this there signify bread that I hold: and these words, This is my Body. are as much as, this bread is my Body.   

Answer.  
The main diffiulty here urged, is about the word this in the words of consecration, This is my Body. I demand first, when our Saviour changed water into wine in the marriage of Galilee, whether he could truly have said these words upon the water, this is wine, and by virtue of these words changed the water into wine. the water remaining when the word this was pronounced by him, and changed into wine when the whole proposition, this is wine, was spoken, as we hold it happens, in the change of bread into the Body of our Saviour in the Eucharist.  
I scarce think that any Protestant will be see bold and temerarious as to deny that God can do this; and yet all the difficultyes that are invented and urged against the word this in the words of consecration, are the very same here, as is manifest. So that the objection about the word this proves not only (if it prove any thing) that the Body of our Saviour is not de sacto put really in the place of bread by virtue of these words This is my Body, but that it is wholly impossible for our Saviour to work any such change by virtue of these words: for, if whilst the word this is pronounced, water (being only there actually) must necessarily be signified by the word this, as the objection contends, than it is impossible by virtue 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 signify 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 time, which is a formal contradiction, and acknowledged by all to be wholly impossible. So bold are Protestant's in restraining and limiting the Omnipotency of God to defend their own groundless fantasies, who oppose the Roman Church in this manner. And therefore the more moderate and considerate amongst them grant this to be possible; and so urge not this argument because it proves either too much, or nothing. Secondly demand, when our Saviour said, this is my command that ye love one another, what was meant by the word this? 
john. 15. v. 12.  either something, or nothing was meant by it: if something, that was either the command which he gave after the pronunciation of the word this; and so something which was not when he pronounced the word this, was understood by it. And then in our present question why cannot by the word this something be understood 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 understood something which was not his command: but this is absurd; for than he should have said that which is not my command, is my command. if it be said, that nothing was understood by the word this it will follow, that the word, this signified nothing; and so his command was nothing, or nothing was his command, or the word of God signified nothing all which is absurd.  
Hence therefore it evidently follows, that the word this in the text This is my command that ye love one another &c. cannot have any other sense save this. 
john 15. v, 12.  This which I am presently to say to you, to wit, that ye love 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 understanding of it: for it is not necessary that the thing which is signified by the word this in such manners of speech be then existent, or in being when the word this is pronounced; for it may be either past, or to come. thus it is ordinary to say in the day time, I hope to sleep well this night, that is the night to come: or, in the morning, I have slept well this night, that is, the last night past. and this, not only by reason of the thing itself whereof we speak, but also in regard of the meaning and intention of the person who speaks: for words were not instituted to signify things and objects only, but also, (and that more immediately (the thoughts and affections of him who speaks: and hence it comes to pass, when the same word signify many things, it is to be explicated and taken in that sense only which appears to have been intended by them who speak. hence, therefore it happens, that, seeing things not yet in being when the word this is pronounced, may be understood by it, we must gather that a thing not yet existent, is to be understood when it appears by other clear circumstances, that the meaning and intention of the speaker is, to signify something which is not actually when the word this was pronounced, but after is to be.  
Thus in the forenamed example, where our Saviour said, This is my command, that ye love one another, it is clear that his meaning was, by the word this to signify that which he was presently after to say; and not. what was just then when he said the word this. for than no command was given. And that this signification of the word this, is most common and familiar, even in ordinary discourse, is manifest in a thousand instances: thus when I begin to draw a circle, and when I have drawn, only thus much of it C (precisely when I say the word this) I may truly say this is a circle: whereby my meaning is not, this c being 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 glass, when he hath poured some few drops, or small quantity, into the glass, should say, this is a glass 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 glass precisely when the word this was pronounced; for that is not a glass full, but the wine which he is then a pouring into the glass, till he have filled it with wine, must be signified by the word this. In the same manner, if one desirous to show to another, how quikly flax becomes fire, holding flax in one hand and a candle in the other, flax being in its own natural substance in that precise instant, when the word this is pronounced, should say This is fire, and as he pronounces the words, he kindles the flax, so that when the whole sentence, this is fire, is pronounced, the flax is kindled, and changed into fire, no man can be so simple to think, that his meaning is, this flax remaning as it now is unkindled, is fire, but this which I am now a showing, to wit, flax kindled is fire▪ no other wise happens it in our present case, where our Saviour, by the word this, intends not to signify, 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 discourse of the objection, that, when our Saviour said, this is my Body, this is my Blood, his meaning was, This which I am to give unto you. and which ye are presently to eat and drink, is my Body and my Blood: 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 said, this is my command; not of any command which was then given, but of one which he was presently to give when he had pronounced the word this. That this was the meaning of our Saviour in the institution of this Sacrament, is most clear to all such as understandingly read the text for he commanded his disciples to take and eat what he was instituting in this holy Sacrament, Take, eat, this is my Body. Therefore his meaning was to signify by the word this, that which his disciples were to take and eat. now his disciples were not to take and eat any thing but what was instituted and made a Sacrament before it was eaten: neither was the Sacrament instituted but by the words of consecration, This is my Body; which I have already proved. Therefore the word this, according to our Saviour's meaning, must signify something which was to be after the words of consecration, This is my Body. So far from truth is it that by the word this, our Saviour intended to signify that which he held in his hands whilst he precisely pronounced that word this, that he signified that which he was to give out of his hands, and put into the hands of his disciples: and therefore he says not see, behold, but, take, eat, 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 eat presently, is my Body. And yet this truth is made clearer in the institution of the chalice, 
Matth. 26 v. 28.  And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of this; for this is the Blood of the new Testament, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. where our Saviour renders the reason why he commanded them to drink of it, because it was his Blood, etc. So that he says not, look ye all on it, for this is my Blood, etc. which might have been done before the words of consecration were pronounced, or the Sacrament instituted, whilst he said the word it, or, this; but drink ye all of it: which was not to be done till the consecration and institution was past, as I have already proved, and the objection hereafter acknowledgeth.   

Objection.  
There is not one word which Christ spoke, which we do not steadfastly believe to be true: for we hold, that this bread is the Body of JESUS Christ since he said that the bread which he broke and gave, was his Body.   

Answer.  
I doubt not of the sincerity of this profession for so much as concerns the person that wrote this paper: there is more want of true information of the understanding, then good affection in the will, and zeal certainly there is of truth, but such an one as S. Paul describes, not according to knowledge. 
Rom. 1●. v. 2.  For I have 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 give you, and ye are to eat after it be made a Sacrament by the words of consecration, is my Body.   

Objection.  
It is not our parts to gloss the word of God, or add any thing of our own since then we have those two things in the Gospel: the one that JESUS gave bread; the othet, that, that which he gave, was his Body, we believe both the one and the other: not as they who will believe the latter, but the former they will not credit: and though we could not comprehend how this may agree, that it should be bread which we eat, and yet the Body of Christ our Lord, yet it were our duties to rest without any scruple.   

Answer.  
The good disposition expressed in these lines, will no doubt have a great influence to induce the person that wrote them, to a right understanding of these mysterious words of our Saviour, after a due and impartial ponderation of what I have said concerning them, where by it may appear that it was not bread remaining in the nature of bread, as it was before consecration; but bread made the Body of Christ by consecration; which the Apostles did eat and our Saviour called his Body, and signified by the words this.   

Objection.  
But the Gospel, in the line following, instructeth us and draweth us out of all difficulty. for Christ having said, that that which he gave, was his Body, added presently that it is a remembrance, or commemoration thereof.   

Answer.  
The opponent may please to remember, that just now we read in the former objection, that it is not their part to gloss the word of God, or to add any thing to it of their own: & yet presently upon it in the very next objection, the word of God is glossed, and something added which is their own, and not God's word. Christ (saith the objection) having said that that which he gave, was his Body, added presently, that it is a remembrance or commemoration thereof. where, I pray you, in the whole Scripture find you that our Saviour said in express and plain words, as you affirm he saith, that which I said 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 Saviour so much as once pronounced these words, The commemoration of my Body? Certainly in the whole new Testament no such express words as these, are to be found. Seeing therefore our Saviour says in express and plain words, This is my Body, and never says in as express terms, 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 gloss the word of God, and add some thing of your own, to affirm that he says what he never said nor named in the whole new Testament? If therefore you stick to your rule just now delivered, of believing the express word of God without all gloss or addition, you must steadfastly believe without all scruple, that out Saviour gave his true Body to his disciples; seeing what you say of the commemoration of his Body, is no where our Saviour's express words, but your own gloss and addition to them.  
If you answer, that though he says not in as express words, that what he gave 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: give me leave to reply first, that supposing any such matter could be gathered from his words (which I will presently prove to be false) yet the consequence or collection drawn from an others words, is not to be preferred before his direct, clear and express words to the contrary, and if you will follow the rule of good interpreters, you must expound the more obscure words by the more clear and express, and not the contrary as you do here. Secondly when you draw from other words of our Saviour 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 have some express place of Scripture which warrants that consequence to be good (and that place must be alleged 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 believe some thing with a Christian faith (as you profess to believe this consequence) which not withstanding is not in Scripture: which is contrary to your own principle of believing nothing which is not in the written word of God. and if this consequence be not in the written word of God, than it is framed only by your own discourse and judgement. what impiety then would it be to prefer your own discourse before the express words of our Saviour, and to expound them, and draw them from their own natural, proper and direct sense, to an improper and figurative by a consequence gathered by humane discourse only, neither expressed nor warranted to be good expressly in any place of Scripture.  
Thirdly that I may give a full and complete answer to this objection so frequently in the mouth of every Protestant, I deny that our Saviour ever speak or meant our could possibly mean that that which his Apostles did eat, and he affirmed to be his body, was only a commemoration of his Body: or that by these words my Body is understood a commemoration of my Body.  
That this may appear, I only contend for the present that in time of our Saviour's institution of the Sacrament at the last supper that which the Apostles did then receive and eat, was for that time not affirmed to be a remembrance of his Body, nor did our Saviour speak any words in the said institution where by he signified that he gave then to his apostles a remembrance or commemoration of his body, which if I prove, I convince evidently against the objection, that our Saviour (not having ever said or meant it to be a commemoration of his body; and so these words, do this in remembrance of me, being no explication of the former word: This is my Body) gave his true and real body substantially present under the form of bread to his Apostles in his last supper, and consequently that it is still given in the same manner to all true Christians in this Sacrament.  
I have proved, and the objection itself confesses that these words taken in themselves and without relation to any thing going before, are to be understood of the real body of Christ, and that our Saviour said that the thing which he had in his hands, was his body. I will now prove that this plane and clear signification of these words as they sound, is not hindered or taken away by any thing following these words. The main ground where upon is built the objection, for the figurative explication of these words is this that our Saviour says, This is my Body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. and S. Paul, This is my Body which is broken for you, do this in remembrance of me. From these texts the objection gathers this consequence that our Saviour saith that that which he calls in the former part of the sentence in express words, his Body, in this latter he calls (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 Saviour had expressly said thus, This is usy Body, that is the cowmemoration or remembrance of my Body: the difficulty had been at an end. but this was neither said nor meant by him, but imposed upon him by a false gloss and gross mistake of Protestants; for to say: do 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 book unto an other: read this in remembrance of me, and, this is a remembrance of my Body, which every 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 have no wit, or to have lost what he had: for the one speaks of an action which passes, do, or read this: the other of a thing permanent this thing, or this book. the one speaks of a work done in remembrance, the other affirms a thing to be a remembrance. the one speaks 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 united: so that the whole proposition is quite different the one from the other.  
Secondly though these propositions had not been so different as they are, yet our Saviour cannot possibly be thought to have 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 Saviour in his last supper, as it is evident. For he speaks of that even 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 Saviour then was to the Apostles being seen & 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 Saviour then was, and so it should have been a type of our Saviour's death, as the ceremonies of the old law were before he died, and not a remembrance or commemoration. Therefore it is evident 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 have it, and so this explication is very false. Therefore when our Saviour commanded his Apostles in these words: do this in remembrance of me. he could not mean any action or thing then present or done at that time, but an action which he enjoined the Apostles and their successors to do afterwards in the Christian Church, in remembrance of his passion principally, which is clearly delivered by S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. v. 26.27. This is the new testament in my blood, this do as often as you drink in remembrance of me. where the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, shall drink, quotiescumque bibetis, do this so often as you shall drink. and so it is translated by Beza, in his latin translation, quotiescumque biberitis, as often as you shall drink, and should have been by our English Translatours, had they closely followed the greek text, as they pretend to do, but here it made not for their purpose, and so they put it either falsely, or at least obscurely, so often as you drink; which evidently shows that our Saviour meant by: do this. not any action which was done in time of the last supper or institution and receiving of the Sacrament by the Apostles, but what they were to do in the future: and that our Saviour in these words: do this in remembrance of me, did not command the present action of eating and drinking when our Lord celebrated his last supper, is evident, 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 do what was then to be done when he said, take, eat. drink etc. therefore to free our Saviour from a needless tautology, must be understood the command of doing some thing else, and at some other time, to be contained in these words, do this in remembrance of me: especially considering that the mention of remembrance could not be understood of any thing then visibly present, or after to come, as I said before. These words therefore being to be understood 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 speak only of a thing that is then present, as is evident, and consequently those words (according to the objection) are plainly & simply to be believed as they sound, without any glozing of the words of our Saviour (there being no ground in this place of Scripture for any such figurative gloss, (as I have prowed) and each Christian must believe that that thing which our Saviour gave 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: do this in remembrance of me, that this Sacrament in times ensuing after our Saviour's death was only to be a remembrance of his body, and so not his body, whatsoever is to be said of rhat Sacrament in the first institution. I answer that though some ancient heretics have been of this opinion, yet I never heard of any Protestant who held that the Christians after our Saviour's time received not the same which the Apostles did from his hands; and so this objection is to no purpose for the Protestants.  
Yet that I may clear all difficulties which may probably occur against what I have said in this matter: I answer that this is no good consequence: our Saviour would have this Sacrament celebrated and frequented in remembrance of him, therefore the host 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: do this in remembrance of me: were not an explication of those others: This is my Body: in the first institution, they will never be any explieation of them, and so there will be no 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: do this in remembrance of me: for these words only signify that the action here commanded, do 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 do one action in remembrance of himself, that is, of some action which he had done before? how ordinary is it for any one to write his own works and what he himself hat done or suffered? did not S. Fawl do this? and was not this done in remembrance of himself, doing or suffering such things: and shall any thence make this consequence: S. Paul writ this in remembrance of himself, therefore he was a remembrance of himself, therefore it was not S. Paul who writ it, for nothing can be a remembrance of itself: who sees not how false and childish this discourse is? may we not say the same of our Saviour when he appeared to S. Thomas whom he put in remembrance of himself suffering upon the cross, when he commanded him to put his hand into his side, and look upon his hands and feet etc. and shall we then say that our Saviour was not himself, or that is Body was not that which suffered because it did something in remembrance of his body crucified? what Christian will dare to discourse in this manner? if than our Saviour's own body that suffered upon the cross can do something to put us in remembrance of the same body crucified once for us, why should we deny that the same body sacrificed upon the altar, or consecrated upon the table of God should be able to put us in remembrance of the passion of our Saviour, and of the very same body crucified, that is those actions there done of consecrating the host separate from the chalice, of sacrificing, of giving to others, eating, drinking &c. should signify that our Saviour there invisibly present, suffered for us many years ago and sacrificed himself to nourish us to eternal life. and so our Saviour not having said, this is a remembrance of my Body, but, do this in remembrance of me, by virtue of these words precisely made the actions done to him in this Sacrament, and not himself or his body, a remembrance of himself as béfore crucified.   

Objection.  
So that that which he gave into his disciples hands being a remembrance or commemoration of Christ, is not Christ himself, for nothing can be a remembrance or commemoratian of itself; for who would not think him to speak simply that should say: I give you this ring in remembrance of this ring, or I give you this bookc for a commemoration of this book, certainly the remembràce of things are otherwise then the thing itself.   

Answer.  
Though these words of our Saviour: do this in remembrance of me, by force of themselves signify only that the action which the Apostles were commanded to do, was to be in remembrance of him, that is, of him crucified. yet speaking independently of these words, it is no absurdity but a truth to grant that a thing or pe●son may be a remembrance of themselves considered in different circumstances, for though nothing in the same time, place and circumstances can be a remembrance or commemoration of itself, for that were to signify idem per idem, the same by the same, which is absurd: and in this sense the objection says well; yet it would nor be absurd to say I give you this ring now to be a remembrance or commemoration here after that this same ring was giving you by me for who can doubt but that very same ring when he looks or thinks upon it who received it, is apt to put him in remembrance that it was given to him by such a friend so many days or years before and so at one time it is a remembrance of itself, as considered in a nother different precedent time. Thus when friends and ancient acquaintance after a long separation meet first together, they presently put the one the other in remembrance of themselves, and so are accoustomed to say, I remember you very well: Thus if a king or General should act his own part upon a stage. he would put his subjects or soldiers there present in remembrance of himself fight or becoming victorious in some precedent battle. Thus our Saviour appearing to S. Thomas made him presently believe and remember that he was the same person who not many days before was crucified for him, and to say: Dominus meus & Deus meus: my Lord and my God. Hence appears manifestly that the very same body which was given and that very blood which was shed for us remaning in its own proper substance and nature in this Sacrament which it then had (but after an invisible and divine manner) by reason of the visible actions of consecrating, sacrificing, elevating, and receiving of him, puts us in remembrance of that same body, blood and person which so many years ago was given, shed and crucified out of pure mercy for us. If any one here shoved reply that though in the fore named instances he proved that one thing or person may put us in remembrance of themselves in different times and circumstances, yet the same thing cannot properly be said to be a remembrance, commemoration or memorial of itself even in those different times according to the ordinary course of speech amongst men. I answer that when a thing remains in its whole visible substance as it was before, there may be some difficulties whether it be to be called a memorial or remembrance of itself or no, though it he capable of putting one in remembrance of itself, as existent in some other time, because it hath other functions and perfections properly belonging to it which being of cheefer and more primary use and consequence give the name to the thing, and so it is not rightly termed a memory or remembrance of itself, 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 remains the same in substance and all other proprieties that it was) that one of the main ends for which it is put in that manner, is to be a remembrance of what it did or suffered in former times, than it may properly be called a memorial, commemoration, remembrance or memory of itself. Thus though our Saviour appearing to his disciples after his resurrection in a visible and living form put them in remembrance of his passion, or that he was the same who suffered, and yet because his other actions of teaching, enlightening, comforting, confirming in faith, etc. were his primary 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 less consequence. But by reason that in this holy Sacrament he hath no use of any of those functions or the like, but is put in an invisible and hidden manner as the food of our souls, and the end why he is so put is chiefly to continue a perpetual remembrance of his bitter death and passion, he is most deservedly termed a memorial of himself suffering upon the cross. Thus for the like reason a sword wherewith some valiant champion hath atcheeved some notable feat of arms, so long as he wears it himself, or any other uses it, it cannot properly be said to be a remembrance of itself, as the instrument of those famous exploits: but if it be hung up as a monument for those exploits in some public place or temple, it becomes a memorial of itself as working those noble actions, and in this sense the sword of Goliath used by David in the beheading of that tower of flesch, and kept in the temple as a monument, was a true memorial of it self as the instrument of atcheeving that victory.   

Objection.  
All that hath been said of these words, This is my Body, may and aught to be applied to to these, This is my blood, and there is nothing more convenient then te receive the same manner of speech in the distribution of the one kind which is in the distribution of the other.   

Answer.  
All that is contained in this paragraphe of the objections may easily be granted (supposing there be a right explication given of these words This is my Body) as containing nothing against us.   

Objection.  
But as they repeat only these words: This is my Body: without relation either to that which goes befote, or to that which follows after, that he took bread or do this in remembrance of me. so they will forget etc.   

Answer.  
How far this is from truth clearly appears by what our approved authors write in this point who most exactly exanime all precedents and consequences belonging to these words, which also I have hitherto endeavoured to do in this treatis.   

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

Answer.  
The obiecter would make us to be of a very short memory, should we forget these words which usually we pronounce every day in saying Mass: we therefore remember very well that our Saviour said 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 ever alleged this reason here mentioned in the objection, that this sacred cup was called by our Saviour the new Testament in his blood, for that it was a holy sign of the new Testament, and I would gladly have any Protestant help the weakness of our memory by producing any clear text of Scripture where this reason is given, and if there be no such to be found (as undoubtedly there is not) than they must give us leave to esteem this explication (according to their own principles) groundless and no way belonging to Christian faith, but a mere gloss framed from their natural discourse 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 appear.  
We must not by new Testament here understand (as many ignorant readers of Scriptures may and do happily misconceive) the books of the Gospel commonly called the new Testament, for none of those were then written, neither is there any one of understanding who will think that the cup which our Saviour had in his hand was a sign of the books of the new Testament, much less that by new Testament in our Saviour's blood should be understood a sign of the said books.  
Secondly we must conceive that the very same thing may be a sign in respect of one thing, and an essential and substantial part in regard of another: thus words and sentences are signs of the inward thoughts and affections of the speaker, but part of his outward discourse, and in this manner the words, new Testament were a sign of our Saviour's internal will and intention, but withal were a necessary part of the complete Testament of the new law then enacted by our Saviour, and so bear the name of the whole Testament, as we shall presently see.  
I answer therefore to the objection, and deny that by new Testament, is understood a sign of the new Testament, but truly & really (though partially) the new Testament itself solemnised by our Saviour in his last supper not long before his death, and that in his own most precious blood there properly received and divided amongst his Apostles: whereby he certified and obliged himself to be the author, head, protector & defendor of his law and all those who should truly profess it by giving what he held in his hands to the Apostles, and they testified and obliged themselves and all Christians representatively to teach, profess and continue in that law by receiving and dividing of it amongst them.  
Now to make clear what I have said, we must also know in general what a Testament is. In latin it is called testamentum: of wose etymology justinianus Instit. de testamentis ordinandis, says, Testamentum ex eo appellatur, quòd testatio mentis sit. it is called a testament, because it is the testification of our mind, or will: so that a true testament includes two things, a real mind and intention to do what we testify: and an outward testification of what we intent, or oblige, ourselves to do. so that neither this outward testimony without the inward will, nor the inward will without the outward testifying of it, can be completely termed a testament. not the inward will alone, because that cannot be understood amongst men unless it be externally testified: not the outward testimony alone, because it must have something real which it testifyes; but the outward testification as corresponding to the inward will, and exhibiting it to others, is a testament. now all kinds of external significations of our wills ot intentions, are not sufficient, but such as signify by way of a complete confirmation, that the will of him who makes this testament, is such as it is signified there to be: and hence it is that so many witnesses, subscriptions, seals, and other solemnities are not mere signs, butts parts of the testament, as the pronunciation of the words in a sermon, though it be a sign of the mind 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 blood; 
Liu. l. 1.  as witnesses Livy speaking of a solemn league or testament made betwixt the Romans and the Alban and no less Moses in Exodus, 
Exod. 24. v. 8. Hebr, 9 v. 20.  speaking of the testament or pact made betwixt Almighty God and the Israëlites, unto which our Saviour may we have alluded in the institution of the chalice. using according to the first two Evangelists, the very same phrase, or manner of speech, This is the bioud of the testament which our Lord hath made with you, etc.  
This is my blood of the new Testawent, etc. the word testament is in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Berith, and in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, diatheke, and though the Hebrew word signify a pact, league, or solemn promise mutually obligatory betwixt two parties, and the Greek 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 says Hebr. 9 yet because that last will is the most solemn and strong of all other pacts, or leagues, the Greek word diatheke often signify a pact or promise mutual, in Scripture. And the Septuaginta translate the Hebrew Berith by the Greek 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 ark of Moses the ark of the testament, Berith in Hebrew.  
Seeing therefore in the 24. of Exodus, the blood is there sprinkled first upon the altar, which supplied the place of God, and then amongst all the people whereby, as Interpreters, and ancient authors observe, was signified that the blood of that party who first broke this pact, or testament, should be shed, and dispersed as that was, and that our Saviour in S. Matthew and S. Mark commanded his blood to be divided amongst his disciples, drink ye all of this, it is so far from any signs, or figures of our Saviour's blood, as the opponent here imagines, that hence is drawn a most forcible argument, that as in Exodus there was shed and dispersed true real blood, and not a sign or figure of it, which was called the blood of the testament, so hcre also must needs be understood the true blood of our Saviour, 
E●od. 24. v. 8.  as it is called by him; both Moses and our Saviour using the same manner of speech, 
Hebr. 9 v. 20.  as I have showed, and such a solemn league or testament as this was, requiring no less, but rather much more, to be confirmed by true blood, then that in Exodus, or in other ancient times.  
And hence may clearly enough be gathered, first, that our Saviour himself held, the cup of his blood, to confirm this league, or pact betwixt him and mankind, of his part, as the Apostles took it and drunk it to confirm it of theirs; and so it is called, as it is, his blood of the new testamen, that is, whereby the testament of the law of Grace was stregthned, confirmed, and accomplished on both parts. Secondly, that as in a testament, an authentical instrument drawn of any dying man's wili, witnessed, subscribed, sealed, etc. is rightly and ptoperly called his last will, and testament; so in our present occasion, the covenant, or will of our Saviour, testified or confirmed by his blood, is rightly called the new Testament of Christ, and that sacred blood of his as testifying and confirming this will, and decree, is most properly termed by our Saviour, in S. Luke, and S. Paul, the new Testament in his his blood, that being the authentical instrument whereby this will of his was confirmed, and testified. And hence evidently appears how vain & false the explication here given by the opponent is, for if here by new Testament be only to be understood a sign of the new Testament, than Exod. 24. by Testament should be only understand, a sign of the Testament then made betwixt God and the Isrealites, (the very same phrase being used in both places) which were ridiculous.   

Objection.  
He called the cup is blood, in the same manner as he called the bread his body.   

Answer.  
Still more glosses, additions, and mistakes: where did our Saviour call the cup is blood? where read you these woades, this cup is my blood? he saith indeed, haiung taken the cup, this is my blood of the new Testament, but never, this cup is my blood: he said, this cup, the new Testament in my blood; but he never said, this cup is my blood, no more than he ever said, This bread is my Body. Such propositions as these therefore, are not to be put upon our Saviour, unless you can either show them in Scripture, or prove them evidently out of it.   

Objection.  
And if the cup must be the Testament or sign of his blood, wy should not the bread be the Testament or sign of his body.   

Answer.  
The cup was just now called the new Testament, (according to the opponent) for that it is a holy sign of the new Testament: now it is called the new Testament; or sign of his blood; so that new Testament now signify a figure of the new Testament, and then a sign of our Saviour's blood, & what it pleases the opponent, according to different apprehensions and fantasies framed of it, without Scripture or ground; so inconstant are Protestant's in their assertions! neither is therefore new Testamenr here, a sign of tha new Testament, nor a sign of our Saviour's blood as I have proved, but his blood is the blood of the new Testament, and the cup the new Testament in his blood, as he declares expressly in the Gospel; and if that which he called here his blood, must needs be (as I have showed) his true real blood, why should not that which he called his body, be his true real body? whether his body here may be termed the new Testament etc. seeing we have nothing in Scripture or fathers, concerning it, I will not determine, it is a curious and needless question; and we see that the leagues betwixt persons were confirmed by blood, yet seeing it was the custom both in antiquity, and in Exodus c. 14. now cited, to kill and sacrifice the bodies of those creatures whose blood they sprinkled, and that, as it seems in confirmation of the covenant betwixt them, and that here our Saviour made a true sacrifice of his sacred body, putting it, as Divines tell us, mortuo modo, in the manner of a dead body, exhibiting it as separate from his blood and his Apostles receiving it from his hand, it might happily be termed his body of the new Testament, or the new Testament in his body unbloodily sacrificed; but then will follow, that here must be no less his true body than were the true bodies of those creatures sacrificed in Exodus the 24 or then I have proved his true blood to be there by the like argument: but I will not be author of any such new manners of speech, and so conclude nothing in this particular, as conducing little to the point in question.   

Objection.  
They will not endure any figure, or impropriety of speehe in these words this is my Body, though in affect they themselves wrest them, for whether by this word this, they understand, under this, or under those species, or that they will that this word this, signify nothing present etc.   

Answer.  
I am not obliged to defend every man's different opinion, each hath his particular reasons, and ways to maintain his own: it is sufficient that I defend what before I have answered, and demonstrated out of Scripture, that our Saviour's 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 took, and ate it, or presently before; that is, so soon as the whole proposition this is my Body, was pronounced. which sense, by way of instance may be gathered out of the expression used here by the opponent, when it is said, for whether by this word, this, and, or that they will by the word, this. for when the objection says, this word, not having yet set down the word which is meant by it, but presently after, to wit, 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 wit, this, so that by the opponents own writing is convinced 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 understand shall become, or shall be transubstantiated: surely these distractions can be no testimonies 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 calumny forged by Calvin, and from him dispersed amongst the vulgar, that any Roman Catholicque Doctors by the word is understand shall become, or, shall be transubstantiated; for though they gather, as a necessary sequel, transubstantiation, from the real and proper signification of these words, this is my Body, yet they all understand the word is, in its own native, common, and ordinary signification, and none of them take it for transubstantiated, or become my Body, neither indeed can they, unless they destroy their own principles, for if they should by is understand, become, or transubstantiated, than they must understand by the word this, bread; (seeing they all affirm that bread only becomes, or is transubstantiated into Christ's body) but that were plainly to contradict themselves, it being one of the mainest points in this controversy betwixt Caluinists and us, they affirming that hread is understood by the word this, and we denying it.  
That which is added, that, those distractions can be no testimonies of truth, that is, the diversity of opinions amongst us here reckoned up, about the understanding of these words this. and is, seems to me to have something of that eye condemned in the Gospel, which sees a mote in another's eye, and discovers not a beam in itself. The opponent sums here up four different opinions, whereof the last, I have proved to be a false imposition and no opinion of ours: the first and second, of the word this signifying under this, or under these species, are one and the same opinion, set down by the opponent in different words; for seeing by under this, none of our Authors understand under this bread, they must needs mean by it, under these species of bread, to omit that no Catholicque Author says, that the word this, precisely signify, under this, or under these species, etc. but, that which is under these species, is my Body: the third opinion, that by the word this, is signified nothing present, if by nothing present, be meant, nothing present after consecration, it is another imposition upon Catholicque Authors, making them speak like Caluinists, against themselves: but if thereby be meant, nothing present precisely in that moment when the word this was pronounced, it is true, and Catholicque, as I have showed; but than it is not opposite to the former opinion, for seeing no Catholic teaches that the body of our Saviour is under the species of bread, till the substance of bread be transubstantiated into it, agrees well with their opinion that nothing in particular be understood by the word this, which is existent when that word was spoktn, bread being then under its own species. Thus, upon a just examination, we find that in truth there is but one only opinion of Catholicques in the whole reckoning, and therefore underseruedly termed distractions, or no testimonies of truth. But had the opponent put some real diversity of opinions amongst Catholicque Authors about the understanding of these words, and brought them to the number of four, as here is a show made, yet seeing they all agree in the proper and native signification of these words This is my Body, without all figures or improprieties, which exclude the real presence: this variety can be no more termed no testimony of truth in this point controversed, then are other different opinions of Schoolmen in many other mysteries of faith, being nothing but divers ways which learned men take to explicate or defend the same point of faith wherein they all agree against Infidels or Heretics. But had the Opponent known or considered the diversityes of opinions risen up within the space of few more than a hundrcd years, about the understanding of these words this is my Body amongst Protestants, and that in the main signification of them, which Luther confesses to have amounted to the number of ten before his death, and another not many years after rekons up to the number of two hundred there had been just occasion given to say, these distractions can be ne testimonies of truth.   

Objection.  
In the midst of these discords, they make these words, this is my Body, but half true, for they all hold that there were two things in the hands of Christ when he spoke these words, his Body, & the species of bread; whereof it followeth that these words are true but of the half of that he held in his hands; and if he had said, this is not my body, having regard to the other half 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 unlearned will be capable of it; and so will be better understood by a familiar instance, even in this present matter, then by a philosophical discourse. The Opponent cannot deny but our Saviour might have said of that which he had in his hands (this is bread) when he said the word this. now I demand, seeing according to all, there were two things (as the Opponent terms them) the substance of bread, and the species of bread, whether these words this is bread had been only half true, or no? if it be answered that they had been but half true, it will follow, that whensoever we demonstrate any thing; in ordinary conversation, saying, this is a man, a horse, a tree, a stone etc. we speak but half truly, because there is always the substance, and species, or accidents of those things, yea when S. john Baptist said, behold the lamb of God, or the heavenly Father, this is my beloved Son, our Saviour having both substance and species, those propositions had been but half true. if it be answered, that this proposition this is bread, is absolutely and entirely true, than I answer the same to all that is here opposed; for species, or accidents are not different things, absolutely speaking, but relative appendices, dependences, adjuncts, or exhibitions of things which are so absolutely denominated, that is, substances; as when we see a person clothed, it is absolutely, and wholly true to say, this is Peter, or john; for though there be two things, the person, and the clothes, yet the clothes being only adjuncts, or means to demonstrate the person whose they are, are not intended to be included in this demonstration. and so, if one having only regard to the cloak of a person, should say, this is not Peter, meaning this cloak is not Peter, though he should speak true to such as know his meaning; yet in ordinary conversation, unless by some particular sign he gave to understand his meaning, he would either not be understood, or understood to speak 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 judge which opinion is less forged, and more natural; ours who say, tbis signify, that which Christ held; or that of theirs who say under this, or, under 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 something and nothing. If the word this signify bread, than we must understand that this bread is my Body, but no other thing can they make it signify but bread: not the species of bread, why? because yet it was not when he said this; not his body, for his body could not signify his body, neither as yet was it consecrated when he said this: they must therefore confess it to signify bread, or nothing: if bread, then of bread he said, 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: wherefore I refer the reader to my former answer, wherein I avoid all these difficultyes by replying that the word this, just when it was pronounced by our Saviour, neither signified the species of bread, nor, under 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 presently to give you, and you are to take and eat, is my Body: and this well considered, let any man judge whether opinion is less forged and more natural; ours, which puts a plain, proper, obvious signification both to the word this, the subject, the word is, the copula, and the word body, the predicate of this proposition This is my Body, agreeing with the whole context and intention of our Saviour; or theirs, which will have signified a mere piece of natural 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 plain text, contrary to the mystery here instituted, and contrary to common sense & discourse: all which I have already proved.   

Objection.  
Now that it is discovered what our Lord broke and gave; what he bade them take and eat, and what he said was his body: none need doubt but that the disciples did eat, that which he took, blessed, broke, and gave, and which he bade then eat, it was bread by their own rule; for as yet he had not said it is my Body: if they did eat that which he said was his body. what can any conceive it to be but bread? for what said he was his body? was it not bread which, he took, blessed. broke and gave, and bade them eat, saying it was his body. if they could disprove the Protestant church in this point, they could never maintain transubstantiation by the words of institution, which in all circumstances, words, and actions of our Saviour, is agreeable to what we believe; but we may safely conclude that the Apostles did eat bread, and that it remains bread after consecration both by that which hath been said etc.   

Answer.  
Here the same thing seems to be repeated twice or thrice over, and altogether is nothing but a new repetition of what hath been answered before. only here seems another objection to be pointed at, which may be framed, as it is more clearly by other Protestants, in this manner.  
That which our Saviour's took, blessed, broke, and gave, was bread: for certain it is that which he took, was bread, and is confessed to have been so by both sides: but that which he took, he blessed, that which he blessed he broke; that which he broke, he gave; therefore from the first to the last, that which he gave his disciples, was bread. I answer that all this is true; for it was bread in denomination both which he took, blessed, broke, and gave; but the bread which he took, was bread remaining 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 took it, was made his body when gave it.  
Now if one should reply that this is said gratis, and seems to be a mere shift, for obscuring and inuoluing the matter to escape the difficulty, or rather an explication destroying and contradicting itself; I will show that this is said with great ground, even in Scripture itself: for if an Infidel should oppose the change of water into wine, in the second of S. John with the like argument, & say, that that wherewhith the servants filled the vessels at our Saviour's command, was that which they drew out of the vessels; that which they drew out, was that which they carried to the master of the mariage-feast; that which they carried to him, he drunk; but that which the servants filled the vessels first withal, was water; therefore that which the master of the feast, drunk, was water. A Christian unto such an objection may answer, that all this is true; if we respite only the name or denomination of the thing: for that which was put into the vessels, the master drunk, and as it is true that water was put into them, so is it true (to say) that the master of the feast drunk water; but the very same water which remained in its own nature when in was put into the vessels, was denominated water made wine, when the master drunk it.  
And that this may appear to be no fiction of mine, all that I affirm hereof, is plainly delivered in the Protestant Bible the words are these. jesus saith unto 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 brim: see here is water put into them by the seruanrs. and he said unto them, draw out now, and bear to the governor of the feast, and they bore it. mark yet here, the servant bore it, that is, that which they had put into the vessels, which was water. when thc Ruler of the feast had tasted the water which was made wine and knew not whence it was, behold it is still called water, not water remaining in its own being, but water made wine: but the servants 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 wine. Apply this in each particular to the present mystery, and it will appear how light the objection is, fit only to deceive unlearned people who are not acquainted with such subtilityes, and sophisms as such like objections contain.   

Objection.  
And likewise that S. Paul called the consecrated bread, bread three times after consecration: for as often (saith he) as you eat this bread, and so let him eat of this bread, and whosoever eats this beead unworthily; but we do not eat till after consecration: it is then bread after consecration.   

Answer.  
I have given just now a full answer to that which is objected here, that S. Paul calls the host bread three times after consecration: 
1. Cor. 11.20.28.  for it follows no more that therefore it should be pure bread, remaining as it was before the words of consecration; then that the water remained in its own nature after it was made wine, because after the change it is called water.  
Neither doth yet S. Paul (if his words be well marked) say that the consecrated host is natural 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 sacramental bread, and consecrated to a religious and holy use, 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 consecration should be the same with the signification of the same before consecration; for before it signify common, ordinary, natural, and usual bread; but after, sacramental, significant, commemorative, holy, divine bread, according to Protestants, and therefore if protestants must confess that though the word be the same, yet the signification is not the same, why blame they Roman Catholicques if they give the same answer, saying that by the word bread in S. Paul, before consecration, or blessing, is meant the substance of natural, and usual bread; but after consecration, supernatural, heavenly, spiritual, divine bread; which our Saviour termeth himself to be, in the sixth of S. john, six or seven different times, and which every Christian chiefly begs of God in the Pater noster, or Lords prayer, saying, give us this day our daily bread; for it is to be noted, that bread in greek, familiarly in holy Scripture is taken for all manner os meat, and not for bread only, as it is distinct from all other meats.  
But to make it yet clearer that S. Paul did not mean natural bread remaining 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 acception he never calls it absolutely bread, but always with in article determinative or restrictive, 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 Saviour's words: and to put us out of all doubt that it was not that natural 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. wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of our Lord unworthily. etc. and as we gather joan. 6. v. 48. that when our Saviour termed the bread whereof he spoke there, the bread of life, he meant not natural and visible bread, but supernatural and divine; in the same manner are we to gather from the words of S. Paul, that by the like phrase the like bread is signified; and as our Saviour terms that bread whereof he spoke Io. 6. v. 51.58. this bread, to distinguish it from natural and usual bread, and to signify that he thereby meant his true body, so also doth S. Paul here: neither can it more be gathered, from the being tetmed bread by S. Paul, that is natural, and substantial bread, than it can be gathered from the canon of our mass, that we believe, 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 understand flesh, were not he worthy to be blamed to entertain the people in error, since he knew that sense and reason giveth in evidence, that it is bread, which man naturally believes; would he not rather have advertised us to hold our senses in suspension, and to believe that it is his flesh though it seemeth bread, then to join himself with the report of our senses, calling it always bread without any explication?   

Answer.  
We are not to prescribe to the holy Ghost what he is to disclose to the writers of divine Scripture: he could have delivered many other mysteries of our faith in clearer words in the holy Scripture than he hath done, if it had seemed good in his divine Providence, and therefore though he command us not here in express terms, to deny our senses, and to believe that it is his flesh, though it seem bread (as some holy fathers have done with in the first five hundred yares) yet he calls it as expressly the body of Christ, as he calls it bread: and seeing we find bread often to be taken in a spiritual sense in holy Scripture for the food of out souls, but never find the body of Christ which is given for us, to be any other than his real true Body, one would think that the darker or more doubtful word should in any reasonable man's judgement yield to the more clear and certain, and be interpreted by it then the contrary which is here alleged: and though our Saviour call his flesh bread twice as often as S. Paul calls that which was consecrated bread here, 
joan. 6.  joannis 6. yet no man dare from thence argue that his flesh was not true flesh, but corporal and material bread.  
And if S. Paul by calling it so often bread after consecration, should join himself with the report of our senses, as the opponent here affirms, he would draw us also to think that it is mere natural, and usual bread after consecration, as it was before, and therefore we may apply the same objection in almost the same words, against Protestants, which here is brought against us; in this manner: If by this word bread so often repeated by the Apostle he should understand a Saerament or mystery as it is believed to be amongst all Christians, were he not worthy to be blanted, to entertain the people in error since he knew that sense and reason giveth in evidence that it is usual and common bread, which man naturally believes, would he not rather have advertised us to hold our senses in suspension, and to believe that it is sacramental and spiritual bread, though it seem usual bread, then to join himself with the report of our senses, calling it always bread without any explication? Thus whilst Protestants frame arguments fitter for Infidels than Christians, against us, they never consider what force the like arguments have against themselves.  
But it is very untrue that S. Paul called it bread without any explication, or that he any way draws us to what our senses would judge if they were left to themselves, but elevates our thoughts unto faith telling us that it is panis & calix Domini, the bread, and cup of our Lord, which our Saviour confesses himself to be. john the sixth: and besides, that he who eats this bread, and drinketh this cup of our Lord unwortily, shall he guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, which gives enough to understand what kind of bread, and cup he meant here: for they cannot be properly said to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, who receive unworthily an external sign, or remembranee of it, (though otherwise they may highly offend him) as a subject cannot be rightly said to be guilty of the body and blood of his King, who receives not his seal or signet with that reverence which becomes a subject te show to his Prince; but in the opinion of Catholics, it is literally and propetly true, being a most high affront and injury done to the very body, and blood of Christ there present: and yet this is more clearly insinuated in the 29 verse: for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body: where the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a determinate judging one thing from another, which is clear in Catholic doctrine, but not easy to be understood, in the Protestant; for how can one be said properly to discern that which he acknowledges not to be present in that thing which he receives Unworthily? and though happily in some improper and far fetched sense, this might be said, yet according to the true rule of interpreting holy Scripture, we must understand the words of it in a proper sense when nothing compels to the contrary, as the Opponent acknowledges.   

Objection.  
And which is more, attributing to this bread, things which cannot agree to the Body of Christ, to wit, to be broken.   

Answer.  
I have before answered to this, and showed that the word broken is familiarly taken for given, by way of division, or distribution amongst many; which is used by other Evangelists: so that given and hroken here may signisy the same thing. But if by broken be understood a breaking in pieces of that which was whole before, who can deny that such a breaking agrees with▪ the Body of our Saviour absolutely speaking? was not his sacred flesh all torn, and broken with the nails, thorns, and scourges: as the Prophet foretold, ipse attritus est propter scelera a nostra, 
Isay 53.5.  he was broken for our wickednesses. and though natural bread be properly said to be broken; yet it cannot be affirmed by any Christian, to be broken for us, as the Apostle here said it was, that is, for our salvation, as another Evangelist affirms of the chalice. And therefote Christians must believe and confess quite contrary to the Opponent here, that S. Paul is attributing here to this bread, that which cannot agtee with natural bread, but only with the true Body of Christ, to wit, to be broken for us, as that only was mystically in this Sacrament; by may of an unbloody sacrice: and visibly upon the Crosse.   

Objection.  
And Christ himself called the cup. after consecration, the fruit of the vine, both in S. Matthew, and S. Mark.   

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 urge S. Matthew and S. Mark's authotity for the one, give us leave to urge S. Luke's authority for the other, and know that you have concluded nothing, unless you prove that we are rather to stand to the narration of S. Matthew and S. Mark, then of S. Luke, which here you have not done. Certain it is that there can be no contradiction nor opposition amongst the Evangelists: therefore seeing S. Luke relates these words, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, etc. before the institution of the Sacrament; and the two former Euamgelists after: and yet none of them expressly affirm that our Saviour said these words after or before the Sacrament 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 Saviour before, or after the consecration of the chalice.  
That this may be understood. Nothing is more otdinary with the Evangelists (as all Interpreters note) then to set things down by transposition, or anticipation, sometimes putting things just in that order they happened: sometimes transposing them into a former or latter place. This supposed, it is more probable that S. Mark sets down those words, out of their proper place, than S. Luke. for we have a clear testimony that S. Mark in this very institution of the chalice puts those words by way of anticipation, and they drunk all of it, out of their ptoper place, the chalice having not then been consecrated, nor any of the Apostles having then tasted of it. therefore it is more likely of the two, that S. Mark uses here a transposition, 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. Mark, it must be also one in S. Matthew. But though it were that our Saviour said these words after consecration, and that by this fruit of the vine he meant real and material wine, (which I will presently discuss) yet the argument proves nothing at all against us. for, our Saviour having drunk in his last supper, true and real wine with his disciples, before the institution of this holy Sacrament, may very easily be understood to have referred words to that first dtinking in time of his last supper; and so, in relation to that, say,) I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, etc. as if some person having first drunk wine, & after, some other drink at a banquet, may usually say, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine till I drink it in my own house: referring, those words only to that which he drank first. neither can I see how Protestants according to their principle of believing nothing but what is in Scripture can deny this explication, for seeing our Saviour says expressly here, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, etc. and that we have no place of Scripture which either affirms, or insinuates that our Saviour then drank of the consecrated chalice he must necessarily, refer his drinking the fruit of the vine, to some other wine which he had drunk, before the conscration. Understanding the two first Evangelists in this manner, we clearly reconcile them with S. Luke. for he must probably be understood of that which our Saviour drank before the Sacrament was instituted; as according to this interpretation the others also must understand it: but it will be much harder to reconcile them if those words be referred to the consecrated chalice; for, that having not been yet instituted, according to S. Luke's setting down our saviour's words, they cannot possibly be referred to them. for our Saviour according to the Protestant opinion, would presently have drunk wine in the Sacrament, and so must have falsifyed his own words as soon as he had spoken them, promising then not to drink any wine till his father's kingdom were come, and yet presently after drinking it. which is an evident argument if we stand to S. Luke's relation according this explication, that it was not material real wine which he drunk in the consecrated chalice.  
And hence follows another convincing argument against Protestants in this particular. for seeing our Saviour said, I will drink no wore, etc. and that they refer these words against us, to the consecrated chalice, and consequently must affirm that our Saviour drank of it, (for he could not say he would drink no more of that whereof he had never drunk) I demand of them, whether our Saviour drank this as a Sacrament? This they cannot deny: hence it will follow that he took it as a memorial, or commemoration of himself in their opinion: and thence it will necessarily follow that Christ had forgot himselue, having need of a remembrance of himself. Secondly, that a man present to himself, can without an absurdity take a momoriall of himself. Thirdly, this memorial was to he taken by the mouth of faith, as they say, and so our Saviour should be deprived of his most divine, all-cleare and beatifical vision, and knowledge of himself & all things, (whereby S. Paul affirms that faith is evacuated) and led by the dark light of faith: 
1. Cor, 1●. v. 8.  which no Christian can say without blasphemy. Fourtly he commanded not himself, but his Apostles to do what he did in remembrance of him. and so there is no ground in Scripture to say, that out Saviour's received this Sacrament a a remembrance of himself: and yet he must have done so if that first Sacrament had been essentially only a sign and remembrance of our Saviour, as our adversaries teach. If therefore our Saviour be supposed to have drunk of the consecrated chalice, and that he could not possibly drink a remembrance or sign of himself, or his Blood, he must needs have drunk his own real Blood: for according to the Opponent, if it be not a rememhrance of his Blood. it must be understood to be his real Blood; but if he drunk that which was his own blood, it was not wine, therefore when he says, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine etc. it cannot be referred to what he drunk after consecration, but to what he drunk before, as S. Luke relates it.  
Hitherto I have argued, admitting, not granting that when our Saviour said, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, etc. he meant real and natural wine. now I will show, that though those words were referred by the Evangelist to the consecrated chalice, and understood of a real and material fruit of the vine; yet it is not necessary to understand wine by them: for there be many fruits of the vine which may be drunk beside wine: the juice pressed out of grapes not yet ripe, is properly the fruit of the vine, which may be drunk, and yet is no wine; nay should one press the young branches, and draw liquor 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 even 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 even after consecration, according to the Roman Catholic tenet, those species remain; our Saviour might truly be said to have drunk ex genimine, or generatione vitis, of the fruit or propagation of the vine, though there had been no substance of wine there, but in place thereof the Blood of Saviour under those species. so that the very literal sense of the words retained, and referred to the consecrated chalice, conclude no more than this, that our Saviour spoke of the species of wine; which is properly the propagation or generation of the vine.  
But the words bear and admit as well another explication (plainly suiting with the Roman tenet) as of the fruit or issue of a real vine. For our Saviour styles himself, as the Opponent presently observes, the vine. Why then might he not call his Blood here the fruit of the vine? and so referring it to the consecrated chalice, confirm 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 show how little this place proves against us: or rather how much it advantages our cause. But if the text be considered entirely as it stands in the Evangelists, it will neither hurt us nor help them, nor so much as touch the matter in question: for our Saviout saith thus, 
Mattk. 26 v. 29. Mark 14 v. 25.  But I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of this vine till that day that I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father. Verily I say unto you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. where he expressly affirms that he speaks of such a fruit of the vine as he is to drink with them in heaven: which, whether it be material wine, or no, I leave to the Protestants to consider.   

Objection.  
But it might be objected, why might they not call it bread, and the fruit of the vine? in respect they had been so before consecration: as the serpent is called a rod: and God said unto 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 think 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 never 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 Moses' rod became a serpent, but the Scripture doth not say that bread was converted into flesh.   

Answer.  
I answer first that we do not say that the body of Chtist was bread before consecration at least I remember not ever to have read any such proposition in Catholic authors: because his sacred body still existent visibly and gloriously in heaven cannot be said absolutely to have been bread, it having been made of the sacred virgins most pure blood for that in its full sense would signify (if any such proposition were in use) 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 Moses were (for then only they began to be) when the rod of Moses, and dust were changed into them.  
Secondly I answer that the objection proceeds upon a false supposition, for the rod of Moses 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 subject which remains common to them both (called in philosophy materia prima) yet it is not true in any formal philosophical sense to say: Adam was dust: the serpent was a rod: for Adam never was, nor never could have been any thing else than what his essence made him viz: a man and a reasonable creature: nor a serpent any thing then what the being of a serpent requires, to wit, to be a serpent. when therefore in holy Scripture Adam is called dust, and the serpent the rod of Moses, it is not because Adam was once dust, and the serpent a rod (for how can that be proved out of any place of Scripture?) but because Adam was made of dust, and the serpent of the rod of Moses, which is clearly testified in Scripture. so that the supposition and foundation of the objection failing. that which is built upon it viz: that the body of our Saviour 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 ever bread, but because that which was bread, is now become the body of Christ, bread casing to be under those accidents by virtue of Christ's 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 remain in their own substances to compose it, nor as fire is made of wood where the matter common to them both remains, yet if there be understood only that the body of Christ succeeds to the substance of bread under the same accidents and so issues from it as the day issues from the night, as from the term from which it begins 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 Christ's 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 Moses, because it was made of the rod of Moses. or which is the same in other terms; because that which became wine was water, and that which became a serpent was the rod of Moses which if it be resolved into philosophical terms, is nothing but this, that the substantial matter which was united to the substantial forms of a serpent and wine, was immediately before united to the substantial forms of the rod of Moses and of water, which happens in other changes of one thing into an other.  
Thirdly: it is not the ordinary way of speech to say that all things which are made by substantial 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 affirm 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 meats we eat, we use not to say, our flesh was beef, or mutton, or herbs, or btead, or drink etc. and yet it is made of all these when they are changed into our substance: and hence is true the same proposition of our Saviour in time of his nourishment: for his meat was as truly changed into his flesh as our meat is into our flesh, and consequently the bread which he did eat, was changed by nourishment into his flesh. and so it is true even out of holy Scripture which speaks of his eating and drinking 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 Christ's flesh were once bread (supposing it were true that the serpent had been a rod and Adam dust, as the Opponent here affirms) to wit, those into which bread was changed by natural nourishment. if then it might be truly affirmed of some parts of Christ's flesh that they were bread in this sense fornamed why should it be not only false but impious to affirm that the flesh of Christ as it is in the Sacrament (for we affirm it no otherwise?) was bread? there being no more difficulty in the one then in the other. fourthly this change being made in a way wholly supernatural where no part of the substance of bread remains, to wit, neither form nor matter, as we speak in the schools, which happens not in any natural nor in many supernatural changes, where the matter and substance still remains, now receiving one form, now an other, by reason whereof the thing that succeeds may be said (as the opponent contends) to have been the thing that was changed into it: by reason I say that no such common subject remains here, but the whole substance of bread is changed into the substance of Christ's 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 natural and ordinary changes, if that manner of speech were allowable.  
Fiftly, the objection mistakes the complete reason of Catholics 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 have been done so invisibily that neither the body of Christ nor the species of bread should have appeared, and then we should have had nothing common to them both to have continued the denomination of bread▪ but the entire reason given by Catholic Doctors is that the bread is changed into the flesh of Christ which is put under the outward shows or species of bread, which give occasion or ground of giving it the same denomination it had before. Thus we call the dead carcase of a lamb a lamb, and the dead body of a man, a man, by reason of these outward organs and proportions which remain the same they were before, though the thing be quite changed from what it was. Unto that which is added that we have no where in Scripture that bread is converted into the flesh of our Saviour as we have that the rod of Moses was converted into a serpent I Answer that it is not necessary to have all things in Scripture in the like clearness and explicitenesse of words, for we have no where expressed in Scripture, that the bread our Saviour did eat was converted into his flesh as we have that the rod of Moses was converted into a serpent, and notwhithstanding even Protestants must believe it. so though we have it not in express terms that bread is changed into the flesh of our Saviour in this Sacrament, as we have that Moses' rod was converted into a serpent, yet we must heleeve it, because the truth of Scripture cannot stand unless this be granted: for seeing our Saviour said This is my Body, and it is wholly impossible and implying contradiction that a piece of bread remaining in its own nature should be the true and real body of our Saviour (as we have showed that those words must import) it follows necessarily that the nature and substance of bread cannot be under those visible species, and therefore bread must cease to be out of the force of Christ's body, which must succeed in place of bread, under the same species which is nothing else then to have bread changed into the body of our Saviour.   

Objection.  
Why should they only take these words This is my Body: in a literal sense and no other? doth he not as well say: I am a door: I am a vine? doubtless he was able to transform himself into a door, or a vine but did he therefore do so? he said to his disciples: ye are branches, ye are sheep. did they therefore become so in respect either of his power or words?   

Answer.  
I Answer that there is a main difference between these propositions and the other where of we treat This is my Body both in the subject and in the predicate, that is in the first and last word of them. for the first word or subject in the former is (ay ye) which signify determinately and expressly our Saviour and the Apostles to whom he spoke. But in the latter, the first word, or subject is (This) which neither expressly nor implicitly signifies bread, but this which I am about to give you, as I have already said. the last words also: door, vine, vinebranches, sheép in the former propositions are indetermined and fit to take a spiritual, mystical and metaphorical sense: for he doth not say, I am a door made of wood and boards which is used to shut and open in visible houses. nor I am a vine which visibily springs from the earth and bears such grappes as men use to make wine of, neither said he that his Apostles were such sheep as feed in the fields, as bear wool to make cloth of as are boiled and roasted to be eaten at the table: nor such vine branches as are cut of from the vine, and either rot, or are burned, or bear grappes in the vine visibly etc. For it had been an impossibility and a plane contradiction to affirm that living men remaning in there own nature as they did, should be such things as those, truly and really, and therefore those last words door, vine, sheep, vine branches being not determined in Scripture to these material and visible things which we commonly understand by these words, give full scope to interpret them of things in a spiritual and mystical 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 appliable to a metaphorical sense as it is in holy Scripture, and the discourse of our Saviour expressly determined it to signify his true natural, material, substantial body which was there present before the Apostles: for if our Saviour had only said these words, This is my Body, and added no further explication: some scope might seem to have been given to have interpreted it either of his real or mystical body which is his church whereof S. Paul speaks: but he takes away this liberty when he adds presently: 
Coloss. 1. v. 24.  This is my Body which is given for you. This is my blood which shall be shed for you. which cannot b● understood of his mystical body, but only of his true real body & blood which only were given & shed for our redemption. so that the subject or first word of the former proposition I ye being wholly determinate to those particular persons of Christ and the Apostles: and the predicate or last words: door, vine, sheep, vinebranches, being wholly indeterminate in themselves; neither expressly naming corporal nor spiritual: seeing it is contrary to all reason and wholly impossible that thereby those things in a corporal sense should be affirmed of our Saviour and his Apostles, as I have faid, those propositions must make this sense which is true and orthodox: I am a spiritual door or vine, ye are spiritual vine branches, or sheep etc. but on the contrary the indetermination or indifferency of the first word or subject of this proposition, This is my Body: being considered in itself making it no way limited to bread: and the last word or predicate, Body which is given you, being expressly determined to the real and substantial body of Christ, it must make this sense: This which I am about to give you, is my real and substantial body, which is a true and Catholic proposition and not this: This bread is my true and real Body: which implies as much contradiction and impossibibility, as this other that Christ is a door of wood etc. For it is as impossible that a piece of bread actually existing should be the real body of Christ as that Christ should be a wooden door. nay if we consider it in greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Latin, hoc, disagreeing with bread in gendre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 panis, which are both masculine, it cannot be referred to bread. Now to show out of Scripture itself that our Saviour calls himself the door in a spiritual, mystical and metaphorical sense only, is clear out of S. john c. 12. v. 9 I am the door, if any man enter by me, he shall be saved, etc. which is not true of a natural door of wood, for all such as enter in by such a door are not saved, but such only as enter by the spiritual door of there souls which is our Saviour. so also when he calls his Apostles sheep, he shows clearly that the speaks of metaphorical or spiritual sheep: for he affirms that they hear his voice, or know him: and hence appears also. (by the way) another mistake contrary to their own English Bible which Protestants ordinarily urge against us, mistaking the words of the Gospel: they tell us that our Saviour said he was a door, a vine, a way, which he never says according to their English Bible; but thus: I am the door, the vine, the way etc. which determines the words to a spiritual and metaphorical sense, as when he says: I am the bread of life, I am the good fheapherd etc. and when he calls his disciples sheep, he useth always this restraining and limiting particle, my sheep: which is only true of spiritual sheep, for our Saviour had no other. That which the objection said that our Saviour was as able to change the Apostles into sheep as to change bread into his body, is true if the Apostles had ceased to be men and had been so converted into sheep, as Lot's wife ceasing to be a weoman was converted into a pilar of salt. but then the proposition which Protestants pretended out of Scripture: ye are material sheep, had not been true: neither could the truth of that proposition ever have caused that conversion as conformable to it. but this proposition only should have been true: ye are made, or are become material sheep by virtue of a miraculous change of men into sheep: no otherwise then the water in the marriage 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 affirmed that he is a man. but chose 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 converted 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 have any change or conversion made in a pure affirmative and simple proposition in this manner: Peter is a real and natural sheep. for then this person Peter, is supposed to be and not to be at the some time. to be, because he is affirmed to be a sheep not to be, because he is changed into a sheep, 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 Saviour had said: this bread which I now have in my hands, is my natural Body truly and really. for bread should have remained because it was affirmed to be his body and yet it should have been destroyed and so not remained, because it should have been changed into his body. I am sorry that such speculations as these should be propounded to those who have not ftudied, but the objections require them. yet I must add to make this matter out of question: if the propositions: I am the vine: ye are the vinebranches, employed any change of our Saviour into a real material vine etc. than this proposition adjoined, and my Father is the husbandman. would have employed a power in God the Father to be changed into a real hushandman and so God himself would be changeable, which cannot be affirmed without a blaphemy. So then as God the Father is called only a Spiritual husbandman, so also our Saviour a Spiritual vine, and the Apostles spiritual branches, no more change being implied in the one then in the other. Now that many things affirmed of others, are to be understood, of those things as spiritual, not corporal, is most evident, 1. Cor. 10.3. cited hereafter by the Opponent, and they did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. So that as Christ is here called the spiritual Rock, so is he in the places cited in the objection, called the spiritual way, door, vine, etc. which he truly and really is, without, all impropreties of signs, or figures, for otherwise,, as Protestants make, this is my Body, to be this is a sign of my Body, so must they say I am a door, is as much, as I am the sign of a wooden door, which were both blasphemous, and ridiculous, being applied to our Saviour.   

Objection.  
And if he was in a figurative manner a door, a vine; why may not bread be is body figuratively? and why should they think it is a less● change, for our Saviour to call his body bread, then to call bread his body? doubtless he called his body bread in respect of the nourishment which a faithful soul receives in the Sacrament; even so the bread is the body of Christ sacramentally and taketh the name of the body of Christ as being a sacred sign or Sacrament thereof.   

Answer.  
I have before given the reason of this difference, for certain it is that in this proposition ●n protestant doctrine by the word this, is ●ignified real and material bread, and by my Body the real body of Christ, where of they will have this material bread to be a sign now ●n the other proposition: my flesh is meat, or I am ●he bread etc. though the words my flesh and I signify really and truly our Saviour and his sacred body; yet the word bread cannot any way signify true and material bread: for he expressly calls it the bread that came down from heaven: the bread that gives life to such as worthily eat it, and living bread. which can by ●oe means agree with bread made of wheat or any other corn.  
Hence therefore appears that the flesh of our Saviour;, or he himself are neither a Sacrament, nor a sign of visible and usual bread: ●or it would want little of blasphemy to say ●hat our Saviour or his sacred body were a sign ●f a loaf of bread which seeing it is so, there can ●e thence no argument drawn that bread is called the body of our Saviour because it is a ●igne of his body: but rather the quite contrary our Saviour or his blessed flesh are tuly and ●eally living bread, life giving bread, heavenly ●read, spiritual bread. Therefore that which ●ur Saviour gave his disciples was truly and ●eally his real and natural body: or thus, that ●read of our Lord, that heavenly, living spiritual which the Apostles received from the hands of our Saviour, was his true substantial body.  
But if by the words: this is my Body: should be understood true visible bread, as in the objection they are, there will be no other parity or consequence save this: or Saviour calls his flesh bread because it is true living, heavenly bread: therefore a piece of common bread is called the body of Christ because it is a sign of his body: which is quite out of joint.  
Now certainly (to answer the question he●e propounded) it is much less strange for our Saviour to call himself meat, or living spiritual bread etc. then to call a piece of wheaten bread his true and real body; for he is truly the one, but natural bread can never be the other.  
Concerning the other question first propounded, why may not bread be his body figuratively? if it had been set down in this manner: why might not bread have been his body, figuratively? I would have 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 have showed that according to the first institution, it was our Saviour's will to change bread into his body: and so not being at all, it could not be his body figuratively: neither can a figurative sense stand with the truth of this proposition: This is my Body which is given 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 catechism in the common prayer book a Sacrament to be an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace. now certain it is that our Saviour's body was as outward and visible to the Apostles in the first institution as was the bread itself, and so neither an inward nor spiritual grace, and consequently it could not be a Sacrament of it. and if no Sacrament, it could be no sign of it. for Protestants acknowledge no other sign here then a sacramental sign: and though after our Saviour's ascension we cannot actually see his body by reason of the distance betwixt us, yet that makes it not an inward spiritual grace, for then Rome and Constantinople would be spiritual to those that live in these climates because for the same reason they cannot see them. and yet much less could the body of our Saviour, either in the first institution or at any time after, be termed an inward grace according to Protestants: and yet we are not constrained to acknowledge that there is not a Sacrament, for it signifies that heavenly an● divine grace which by virtue of it is given to nourish our souls which is truly inward an● spiritual: and that which sensibly appears in it, and is called by divines Sacramentum tantum, is a sacramental sign of our Saviour sacred body invisibly but truly existent under those shows or species in this Sacrament, and nourishing our souls and bodies (and so may be truly and properly called a spiritual grace or gift) and that inward also when it is sacramentally received. And no less is it now ● sacramental commemorative sign of the passion, death and sufferings of our Saviour which are long since past, and so become now invisible, working mysteriously and meritoriously in this holy Sacrament.  
If here should be replied that hence would follow that this Sacrament might also in the first institution have been a sign of our Saviour's death & sufferings representing them as presently to follow: and so these words (This is my Body) might have this sense: this bread is a representative sign of my body as instantly suffering and dying upon the Cross: which death and sufferings were then invisible because they were not then existent. I answer that our Saviour might have pleased according to his absolute power to have instituted such a Sacrament, but because we have neither ●n Scripture nor tradition that he instituted ●ere any such: and the words of the institution, This is my Body, are properly and literally ●o be understood when there is nothing that constrains us to the contrary; we deny that ●ny such typical or empty sign as this was actually constituted by our Saviour in the institution of this Sacrament; especially seeing ●hat the paschal lamme represented much ●ore lively and perfectly the passion of Christ ●hen the bread and wine: and that such typical representations were proper to the old ●aw which was the shadow of things to come. And for Protestants they must confess that ●hey have no ground in Scripture for any other sign of our Saviour's passion, then by way of commemoration or remembrance, which supposes his suffering and death past, ●nd not to come, as I have already prowed. And though it were gratis admitted that in this Sacrament such a prefigurative sign of our Saviour's passion was exhibited in the first institution, yet this would no more hinder the real presence necessarily required by virtue of this proposition, this is my Body etc. ●hen it's being now a commemotative sign of his said passion, as I have declared and proved already.   

Objection.  
In the old and new Testament it is usual to call the signs by the names of that they signify, why then should it be thought strange that our Saviour in this Sacrament (calling bread his body and wine his blood) should speak in the same manner.   

Answer.  
I have now showed against Protestants in these principles that there was no sacramental sign of the body of our Saviout in the first institution of this Sacrament: (Christ's body having been then as visible and present as the bread and consequently no sign at all; and if no sign: the true and real body as the opponent hath granted. Though therefore where the Scripture giveth clear evidence that there is a sign, or that it may be clearly gathered thence, that the sign should be called by the name of the thing signified, yet there is great reason where no such evidence is, but rather to the contrary, that our Saviour should not speak in the same manner; neither is it yet convinced by all the texts alleged presently by the opponent, that signs are called by the names of the things signified or be that which they do signify: as will appear by the particulars.   

Objection.  
Circumcision is called the cowenant with God. This is my cowenant between me and you. now ●hat the word cowenant, 
Gen. 17. v. 10.11.  must be taken for a sign of the cowenant, the line following showeth, where God said: And it shall be a sign of the cowenant between me and you.   

Answer.  
There were two cowenants or pacts made between God and Abraham in this chapter. the first ver. 1.2.4.6.7; 8. which was of the favour of God promised to Abraham and his seed. The second v. 9.10.11. etc. which was of Abraham's obedience and his child's towards God. whereto he obliged them in taking circumcision: now this second cowenant was a confirmation, sign or seal of the first on Abraham's part: and so though being considered absolutely in itself, it was a true and real cowenant, yet in regard of the former cowenant it was a sign or scale as S. Paul calls it: 
Hebr. 4. v. 11.  and so it is called here both a cowenant, and a sign of the cowenant that is, of the first. as if one should make a cowenant with an other of inferior note: first that he would favour and patronise him in all things; and than that the other might show his gratitude, and acceptation of this cowenant on his part, he makes an other that once a year he should come and wait on him at his table. This second cowenant would be as true real a part of the cowenant or agreement between them, as the first; and yet would be a confirmation, ratification, sign or seal of the former. Now that this second was a true cowenant, is evident out of the words, for it is a true command, obligation, or injunction of God accepted of by Abraham, which being done, God of his part obliged himself to stand to his former cowenant of showing his grace and mercy unto Abraham and his children. So that that which the objcction says that the word cowenant is here taken for the sign of the cowenant: if it means thereby that it signifies not a true cowenant in it self which was a sign of a former cowenant, is far ftom the truth. And though this solution be clear and cannot be questioned, yet if one would stand merely in the words cited, one might easily answer that the obligation of circumcision put here upon Abraham and his children was a true cowenant, but the actual performance and execution, that is, circumcision in itself performed upon the Israëlites was a sign of this obligatory cowenant. and so it is said. ver. 10. hoc est pactum meum etc. circumcidetur. this is my cowenant etc. every mal child shall be circumcised, that it may be a sign of the cowenant between me and you, that is, that the actual circumcision may be a sign of this cowenant. So that neither is here the obligation to be circumcised, called a sign of the cowenant, nor circumcision called the cowenant as the opponent affirms, not out of Scripture, but from the Protestant gloss or addition to it. And these answers which I have given are clearly confirmed by S. Paul Rom. 4. v. 11. where speaking of Abraham he said: he took the sign of circumcision, the seal of the justice of faith etc. that he might be the father of all believers: where not the obligation appointed by Almighty God to be circumcised, but circumcision itself is called the sign, and chiefly the sign or seal of his being the father of all believers, which was the first cowenant here made with him.   

Objection.  
So the lamb of the Passovet was called the Passeover because it did figure the passing over of the Angel.   

Answer.  
The Scripture in this place calls not expresfely the Lamb the Passeour. Ye shall gird your loins and put shoes on your feet, holding staffs in your hands, and ye shall eat hastily for it is the Passeover of our Lord. the hebrew hath it the Passeover to our Lord. which whether it be meant of the lamb itself, or of the whole compliment of the ceremonies required, or of thc lamb as eaten in that manner or order imports little, because it makes nothing at all against us. for we must observe that the word pascha hath a double sense: sometimes it is taken properly and primarily for the real passing of the Angel from one house to another through Egypt: at other times and that commonly improperly or figuratively for the solemnity or feast ordained on that day when he passed, and so yearly upon the same in ensuing ages. Thus we take ordinarily the words Nativity, Resurrection, Ascension of our Lord, either for his real birth, rising from the dead, or his ascending into heaven; 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 real and true body, or for the feast in honour of his body called amongst us (Corpus Christi) so that upon that day one might say: Hic dies est corpus Christi. this day is Corpus Christi.  
Now the same was amongst the jews, and instituted by Almighty God in this place: so that by the word Pesach or Passeover was understood not the real passing over of the Angel, but the feast or Passeover in honour of it, and so it is not called in hebrew (as I have noted) the passing over 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 Passeover wherein our Lord killed so many thousand Egyptians, and saved 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 sins, whereby the words body and blood are determined to his real body and blood. for no figure or type of them was brooken or shed for our fins: it might have had some show of parity. for than must the paschal lamb needs have been called the real passage of the angel, and not the festivityes nominated by the same word. Thus upon Corpus Christi day one may say: This day is the body of our Lord; understanding by Corpus Christi, the solemnity so called as it is ordinarily understood: it might well pass. hut if one should say upon that day: Hic dies est Corpus Christi quod pro nobis datum est: this day is the body of Christ which so many hundred yearcs a go was given for our salvation. all the world would condemn him no less of foolery then of falsehood and impiety. Though therefore the thing itself, and the picture, memorial and solemnity of it may be called by the same name in a large or general acception (thus the picture of Caesar is called Caesar, the solemnity of Corpus Christi is called Corpus Christi) yet when there be certain other particles and words adjoined which tye it to a signification of the thing itself, and distinguish it from the picture or memorial of it, than the figure or memorial can never be understood by that word accompanied with such adjuncts: neither can the portrait or solemnity be ever joined with that word explicated with those said restrictive particules. Thus though seeing the picture of the present King of Spain, I can say: this is King Philip the fourth: for that word signifies as well King Philip painted as really existing, yet I cannot say with truth if the word, is, be taken in its proper and substantial signification which for the present is supposed I this is that King Philip who lives now in Spain, 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 countries: for that is not the real, but painted King, seeing therefore in the words of the institution, that which our Saviour gave his. Apostles is not only called his body which happily alone were indisserent to signify his body painted or real; substantial or figurative natural or mystical: but adds this restrictive (which is given for you) which particle can agree only with his real body. the opponent will prove nothing at all against Roman Catholics unless there be produced out of Scripture some text where the word signifiing the thing itself, be applied to the sign or figure with the same restrictive and limiting particles, as proper to that thing itself; as here the word, my Body, is affirmed of the word, this, and declared to be that body which was given for us, so that the words, my Body which is broken or given for you, can never be taken for any sign or figure of his true body for then a mere sign of his body should be broken for us.   

Objection.  
In the same sense, the ark the sign of the presence of God, is called God. for when the ark 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 faithful people of God, but by the unbelieving philistines who esteemed the Israëlites to have an idol for their God, as well as themselves: 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 prove as well that it was a sign of many Gods, because the philistines called it Gods. 
1. King 4, v. 8.  who will save us from the hands of these high Gods? these are the Gods etc.   

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 drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, but the rock was Christ. where seeing that the text speaks expressly of a spiritual rock and says that rock was Christ, it speaks not of any rock which was a sign of Christ (for that must have been a material visible rock) but of that which was Christ himself: for he is truly a spiritual rock without all signs and figures, as he is our spiritual physician, our good shepherd etc. and this spiritual rock only from which as the true supernatural cause that water flowed, and which alone can truly be said to have followed the childerens of Israel in the desert, was properly our Saviour.   

Objection.  

Gen. 41. v. 6.  The seven ears ears said to be seven years.   

Answer.  
Certain it is that Pharaoh knew well enough that those were not real but imaginary ears framed in his fantasy in time of his dream, and so never intended to demand what they were in themselves, but what they portended, or what was signified by them, for it was the interpretation of his dream which he sought for. 
Gen. 41. v. 25.  and if joseph had answered him that these seven ears were cettaine representations which passed in his mind (as in themselves they truly were) he would have deserved disgrace and punishment, rather than praise and reward: for Pharaoh knew that as well as he. joseph therefore answered according to pharao's intention, that those seven ears signified seven years: and though in the English and Latin be the word (are) are seven years septem sunt anni: yet the Hebrew according to the propriety of that language, hath no word expressly signifiing (are) which may (for any thing that can be convinced from the Hebrew text) have as well the verb signify or represent understood as the verb, are, seven ears, seven years, that is, seven ears signify or prefigure seven years: so that standing close to the original the argument proves nothing. yet though we should with the English translation understand the words are seven years, yet it would prove as little: for they were certain Hieroglyphikes, emblems, or characters defining or prescribing what was portended by the dream. Noah otherwise then when one seeing a virgin painted with her eyes blinded and a pair of scales in her hand, should ask, what is this? if one should answer him that it is a picture drawn upon a painted cloth, he would scarce have 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 justice, he would presently be satisfied. or if one who I know, could read Latin, and not understand it seeing this word, domus, should ask me what it is, and I should answer him that it is, domus, he might think I mock 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 judge that he who demands, what this or that is, intends to know either what it is substantially in itself, or significantly in respect of some other thing which it figures out unto us, the answer is to be framed, but yet with this caveat, that when the subject of the demand is a thing absolute of itself, and not a sign, figure, or emblem of anothcr thing, than we are truly to answer what it is substantially in itself, unless it be clear that the demanders intention be to know what in some extraordinary case it signifies. but when the subject in question is itself a sign, figure, emblem or representation of some other thing, it is to be answered what it signifies, unless it appeates evidently or very probably that the intention of the demand is to know not what it signifies, but what it is.  
Thus when Pharaoh demanded what those ears wear, they being only conceived by him to be certain presages or tokens of something else, no 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 figurative. for when joseph gave this answer that seven ears were seven years, had he understood it properly and substantially, it had concluded a formal contradiction and implication in the terms. For it is impossible that the thoughts of one's head which pass in an hour should be truly and really one or many years. So the truth of holy Scripture and Joseph's answer necessarily requires a figurative sense. and had our Saviour said as expressly, this bread which you see is my body, as joseph said seven ears are seven years, he should have been understood to have spoken for the same reason only in a figurative sense. but seeing he neither said, nor intended to say any such matter, but only, This is my Body etc. that is, this which I am now to give you, and you receive is my body (as I have showed) he must be supposed to affirm in a real, proper and substantial sense without all signs or figures, that that which he was then about to give them was his true body. for the word this both in itself and in those circumstances signifying a thing absolute in itself and no sign or figure, as the word ears do in the place objected, cannot be thought to have any figurative signification: neither the word, my body (being expressed by that which follows, which is given for you to be his real body) can be impropetly nor figuratively understood to signify a sign, figure, remembrance or commemoration of his body for it was not a sign, figure and remembrance of his body, but his real and true body which was given for us. neither can there be any figure or impropriety in the word, is, as though it were nothing but signifies or commemorates: for seeing the subject of the proposition this, that is, which I am to give, and the predicate, my Body which is given for you: properly understood, can be truly and really the one affirmed of the other thus: This which I am to give you, is really and substantially my body which is given for you, according to the rules of all good interpreters it must be understood so as the opponent also acknowledged before. if therefore the opponent, or any other Protestant will prove any thing against us in this particular, there must be produced some text of Scripture where a proposition (all things considered) can be verified in a real and proper sense: as I have proved this proposition: This is my Body which is given for you, can be, and yet is to be understood figuratiuly and improperly. for so long as they produce ptopositions which cannot possibly be understood in a real and proper sense as this is which they have cited: seven ears are seven years, and the like, there is a manifest disparity, because the former can very connaturally be understood in a proper sense, and these not. and the fundamental and unanswerable reason is because the words of Scripture as also of all other authors, must be understood properly when soever they can be understood so, or when nothing compels us to the contrary.   

Objection.  
Even before the fall of Adam there were two trees, the one whereof was called the tree of life, because it was a sign and memorial to Adam that so long as he obeyed God, he should enjoy life: the other of knowledge of good and evil, because it was a sign and memorial unto him, that if he obeyed God, he should know by experience the difference between good and evil.   

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 signs, the one of life, the other of knowledge of good and evil? if there be any such place, why was it not cited in the margin? if no such, what can it be but glozing and adding to Scripture? & not only without, but against Scripture, in the very places cited, if we stand to the express words? for if the tree of life had been so called only because it was a sign or memorial to Adam that so long as he obeyed God he should enjoy life, as the objection affirms, why then did God Almighty provide even after his disobedience that he should not eat of the tree of life by putting a cherub in the way lest by eating he should live for ever? 
Gen. 3. v. 23.24.   
Thus far I have answered the objections, and laid open the mistakes which are extant in the paper: some others there are which are commonly objected and mainly stood upon by our adversaries in this most weighty point of the real presence, lest therefore some might stik upon them, as not being yet solued, I will propound distinctly some of the chief of them observing the method which I held before, of objection and answer.   

Objection.  
What soever may be answered to any figure or sign in these words, my body which is given for you, as being so clear and determinately signifying the real 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 Saviour This is my Body: may have this sense: this signifies my Body?   

Answer.  
I have in effect already satisfied this difficulty, or at least given sufficient grounds to satisfy it. for the word, is, is never to be drawn from its ordinary and proper signification when it can with all conveniency retain it, as I have just now demonstrated, it may here, beside that which is more clear and known, cannot prudently be signified 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 clearly known to them then the significant figure of the bread, and so could not be signified without absurdity 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 up my glove to signify that my hand is there.  
Further, had the bread then barely signified the body of Christ as presently after to suffer, it would have been a bare type and figure of his passion, as was the Paschall Lamb, and so a shadow of things to come, proper to the old law, and consequently would not have been a Sacrament of the law of grace, as certainly, according to all, it was.   

Objection.  

joan. 6.  When the jews thought that our Saviour would give them his true flesh to eat, he corrected their error and told them, it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words which I speak unto you, are spirit and life, therefore our Saviour gives us not his real flesh to eat.   

Answer.  
Says our Saviour here my flesh profiteth nothing? where find you that? noe, replies the protestant, but he says, that the flesh profiteth nothing, and seeing he had spoken much before of his own flesh, what can he be thought to mean by the flesh, but his own? and can any Christian think that he meant his own, unless he deny that he is redeemed by the torments, and death of Christ, or esteem his redemption no profit: or dare a Christian entertain so base an opinion of Christ's most sacred and divine flesh, as to think that it is in opposition to the Spirit of God, as the flesh here mentioned, is affirmed to be by our Saviour, it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: or where through the whole Bible shall they find, flesh contradistinct from spirit, as here they are, whereby is not meant, our corrupt nature, our fleshly imaginations, our low and natural discourses, ignorance, malice, etc. and must it only here signify the flesh of Christ? is not this Scripture mistaken! it is therefore of the jews carnal and gross understanding whereof he speaks, which was wholly opposite to the true spirit, light, and life of God, which made them imagine that our Saviour would cut out pieces of flesh from his body and give it them to eat, or permit himself to be visibly cut and quartered, as meat is at the shambles, and so roasted, and eaten by them, as S. Augustine observes in this place, which natural, and carnal discourse our Saviour affirms to profit nothing, and not his own most pure and heavenly flesh understood aright only by true faith, which he calls here the Spirit, or spiritual light. it will be said, that we affirming that our Saviour's flesh is truly eaten by us though not in so gross a manner, are no less condemned by our Saviour, for our carnal understanding of this mystery, than were the Capernaites. I answer, that there is as much difference betwixt us in this particular, as there was betwixt S. jofeph and Herod, about our Saviour's nativity, for though both of them understood that he had true flesh, and was borne of a woman, yet Herod imagined that he was conceived and borne in the ordinary manner of other children, that he was a mere man, etc. and was holy ignorant both of his mother's virginity, and that his human soul and body were united to the divine person. Thus the Capernaites having no more knowledge of his divinity then Herod had, thought that his flesh was to be eaten after the same ordinary manner that other meats use to be eaten, merely to feed the body, and went no sarther. But all true Catholics believe, that his sacred flesh is living, and united to the divine person, and eaten by us, though truly, and really as he was truly and really borne, yet after a most pure, heavenly, and in effable manner as he was brought into this world, whereby his blessed flesh considered absolutely in itself is neither rent, nor torn, nor divided, nor consumed, but remains as whole, perfect and entire, after he is eaten by us as it was before, as the Apostle S. Andrew sais. In this manner, though our Saviour spoke of his real flesh, yet were his words Spirit and Life, no less than these words of S. john, the word was made flesh, 
joan. 1.  and a thousand such like are, though they speak of the true flesh of our Saviour: because his very flesh itself by reason of its union to the divine person, and glorious proprieties wholly deified, and spiritualizd, in such sort that receiving it we receive a Spiritual body, though true and real; Here the earnest Reformer will tell me that I speak contradictions, for it is as impossible that a body should be spiritual, as a Spirit corporal, I answer. If I speak contradictions, I have learned them out of the Protestant Bible, and common prayer book; where S. Paul says of a body after the resurrection, it is sown a natural body it rises a Spiritual 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 providence; viz, whole in the whole host, and whole in every 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 living bread, and giving life eternal to those who worthily receive it, as our Saviour pronounces of it, and according to S. john, what was made in him was life, divinity, 
joan. 1.  and humanity, and soul, and body, and flesh, and blood in him are all life, foe great reason had our Saviour to say, speaking of them, the words which I have spoken to you are spirit, and life.  
These are the chief arguments against the real presence which Protestants use to draw from Scripture; others there are fittet for heathens, than Christians, which they draw from natural reason, where to though I be not obliged to answer, in this treatis, yet because I am exceedingly desirous to give all the satisfaction I am able to every one; I will briefly set the chief of them down, and as briefly answer them, but because I suppose for the present that I dispute against such as make profession to be Christians, I esteem myself to have given a sufficient satisfaction to their difficulties, if I give them clear instances in some article of Christian faith which they believe, wherein they must solve the like difficulty, to that which they urge from natural reason against this mystery.   

Objection.  
How can accidents exist without a suhstance, as here they must do?   

Answer.  
How can a humanc nature subsist without its proper personality, as in the Incarnation of Christ it must do? unless 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 real presence be true.   

Answer.  
How can one and the same soul, Angel, and God be in many places at the same time, which they must be if their spirituality, and God's ubiquity be true.   

Objection.  
How can the parts of our Saviour's body so penetrate one an other that the whole body may be contained in the least part of the host, or drop of the chalice?   

Answer.  
How can the body of our Saviour penetrate the door and pass through his mother's womb, when they both remained shut?   

Objection.  
How should the body of our Saviour in the consecrated host be distinguished from others, when it is put amongst them?   

Answer.  
How should a drop of our Saviour's blood he distinguished from the blood of other men, if in time of his passion it had been mixed with them?   

Objection.  
If our Saviour's flesh and blood be really present in the Sacrament, than cats and Rats may eat them?   

Answer.  
If our Saviors' flesh and blood were truly in the passion, particles of his sacred flesh being rend of, and drops of his blood shed here and there, than dogs and cats might have as well eaten them,   

Objection.  
How is it possible that the whole bulk of a man's body should be so light, that a fly should be able to crary it?   

Answer.  
How should the whole bulk of a man's body be so light, that it should mount up like a flame of fire, into heaven? as our Saviour's did in his ascension?   

Objection.  
If there be so many miracles, as you must hold wrought by our Saviour, in the real presence, why were none of them seen, as the other mitacles of Christ were?   

Answer.  
If there were so many miracles wrought in the Incarnation of our Saviour as you must hold, why were none of them seen, as the other miracles of Christ were?   

Objection.  
How can we possibly conceive a body with out any extension of parts, or local form and figure?   

Answer.  
How can we possibly conceive a human nature subsisting without a human personality?   

Objection.  
What difference will there be betwixt a body without all extension, and local 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 understand? the one hath a power to understand, will you say, and not the other; the one hath a power to be extended, and have a local figure, say I, and not the other.   

Objection.  
If our Saviour's body be truly in the Sacrament, than all wicked persons, and grievous sinners who frequent it, receive his true body into their mouths, and breasts.   

Answer.  
If our Saviour's body was truly in the wilderness, than the Devil received it into his arms and carried it to the pinnacle of the temple, and if it were a true body in time of his Passion, than judas the traitor kissed it, the hard hearted jews, and Barbarous soldiers touched it, abused it, scorgd it, crucified it, and trod his most precious blood under their feet, is not this as much disgraceful to his body, and blood, as now to be received into sinners mouths?   

Objection.  
If there be nothing visible or sensible but species, accidents and forms of bread, in the Sacrament, how shall worms be generated from the host corrupted, or putrified, seeing they must consist of matter and form, and so be produced of some material substance.   

Answer.  
If there were nothing but human nature in Christ as man, without human personality, how could it perform the actions of a person, seeing all other actions of men proceed from their persons, and not from their natures, as the complete principle of them. You will say, the divine personality supplied the place of human personality in Christ, and I say that divine 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 Saviout ceases to be under them.   

Objection.  
But how can an accident perform the office of a substance?   

Answer.  
But how can the personality of one person perform the office of the personality of an other?   

Objection.  
God united the divine personality to humane nature, and so it subsists by it, as supplying the want of its own.   

Answer.  
God unites a matter produced at the exigency of nature, to the accidents which were of bread, which in the production of worms from a putrified host supplies the want of their own.  
These, to my best remembrance, are the chief difficulties, which according to the principles, of natural reason, our Adversaries commonly press against us in this mystery, in answer whereof, I have plainly showed, that they themselves must answer as great or greater difficultyes, which may be opposed by heathens, and Infidels against other articles of our faith which they believe, let them therefore either desist to move any such heathenish objections as these, against the real presence, or acknowledge that whilst they press these against it, they give just occasion to an Infidel to press the like against themselves: which when they have solued in other mysteries, they will have solved their own, against this.  
Before I end this controversy, I will sum up briefly what I have said at large in this treatis, that the Reader may have a full sight of it at one View. first, I have (according to my former method) cited the doctrine of the Council of Trent. whence clearly appears that it contains nothing, gross and Capernaitical (as Protestant's commonly are made believe) but a most heavenly, pure, mystical, living, and ineffable presence. Secondly I have cited the words of the Evangelists and S. Paul touching the Institution, which are not only most clear in themselves (as I have proved) but are judged so to be both by Martin Luther, in his first Tome printed at jena, an. 1589. Concione 3. de Confession, & Sacramento Eucharistiae, parte 2. pag. 329. where after he had cited the words of the Evangelists, he saith thus: Haec sunt verba quae neque ipsi, neque etiam Sathan negare poterit, in quae figendus pes est, ut 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 neither they (he means Roman Catholicques) nor Satan can deny, upon which we are to fix our foot, that we may stand immowable in them. For they are naked and most plain which cannot be shifted of by any Interpretations. That bread is the body of Christ, which is given for us, and the cup the blood of Christ, which is shed for us, and that we are commanded to do them in remembrance of him. Thus Luther. which though he here affirms, to prove his errors, of Consubstantiation, and Communion in both kinds against us, yet withal he clearly, confesses that the words are most plain for the real presence of Christ's true body, and blood in this holy Sacrament, which he always held.  
These texts also are so undeniably clear, for the real Presence, that Zuinglius the first author of the Sacramentaries changed the word in all the Evangelists, and S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek, 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 je. 2. ar. 3. fol. 43. And Zuinglius himself approwes 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 poured out for you, putteth, them thus in greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hoc poculum quod pro vobis effunditur, this chalice which is poured out for you, and in his Latin translation he puts them thus, hoc poculum etc. in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis effunditur, which blood is poured out for you, referring the word this, to blood and not to chalice, quite contrary to the Greek construction, which not withstanding he confesses to have found, in all the ancient Greek copies which he had read, and having no other shift to avoid the force of these words as they stand in all these Greek copies acknowledging that they make quite against him, he is put to that desperate insolensie, as to say, that these words, which (chalice) is poured out for you, have crept out of the margin into the text, by negligence of writers, and so are not the word of God▪ so Bezaes' translation Greek, and Latin, printed, by Henry Steenen, anno 1565. Thirdly, I have discovered clearly the sundry gross mistakes of Scripture, in the words, it, take, eat this, do this in remembrance, etc. Fourtly, I have showed the mistakes, in the parities brought, of I am a door, a vine, a way, etc. Fiftly, I have laid open the mistakes, in the instances, of other Sacraments, and figurative speeches alleged by the opponent in the old Testament, and many such like misapplications.  
The main things where in I stand are, that the words of S. Luke are so clear, that Beza hath no way to avoid the force of them, then by saying that they crept out of the Margin into the text, though he confesses to have found them, as he citys them, in all the Greek Copies which he had seen.  
And secondly, that seeing these words, This is my Body which is given for you, may most easily and connaturally be understood in a most proper sense, without violating any other article of our faith, or plain place of holy Scripture, that they must be so understood, though we will take away all force from Scripture to prove any thing, and destroy the fundamentall rule not only of Interpretation of Scripture, but of all human conversation, which is, that every one is, so be understood to speak properly, when nothing constrains to the contrary, ●eeing therefore, I have clearly demonstrated, that in the instances alleged none of the figurative speeches, can be understood in a proper sense, without the violation of some article of our faith, proceeding according to true discourse, even confessed by our adversarios, I convince also that they have no force to prove, that these sacramental words are to be understood figuratively.     

THE SEAVENTH CONTROVERSY Concerning Communion under one kind.  

The Doctrine of the Church of Rome, delivered 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 una cum ipsius animâ & divinitate 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 utraque vi naturalis illius connexionis, & concomitantiae, quâ partes Christi Domini, qui iam ex mortuis resurrexit, non ampliùs moriturus, inter se copulantur: Divinitatem porrò propter admirabilem illam eius cum corpore & animâ hypostaticam unionem. Quapropter verissimum est tantumdem sub altetutrâ specie, atque sub utrâque contineri, totus enim & integer Christus, sub panis specie, & sub quavis ipsius speciei parte, totus item sub vini specie, & sub eius partibus existit.  
This faith hath been always in the church of God, that presently after consecration the true body and blood of Christ did exist under the species of bread, and wine, together with his soul and divinity. But his body under the species of bread, and his blood under the species of wine, by force of the words: but his body under the species of wine, and his blood undet the species of bread, and his soul vnde● both, by force of that natural connexion, and concomitancy, whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who is now risen from the dead, not to die any more, are joined together, moreover also his divinity both with his body and soul by reason of that admirable hypostatical union with them. wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either kind, as under both together. for whole and entire Christ exists under the species or kind of bread, and each part of it, and whole Christ exists under the species of wine, and under each part of it. The same doctrine is confirmed. sess. 13. can. 3.   

Item sess. 21. cap. 3.  
Insuper declarat quamuis Redemptor no●ter, ut 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 unam speciem solam accipiunt.  
Moreover (the Council) declares, that although our Redeemer, as is above said, instituted this Sacrament in his last supper under both kinds, yet it is to be confessed, that under one only kind whole Christ, and a true Sacrament is received; and therefore, for so much as belongs to the ftuict, that those who receive it only under one kind, are not defrauded of any grace, necessary to salvation.   

Ibidem cap. 2.  
Praetereà declarat, hanc potestatem pepetuò in Ecclesiâ fuisse, ut in Sacramentorum dispensatione, saluâ illorum substantiâ, ea statueret vel mutaret, quae sus●ipientium utilitati, seu ipsorum Sacramentorum venerationi, pro rerum, temporum, ac locorum varietate, magis expedire iudicaret. Id autem Apostolus non obscurè visus est invisse, cum ait: 
1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor. ●.  Sic nos existimet homo, ut ministr●s Christi, & dispensatores mysteriorum Dei, atque quidem hac potestate usum esse, satis constat, cum in multis aliis, tum in hoc ipso Sacramento, cum ordinatis non nullis circa eius usum, caetera inquit, cum venero disponam. Quare agnoscens sancta mater Ecclesia hanc suam in administratione Sacramentorum authoritatem, licèt ab initio Christianae Religionis, non infrequens utriusque speciei usus fuisset; tamen progressu temporis, latissimèiam mutatâ illâ consuetudine gravibus & iustis de causis adducta, hanc consuetudinem sub alterâ specie communicandi, approbavit, & pro lege habendam decrevit, quam reprobare aut sine ipsius Ecclesiae authoritate pro libito mutare non licèt.  
Further (the Council) declares, that this power hath always been in the church, that in the dispensation of the Sacraments, the substance being kept inviolated and entire, she might appoint and change, such things, as, she judged to be expedient for the profit of the receivers, or the veneration of the Sacraments, according to the variety of things, times, and places. And this the Apostle seems not obscurely to have insinuated, 
1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor. 6.  when he says: Let a man so esteem us, as Ministers of Christ, and dispsnsers of the mysteries os God, and that he made use of this power is clear enough, both in many other things, and particularly, in this Sacrament, when▪ ordaining some things concerning the use 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 use os both kinds was frequent. yet in process of time that custom being now notably changed, being induced by just, and important reasons, she hath approved this custom of communicating under one kind, and hath decreed that it be held for a law, which it is not lawful to change, or reprove at ones pleasure without the authority of the church. The like doctrine is delivered, in the first chap. of this session.  
From these texts it is manifest, that the Council, was induced to command this practice, first because whole Christ is under both kinds, 2. because in each kind is the whole essence, and substance of this Sacrament, 3. because no sacramental grace necessary to salvation, is lost by communicating under one kind. 4. because many important reasons touching the honour and respect dew to so divine a Sacrament, mowed her to it. 5. because there is no divine command to the contrary, as appearrs sess. 21. cap. 1. 6 because the church hath power to dispense the Sacraments as she finds most eonvenient, so long, as God's commands, and their substance are not violated. 7. That it is not in any one's power, save only of the church to change this custom.    

The Protestant Position. Delivered 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 Christ's ordnance, aught to be ministered to all Christian men alike.  

This is proved by Scripture mistaken, as will presently appear.  
Having therefore, as I hope, cleared this point of the real presence in the just balance of an open and impartial eye, it will not be very difficult to even an other as a sequel from this concerning communion under one kind, which though it be not thought upon in these objections, yet this fit occasion, the great difficulties which our adversaries raise against it, the earnest desire which many not otherwise ill disposed, have to be satisfied in it, and the request of others who have seen some part of this treatis have put me upon necessity to say something but very succinctly of this matter holding myself close to Scripture according to my former method.  
This point therefore supposes the real presence, and is rather to be treated against Lutherans, or such other Protestants as are convinced of that mystery then against Caluinists or Suinglians who disbeleeve it, for were not our Saviour's body and blood really present there, as the practice of receiving one only kind had never been allowed, so could it not have been defended. This therefore supposed, I will endeavour to defend communion under one kind, and answer whatsoever is pressed by our adversaries against it out of Scripture mistaken.  

Objection.  
First they urge the institution of this Sacrament as having been under the forms both of bread and wine, which institution is to be followed by all Christians and so both to be received.   

Answer.  
The bare institution of a Sacrament draws with it no necessity of frequenting it, as appears in Priesthood and marriage instituted by our Saviour. which not withstanding impose no necessity or command to receive them, so that standing precisely in the institution, no man will be obliged to receive either both, or either of them.   

Objection.  
Secondly though the bare institution of a Sacrament impose no command to receive it, yet it imports a precept that when it is received or administted, it be done in that manner it was instituted, as it appears in baptism, Priesthood and other Sacraments. Seeing therefore our Saviour instituted this Sacrament both in the consecration and communion in both kinds, at least whensoever it is received, it must be received under both.   

Answer.  
This objection involves many difficulties and is first to he undeestood that Sacraments are to be received and administered 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, etc. as was the institution of this Sacrament after supper, sitting upon the ground, given to priests only, in a private secular house etc.  
Secondly there is something particular in this Sacrament which is in no other, even concerning the substance of it: for the very same entire substance being here put under each kind makes that woesoever receives either of them, receives the whole substance of this Sacrament and consequently receives a true Sacrament instituted by our Saviour; and so that which is able to sanctify him who worthily receives 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 received by Priests such as were the Apostles who were Priests, than made when it was first instituted under both kinds, but here is no precedent given about the lay people, because none then received it. That the whole substance of our Saviour is here received I suppose for the present, neither is it much questioned by such as grant the real presence, nor can be possibly doubted of by any who believes that our Saoiour dies not more, and so both flesh and blood, and life, and soul, and divinity are all united together weresoever he is: hence therefore follows that lay people receive as much of our Saviour (seeing they receive him wholly and interily) as Priests do.  
That he who receives our Saviour thus under one only kind receives a true Sacrament is as clear as the former for who can without absurdity deny that under one kind is exhibited an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace, which is the complete definition of a Sacrament according to our adversaries: for here the forms of bread only containing under them our Saviour by way of meat, signify that he confers a spiritual grace nourishing and feeding our souls to eternal life and thus much is signified by the English ministers when they distribute the bread to the people saying: the Body of our Lord jesus Christ preserve thy body and soul to eternal life, etc. 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 commemorative sign of his sacred death and passion. and seeing that both bread is composed of many grains, and wine of many grapes united together, the mystical unity of Christians receiving this Sacrament is sufficiently signified by the species of either of them. if then here he an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace both exhibitive, commemorative and significative, here must needs be a true Sacrament even according to the pttnciples of our adversaries. and what I have said of the form of bread, is by the same reason verified of the form of wine. but not only in their principlcs, but in all good Theology there must be a true Sacrament under each kind: for certainly seeing that a different grace is conferred by each of them, the one of spiritual meat, the other of spiritual drink (which how it is to be understood, I will hereafter examine) each will be sufficient to sanctify and help the soul to eternal life. If it should be replied that in neither of these kinds alone is exhihited a complete sign either of our spiritual refection, or the death of our Saviour but only a partial or imparfect sign of them, which notwithstanding are completely significd under both together. I answer that if by a complete sign be understood a most full and express representation of these two particulars, I grant that there is not under one only kind so full and express a representation (and in this sense not so complete a sign of them) as under both together. but than it must be prowed (this most full and express representation under both being exhibited to lay Christians by the consecration and communion of the Priest in the dread full sacrifice of the mass) that the substance of this sacrifice requirs that they should be always so fully and expressly represented in each particular communion of the people. but if by a complete sign be understood a sign sufficient to signify both our spiritual food and union, and the death of our Saviour, I deny that there is not a complete sign of both exhibited under each kind. This distinction may be much illustrated by an instance from baptism, certainly the mystery of the trinity was more expressly, fully and completely signified by that ancient custom of a threefold dipping the child in the water, and the words of baptism then by the same words and putting water once upon the child, and yet this latter is judged sufficient even by Protestants. for who can doubt that the forms of bread sufficiently give us to understand that our Saviour's is the food of our souls no less than the bread of proposition in the old, and the bread multiplied by our Saviour in the new Testament; and his calling himself the bread of life in the sixth of S. john prefigured and signified sufficiently that our Saviour was to be the bread of our souls: and who seeing a bodily before him void of soul and blood as our Saviour 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 Saviour under the form of wine, for this alone is no less sufficient to represent the death of our Saviour then was the blood alone of the paschal lamb sprinkled upon the posts of the Israëlites by the jewish priests to prefigurate the shedding of his precious blood and sacred passion: nor is the blood of our Saviour under the form of wine less sufficient to represent the spiritual exhiberation and comforting of our souls them was the wine in Cana of Galilee, and that sentence spoken of by the Prophet (wine producing virgins) able to fore figurate the same blood so comforting: as also the species of bread or wine alone to signify the unity and amity which is to be amongst Christians both in regard of Christ and themselves, as I have showed. Hence therefore appears that seeing in each kind apart both the death of our Saviour, and our spiritual meat and drink and union respectively are sufficiently signifieds each must necessarily contain a true Sacrament, and not only the part of a true Sacrament: and seeing in each a true Sacrament is received, each alone must confer that grace which is signified by it, and so sanctify the soul of such as receive it, and consequently may be received fruitfully and savingly alone for so much as belongs to the bare institution: for if our Saviour instituted each species apart to confer saving grace, than who receives either devoutly receives that grace for which our Saviour instituted it, and so we are put in the state of salvation by reeeaving one unless thete be some other command produced which obligeth all to receive both, which shall here after be examined.   

Objection.  
Some may happily object that this answer subsists not, for according to this doctrine the Priest also receives a true Sacrament and the spiritual graces and fruits of it when he receives the host only, and yet even after he hath received the host; he is obliged to receive the chalice according to Roman Catholics, therefore though it should be granted that lay people by receiving under the species of bread only, receive a true Sacrament with the saving grace signified and conferred by it, yet they may be obliged to receive the other kind as Priests are.   

Answer.  
There is first a great difference betwixt the Apostles and lay Christians, for they were directly and expressly obliged by our Saviour in time of the institution to receive the chalice even after they had received the true Sacrament and the grace of it under the species of bread. whence may probably be gathered that all Priests consecrating have the same obligation of receiving both: but no such command was directly and expessely given to lay people none having been there. Secondly Priests consecrating and sacrificing are obliged to receive of each part of their sacrifice, and so though precisely standing in the essence of a Sacrament, there be no divine obligation, yet in regard of consummating and participating of their own sacrifice they are bound to receive both as the Apostles did, which hath no place in lay people. The answer only concludes that standing precisely in the institution, seeing lay people receive under one kind a true Sacrament with saving grace, it cannot be thence convinced that they are bound to receive more; so that if there be any obligation of receiving both it must rise from some other head and not from the bare institution, whereof we treat in answer to this objection now taken from it alone.   

Objection.  
It may be yet further objected that our Saviour here instituted a full and complete refection not only by way of meat, or by way of drink only, but of both together, and therefore such as receive one only kind receive but one part of this heavenly banquet and want the other, which seemeth quite contrary to the institution and intention of our Saviour.   

Answer.  
Our Saviour instituted this celestial banquet in so ineffable a manner that the very same substantial thing was to be both our meat and drink, to wit, himself and that so abundantly that either both to gather, or each a part are so sufficing a repast, that they communicate strength and life to all such as worthily receive them: and though both being received make but one complete refection by reason they are both taken at once by way of meat and drink, as it happens in other ordinary refections, yet each of them received apart, or at different times, is also a full and complete refection of the soul by reason that each communicates saving grace sufficient to salvation, and this evidently appears in common feasts and banquets, for when many dishes are eaten and different sorts of wine drunk at the same time or meeting, they are esteemed but one meal or banquet, and yet if at different times one should feed now upon one, then upon an other of these dishes apart, or drank but one sort of wine one day, and an other of them an other, than such eating and drinking by reason of the diversity of times would be counted divers sufficient refections: and if it were possible to find in other meats and drink what is found in this Sacrament, that as well the one the other alone could preserve and confer life, and that one could live 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 Saviour in the first institution gave a most plentiful and abundant banquet, whereof each part in itself was sufficient to confer life and satieté to his Apostles, which in succeeding ages being received either jointly, or apart, was to be a sufficient refection for Christians. But from the institution under both kinds followed not (which is cheesty pressed in this objection) that our Saviour's intention was that these two kinds should be such parts of this heavenly feast that both of them are essentially required to it, for than he would not have given each of them force to confer grace sufficient for salvation, but would have had that grace necessarily dependant upon the receiving of both together. Now that the receiving of our Saviour under the form of bread only confers life and salvation is out of all question joan. 6. He who eateth this bread shall live for ever, and that perfectly and entirely as appeareth by these words: As I live by my father so he who eateth me shall live by me. for our Saviour liveth by his father not partially, bu● wholly and perfectly.   

Objection.  
Further one may reply that as corporal meat and drink have different effects, th● one of nourishing and strengthing the other of comforting and exhilerating, so proportionably this divine meat and drink must have the like different spiritual effects correspondent to each of them. whence followeth that he who receives one only, is deprived of the grace corresponding to the other, and so the people will be deprived of some grace corresponding to the chalice, to wit, that of spiritual consolation, and exhilaration of the soul in the service of God, which Priests have by receiving both kinds.   

Answer.  
First I answer that it is sufficient for the defence of the Catholic Roman faith that lay people in receiving under one kind, are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation, which they should be were they obliged by virtue of Christ's institution to receive both. 
Concil. Trid. sess. ●1. c. 3.  And which our adversaries press against us. seeing therefore the same habitual iustifiing and saving grace is received by one kind as well as by both, though he who receives both were supposed to receive extensively more than they which receive one only, yet this hath no greater difficulty than that Priests being accoustumed and permitted every day to say mass receive by virtue of oftener communicating more habitual grace then lay people who promiscuously have no such practice or permission, they being by acts of obedience to the holy Church, and humi●ity proportionable to there own estate to supply the want of that extent of graces which are conferred upon Priests by virtue of their daily receiving this Sacrament, no wrong being done them so long as both in this and that of communicating under one kind, they are deprived of no grace necessary to salvation, and by other acts of virtues and good works 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 no wrong done them, because Christians are obliged to have respect not only to their own parricular spiritual profit in increase of grace by the Sacrament, but also to the reverence which is due to it, they must be content to want that ●ncrease when it cannot be obtained but by some irreverence offerred to this divine Sacrament. Thus though both Priests and lay men might have more degrees of grace by celebrating and communicating two or three times a day, then by once, yet because this involves a want of reverence to the body and blood of Christ, it is but once a year generally amongst Catholics permittrd to Priests, and never to lay people, neither by Catholics nor Protestants, the same would follow if all lay men were licenced promiscuously to communicate every day, and no less, were they permitted to receive under both kinds as I shall show here after: whence follows that as out of the respect which they are bound to bear to this heavenly mystery they are obliged to refrain from communicating every day, and upon no day to receive more than once: so are they to abstain (the Church so commanding) from receiving the chalice. Secondly concerning actual auxiliary graces, which are supernatural pious thoughts and inspirations to good, conferred by virtue of this Sacrament and proper to it, some doctors hold that there is a different actual grace corresponding to the chalice from that of the host, the one of strengthening proper to meat, the other of exhilaration proper only to drink. yet the common tenet of doctors is contrary, and so it will only come to a school Question not necessary to be treated here, wherein the more common and negative opinion seems to me more pious and honourable to this Sacrament, for it will be sufficient to save the proper effects of these two kinds that there be actual graces corresponding to meat and drink, the one of corroborating, the other of exhilerating, as the primary, not as the only actual fruits of this spiritual food and drink, so that by the host by reason of its inestimable ' and illimitated virtue be communicated to the receiver certain actual grace's strengthening him in time of tentation as the primary effect of that kind, and yet the other of exhilerating in time of sorrow also, as the secondary and less principal of the sacred host. and the same discourse holds proportionably of the chalice, so that each kind confers these different graces, but in a different order and manner. and by consequence he who receives either hath the very same actual graces communicated to him no less than he who receives both, and lay people are not deprived of any species of actual grace due to this Sacrament, which Priests have. Now that this doctrine much conducing to the honour and glory and grounded in the boundless perfection of this Sacrament, is clear tough to such as only consider that this spiritual banquet under each species contains no less than Christ himself. who is not only the food, but also the drink of our souls, and so the holy Scripture speaking of him telleth us, 
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 justice, and the same justice be borh able to satisfy our hunger and quench our thirst, that is, be both meat and drink to us whensoever we receive it, why should we deny these effects to the fountain of iustici our dear Saviour whensoever he is worthily received under either form in this Sacrament. and if the material manna had the taste, sweetness and strength of all other different meats, why should we not attribute to this spiritual and divine manna the strength sweetness and perfection both of all meats, and drinks also whensoever it is rightly received? And if speaking of divine wisdom Solomon tell us that all good came to him together with it, 
Wild. 7.11  why should we limit that wisdom of God more than is necessary in this Sacrament. In a word, if some corporal meats have also the virtue of drink▪ and some corporal drinks the force of meat to nourish, why should we deny this to the best of all meats and drinks the body and blood of our Saviour? for if the least drop of his blood or action of his body was sufficient to satisfy for the sins of infinite worlds, why should we frame so poor an opinion o● them both in this Sacrament that whensoever they are truly received they have not power under each kind both to nourish strengthen, exhilerate and confer spiritually all the fruits and profits correspondent to those which are found in any, or in all other meats and drinks together so that not only habitual justifying and sanctifying grace necessary to salvation, and actual Sacramental graces correspondent to that of meat by way of spiritual nourishment in the host, and of drink by way of spiritual exhileration in the chalice, but both these graces are conferred by each kind apart that proper to meat primarily by the host, and to drink primarily by the chalice, but yet secondarily and by way of a superabundant virtue and efficacy in this divine refection the host exhilarates & comforts, and the chalice nourisheth and strenghteneth correspondent to all corporal meats and drinks and conferred separately by them are jointly received by each of these apart: and thus as that of the hymn of corpus Christi is most true: dedit fragilibus corporis ferculum, dedit & tristibus sanguinis poculum: he gave the food of his body to the infirm 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 given them bread from heaven having all delight and comfort in it: whereby seems to be assribed to the sacred host the effect of delighting and exhilerating such as worthily receive it, and no less those other versicles which follow in the same feast: cibavit illos ex adipe frumenti, & de petra melle saturavit eos: he hath fed them with the● fatness of wheat, where the delightful nourishment of the soul is expressed: and satiated them with honey 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 schools but in this occasion I judge no more necessary seeing the question itself is not necessary for the defence of Catholic faith in this point. Thus far I have answered the difficulties which can be drawn from the bare institution abstracting from the command of our Saviour expressed either in the institution, or else where concerning this Sacrament, which I will now answer very briefly.   

Objection.  
Our Saviour saith: drink ye all of it, therefore he commands all Christians to drink of the cup in this Sacrament.   

Answer.  
Our Saviour saith john 13. If I have washed your feet your Lord and master, you must also wash one another's feet, therefore all Christians are commanded by our Saviour to wash one an others feet: or thus our Saviour Marc. 16. Goenig into the whole world preach the Gospel to all creatures. and Matt. 28. Go and teach all nations baptising them in the name of the father, etc. therefore he commands all Christians to teach the Gospel and baptise all nations: or thus to come something nearer to this matter in the drinking of a cup. Luc. 22. our Saviour saith before the Sacrament was instituted: and he took the cup and said: take and divide amongst you, etc. therefore all Christians are commanded to take and drink wine which is no sacrament, yea before they receive the sacrament, as our Saviour commanded the Apostles to do here. or lastly thus to instance in the institution itself Matth. 26. our Saviour saith: Take and eat this is my Body: therefore he commanded all Christians to take the host into their hands, and then eat it, as he did the Apostles. many such like instances might be given 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 do, as from this command: drink ye all of this: given to the Apostles, can be drawn that all Christians are commanded to dtinke of the chalice because the Apostles were then commanded to do it.  
If it should be replied that in the other commands alleged is not found the word (all) drink ye all of this as we find here, and therefore are not so general to comprehend all Christians. I answer that the word (all) as appears by S. Mark: and they all drunk of it: only signifies all the Apostles there present, none excepted, for our Saviour said not: let all Christians drink of this, but drink ye all of this. If it should be demanded why should our Saviour say: drink ye all of this more than eat. ye all of this; adding the word (all) only to the chalice and not to the host, but only to show the universal necessity of drinking. I answer first that (all) cannot possibly be added. for that reason, for Protestants confess that there is as universal necessity for all Christians to eat the bread comprehended in these words: take eat this is my Body, without the word (all) as of drinking the cup in these: drink ye 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 Saviour having broken the host into different pieces gave to each Apostle one and so there was no necessity to command them all to eat of the same particle, but having given but one cup amongst them, it was more necessary for the full declaration of his mind (which was that all the Apostles there present should drink of that cup,) to express himself in these terms: drink ye all of this.  
Secondly I answer to the main objection that if we stand ptecisely in these words of Scripture, it can never be convinced that any precept is contained either in these take eat: or in these: drink ye all of this; for they are capable to signify a mere invitation or entreaty as great persons ordinarily are accoustomed when they have other inferiors at their table to say, eat or drink of this or that, not commanding but inviting: and it belongs to Protestants who stand so strictly to the bare express words of Scripture to convince by the sole express words the contrary.  
Thirdly if we either by universal tradition of Christians, or by some other express commands in scripture of communicating, grant that even in these words, eat, drink etc. a strict command was given, seeing some commands, oblige all Christians, others all Bishops & Priests, and others the Apostles only, we can notwithstanding give a reason why these words: drink ye all of this, bind the Apostles only, and extend not themselves to all Christians. for the declaration of this. when the circumstances are such that the command can have no place but for that present time when it is given, it is clear that what our Saviour spoke to the Apostles is given to the Apostles only; as when our Saviour said to S. Peter: put up thy swod into the scabbard; or to the three Apostles: rise let us go etc. and a thou sand such like.  
Secondly: when the common tradition of Christendom tells us that such commands as were given to the Apostles were never esteemed to oblige their successors.  
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 general and continnuall practice of Christendom be not contrary) it is to be understood to oblige not only the persons of the Apostles but all Bishops and Priests in succeeding ages, such as are the precepts of teaching the Gospel,, Baptising absolving from sins etc. and of consecrating sacrificing and receiving this blessed Sacrament.  
Fourthly: when the matter of the precept in itself may be common to all Christians as was the washing of one an others feet, the abstinence from blood, and the receiving of both kinds, and hath no limitation to the Apostles or Priests only prescribed in the Scripture there can be no other rule to know which precept obliges all Christians, which not, save the constant and general tradition of the Christian Church. For by this only me know (as well Protestants as Catholics) that the precept of washing of feet binds not though it be universally & strictly injoineyd in Scripture without any limitation of time or persons, and no less though all Christians are of themselves capable to receive both kinds, and the command be given to the Apostles to teceave them, yet this command by the churches perpetual tradition, or permitting many lay Christians to teceave in one only kind, & by the Protestants custom of not communicating little infants, show clearly that this precept is not to be extended to all Christians without exception. and if Protestants notwithstanding the word, all, limitate it only to such as are arrived to the years of discretion, without any ground in the bare words of the text, to exclude little children, only because their own practice approves it; why may not Roman Catholics limit it to the Apostles then present having both a ground in the text, because the words were spoken to them only, and the universal tradition of the Christian Church permitting many lay persons to communicate in one only kind, and little children either in one, or neither, as I shall here after demonstrate.   

Objection.  
The second precept alleged by reformists for communion under both kinds, is in these words: do this in remembrance of me, which being to be understood of something commanded to be done not then, but for ensuing times, as I have already showed, are not to be limited as spoken to the Apostles only, then present, and so seem to be extended to all Christians. especially if they be limited to Priests only, there will be no command at-all in the institution obliging all Christians to receive either both, or either kind of this Sacrament.   

Answer.  
These words: do 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 evidently commanded the blessing, consecrating, offering, sacrificing and administering of this Sacrament, for it is to do what our Saviour then did, which according to Catholics comprehends all these particulars, and according to Protestant's some of them, and if the consecrating and administration of this Sacrament were not commanded in these words there would be no command at all for them in the whole institution, nor very probabily in the whole new Testament.  
Secondly if we stick closely to the bare words, no man can convince from them only that all Christians are obliged to receive this Sacrament under both, or either kind, for the clergy men might have been obliged to consecrate and administer this Sacrament, though the laity were not obliged to receive it, as they are bound to administer Priesthood and marriage when they are justly required: though no man have any absolute command either to be a Priest, or to marry, and consequently are not bound to receive those two Sacraments.  
Thirdly all that those words import as they stand, may be satisfied probably if we say that not every Priest or lay man in particular is obliged to consecrate or communicate by force of them, but that they contain a precept given to the church in general that what our Saviour here commands, be done as certainly there is a command given to the church to confer Priesthood, absolution and extreme Unction etc. and yet no 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 positive divine precept, given directly to them, though accidentally they may have a strict obligation according to different circumstances to administer the said Sacrament.  
Fourtly: though it should be granted that these words: do this etc. contain a precept obliging all Christians arrived to years of discretion to communicate sometimes, yet this toucheth only the receiving under the form of bread, if we stand to the express 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 receive that, but so often as it is drunk, to do it in remembrance of our Saviour: do this as often as you shall drink in remembrance of me, said our Saviour.  
Last: though from the sole force of these words: do this in remembrance of me, considered as they stand in Scripture, no forcible argument can be drawn to prove a positive precept in particular binding every Christian, to receive sometimes this Sacrament under either or both kinds, and though the general doctrine of the church be that there is no divine precept obliging more to receive the host then the chalice, and the custom of the primitive church was to give to some the chalicc no less without the host, then to others the host without the chalice. and that some late Learned Writers affirm that there is no such precept contained in holy Scripture; yet because S. Thomas and the common stream of doctors after him grant a general precept of receiving this Sacrament to be contained in them, and that S. Paul seems to give sufficient ground to think that this command: do this etc. was to be extended to the actual receiving of this Sacrament by the laity, by mentioning drinking in the conditional command of the consecrated chalice, and deducing from the institution what preparation all Christians should make to receive worthily this Sacrament, as appears v. 27. to the end of the chapter: and mowed by this authority I grant that all Christians are here commanded sometimes in there lives to frequent this Sacrament, yet so that lay people satisfy this precept by receiving one only kind, or both, according to the order prescribed by the holy Church, as she is mowed by different times or circumstances now to ordain the receiving of both, now of one alone, to some the sole host, and to others the chalice only; for seeing this precept was given before the consecration of the chalice, though it induce no more neccssity of receiving the host then the chalice, yet it shows evidently that if the host alone be received, this precept is satisfied and by a manifest parity and equality betwixt the two kinds that if it be sufficient to satisfy this precept to receive the sole host, it will also be sufficient to receive the chalice without the host, the one containing nos lesse the whole essence of this Sacrament, than the other, as I have already declared.  
So that in this command: do this in remembrance of me. the word, this, seems to signify (according to S. Thomas now cited) whatsoever our Saviour then did, as necessarily appertaining to the essence & substance of this Sacrament; and though this absolute preecpt was given before the chalice, yet the ground of it being the very same in the host and chalice, it is equally to be applied to the receiving either of them; yet disiunctively only that is, that this Sacrament is to be received by every one either under each or both kinds, as the church shall determine,   

Objection.  
The main difficulty therefore comes at last to that text, joh. 6. unless etc. which as it delivers an absolute necessity of receiving this most holy Sacrament, so seems it in express terms to impose the same necessity of receiving under both kinds, making mention of eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of our Saviour, as necessary to salvation. Verily, verily I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the soon of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.   

Answer.  
I am not ignorant that Catholic doctors give different answers to this text which I leave to be perused in their particular treatises of this point. I answer briefly and clearly that in this text is comprehended a necessity both of eating and drinking that is, there is a general command given to the whole gencrality of Christians to receive the body of Christ by way of eating, and his blood by way of drinking, and consequently of receiving under both kinds, which must always be performed by the general body of Christians, that they may have life in them, and that this may be performed there is a particular necessity put upon every particular Christian to concur to the execution of this general command, not that every one in particular is obliged both to eat and drink really this Sacrament, but that some eating, others drinking, others doing both, each particular confers to the performance of this command of eating, and drinking the body and blood of Christ: whereunto the generality is absolutely obliged: so that this whole command is to be performed by all as jointly and vnitedly considered and that it may be thus jointly done by all, each particular is obliged to some part of it, thereby concurring partially to the whole performance. 
Matth. 28. v. 19 Marc. 16. v. 13.  Thus when our Saviour commanded his Apostles to teach and baptise all nations, he gave a general and universal command to them and their successors to perform this work jointly amongst them, not commanding each one in particular to preach and baptise the whole world, for that neither was nor could, morally speaking, have been done, but that this might be done by all, each one in particular was obliged to perform his part, and to concur to the conversion and instruction of all nations, so that though no one was bound by virtue of this command either to convert all nations, or any one in particular: each one was obliged to labour towards the conversion of some part or other of the world, so that by the labours of each, at last the whole work might be accomplished. Thus our Saviour sent his disciples saying: go and cure all diseases etc. that is each one curing some, 
john 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 do all these miracles, but that amongst them such miracles should be done: and thus the holy Evangelist affirms that the Apostles of Christ preached every where, not that each preached every where, but that all of them together were spread over the whole world. and in the same manner may it now be said that Christians eat the flesh and drink 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 whole precept will be performed amongst them. Neither seems the context of S. john to exact more than this; for in what goes immediately before, the doubt which the jews had there, to which our Saviour answers in this text; was not whether it was necessary to salvation for every one both to eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, for he had as then made no mention at all of drinking his blood, but they only doubted how his flesh could be really eaten. how can this man, say they, give us his stesh to eat? 
john 6.  so that our Saviour's answer to this doubt of theirs, was fully sufficient by telling them that it was not only possible, but necessary to salvation to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the soon of man, that is, that those two actions should be really and truly done amongst such as were to have eternal 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 have eternal life.) whether it were necessary that every one in particular were both to eat and drink (for they never so much as dreamt of this question) it is no way necessary to affirm (by virtue of this context) that our Saviour defined there that it was necessary for every one in particular to perform both: but it was sufficient that both these actions were truly and really so to be accomplished in his church, that the generality was to do both, and each Christian in particular to concur either by performing one, or both to the accomplishment of this injunction. for if each in particular had not been obliged to concur to the performance of this command, the whol● church would not have been bound to correspond with it, seeing their is no more reason to bind one than another to the performance of it, as in the command of teaching and baptising the whole world by the Apostles, each particular was bound to perform his part, seeing that our Saoiour had commanded it should he done amongst them: and there was no reason that one should be more obliged to do it, than an other.  
And though there be many other commands given by our Saviour to the church in general which oblige not each particular Christian to the performance of any part of them, but only the governors 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 whole community of Christians to the whole and each particular to some part of this command. For seeing there is no more reason why one Christian should be more exempted from it then an other, the concurring to it falls equally upon all; for though Priests when they consecreate and sacrifice have each in particular an obligation to communicate, yet according to a probable opinion, they have no obligation in particular proceeding from any divine precept to consectate, or sacrifice, but all their absolute obligation to communicate is taken from this and other like commands, which we have treated; so that though no particular Priest were bound by divine precept to say mass, yet they are bound to communicate by reason of these precepts, which could not be unless every Christian were obliged in particular to concur to the performance of this general command with an equal obligation.   

Objection.  
If it should be said that the church may sufficiently comply with the general command by providing 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 merely to the bare letter of Scripture in these precepts, this might be said, but if we take the sense of it according to the common strain of doctors, every 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 apostles to exempt any of the eight from concurring to the conversion of all nation commanded by our Saviour and to have i● accomplished by the rest which they should have appointed, because each of them in particular was bound to labour in it by divine precept, where in the church cannot dispense so (seeing we have the same authority of doctors and tradition for the obliging each particular by this command: unless you eat, a● each Apostle by that: go and teach all nations, etc.) it may be denied that the church hath power to exempt any one from this precept, by having it performed by other Christians appointed by her authority.  
Thirdly had this Sacrament been left free, as Priesthood and marriage were, without any divine precept that every Christian csometimes in their lives receive it, the church neither would nor could have obliged each Christian in particular to receive it once a year, as she obliges none to receive Priesthood or marriage because they were left free by our Saviour.   

Objection.  
If it should be here objected that in the command of teaching &c. each Apostle in particular could not convert all, and if each had been bound to teach and baptise all, the command could not have any convenient sense, but each Christian is able easily both to eat and drink this Sacrament and so there is no parity in the command of teaching 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 understood 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 have been so understood that each Ccristian is bound both to eat and drink, as being a thing very feasable, yet this Sacramental precept may be understood as the other must be, and if it be possible to understand it so, our adversaries will never be able to convince thence the necessity for every particular to receive both kinds, and yet there will be a necessity by virtue of these words to receive one.  
I Answer secondly that there is as great a necessity to understand this precept in the foresaid manner drawn from the truth of Scripture, as there is for understanding the command of teaching drawn for the force of nature. That which follows the text in the ensuing verses makes this matter quite out of question, for though our Saviour here declared the necessity in the plural number: Nisi manducaverith etc. unless you eat etc. of eating his stesh and drinking his blood as belonging to the generality of Christians, & the words, in vobis, 
Gal. 3.1. james 4.1 1. Par. 5.3. 1. Cor. 1.10 Act. 25.2. Act. 17.22  in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you shall not have life in you, signify, according to the Greek phrase, very familiarly in Scripture, amongst you, which is referred to the whole congregation of Christians, and not to each patricular. Yet when he expressed himself in the singular number: Qui manducat hunc panem, qui manducat m● etc. he who eateth this bread, he who eateth me etc. and addessed his speech to particular persons, he attributes eternal life to the sole eating of him, and that heavenly bread as appears in the said text: he who eateth me shall live by me; he who eateth this bread shall live for ever etc. and hence it is clearly deduced not only that these words: unless ye ●ate &c. do not evidently include ea necessity for every particular▪ person to rereceave both kinds, 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 eats the flesh of our Saviour hath eternal life, as those texts affirm, than it can not be true that unless each particular both eat and drink he shall not have life eternal, and hence also appears a necessity of understanding these words, that though all in general be bound to receive both amongst them, yet none in particular is bound to receive both: but each is partially to concur to accomplish this command as each Apostle was that of teaching and baptising all nations.   

Objection.  
Some happily may answer with Calvin that though eating be only named in the text now cited, yet drinking also is there included, and to be understood as being connected with it in the former text: unless you eat etc.   

Answer.  
That more is understood then is expressed in any place of Scripture, is not upon light conjectures to be supposed, but to be prowed by solid and convincing arguments, otherwise each light headed novelist might at his pleasure frame to himself certain apparent congruities to extend the words of Scripture, and to make them import more than they signify in themselves, and so multiply Synecdoches wheresoever it comes to his purpose. Seeing therefore I have showed that there is no necessity to stretch these texts beyond the common and usual stgnification of the words, by giving at least a probable satisfaction to whatsoever they allege to prove the contrary, let our adverfaries make good that there it a necessity of the drawing these words beyond their natural signification, or that more words are supposed then are expressed in the text, and we will yield to this explication.  
But this discourse of our Saviour: is so far from giving the least ground to any such like, improprieties (the common refuge of our Adversaries when they eannot avoid the source of the express words, and proper sense of Scripture) that it rather confirms the proper and native signification of these words: he who eateth this bread shall live for ever: when he saith: as I live by my father, so he who eateth me shall live by me. whence is (at the least more probabily than Protestants can prove the contrary) inferred that as our Saviour lives totally and completely by his father without the addition of any thing else, so Christians live by worthily eating this heavenly bread without the addition of drinking, or any other action necessary to give life as a part of this Sacrament.  
But that I may make the exposition which I have given of these words, yet more plain and forcible, I will propose an instance of a command of this kind given to the Israelites even in matter of a Sacrament, 
Exod. 12.  where they are in general commanded by families to celebrate the passover by taking killing and shedding the blood and sprinkling it upon the posts of their doors, roasting and eating the paschal lamb etc. not that every one in particular was obliged to perform all these actions, but some to one, and others to others with decency and proportion, though absolutely speaking, every one in particular must have concurred with the rest to the performance of them all, and yet the whole family by concurring partially were obliged to the performance of all. and happily this mystery being a figure of the Eucharist, the only command of eating without any mention of drinking may give some advantage to the custom of eating alone amongst Roman Catholics, but this only by the way as a congruence. And yet to come nearer to our present Question, when our Saviour in the command given in the institution: do this etc. 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 Saviour undloodily be sacrificed and received, yet no Christian dare affirm that all these actions here commanded were to be performed by every Christian in particular, for then all Christian men, women and children were to perform the office of Priests, but that every one was to concur 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 ever prowed that each was both to eat & drink, seeing that by performance of either of these actions separately, each might partially concur to the accomplishment of that precept, as they may also to this: nisi manducaveritis: unless you eat the flesh of the soon of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you: that is unless you concur each in particular to the performance of this command either by eating alone or drinking alone, or performing both together, each respectively to his calling, office and order prescribed by the church, you shall not have 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 concur, one way or other, to the fulfilling of it, seeing there is no reason that one should be more obliged than an other, and so if any one were not obliged, none in particular would be bound to fulfil it, and then every one in particular might lawfully abstain and consequently there would be no performance of this command amongst Christians, which would make the command to be void and of no effect, quite contrary to the express words and intention of our Saviour.  
From this whole discourse may appear what an unworthy and base esteem our adversary's frame of the most sacred body and blood of our Saviour, not thinking that either of them (as they are in this Sacrament) is fit and capable to confer saving grace to such as devoutly receive them, which cannot bu● derogate insufferably from that infinite worth and dignity which all Christians have ever conceived in them. for as it is a most certain and received 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 whole world, and a million of worlds more: why should they now call in Question the sufficiency of the same body and blood received apart each of them to communicate ineffab●le favours and graces (all grounded in his sacred passion) to the worthy receivers of them.   

Objection.  
If they answer that they doubt not of the worth and power of each of these, but of the will of our Saviour whether he ordained that they separately or only jointly should confer grace, or commanded that always both should be received?   

Answer.  
I answer that seeing no less the body then the blood of our Saviour as separately taken in the Eucharist is abondantly in itself fit and able to sanctify the soul of him who duly receives it, and that there is no clear text in Scripture which convinces that one of them alone can not sanctify, or rather that there be most clear texts which prove that one alone can do it: and that there is no express command given in Scripture to all particular Christians to receive both and the custom both of the primitive, ancient, late, and modern church is evidently to the contrary, I cannot see what can have mowed ou● adversaries to think that one kind suffices not, save a low and mean esteem they have of the virtue and force of our Saviour's body and blood considercd separately in themselves in this Sacrament.  
The second defect of respect and reverence which our adversaries show to the sacred blood of Christ in this particular is the little care they have how much of that divine chalice and how often it be spilt upon the ground, sprinkled upon the cloarhes of communicants, cast out of the sacred vessels, abused, lost, trod under foot by a thousand indiscretions, irreverences, negligences, mischances by reason of the great multitudes of people of all most all ages, sexes, conditions, who not only once or twice a year, as amongst the new reformers, but each month, forttnight and week communicate through out the whole Roman Church, as daily experiences teach, and especially in the former age in Bohemia where leave having been granted for the Catholics to receive both kinds for their comfort, they found not withstanding all the diligences which morally could be used, so many and great inconveniences in this kind both to the communicanrs and Priests that they quickly grew weary of it, and were compelled to leave it of. But our adversaries either not believing it is his precious blood, or little regarding what becomes of it, if they believe it, will and must have the use of the chalice, though it be affected with a thousand irreverences, to satisfy their wilful, and ungrounded importunity. But Roman Catholics bear both a tender love to this most precious blood of our Saviour, and so endeavour all they can to preserve it from all irreverences and prevent all occasions as much as is possible of endangering the lest drop of the consecrared chalice to be spilt or lost; and frame a most high esteem of his sacred body as contained under the forms of bread to be alone sufficient to feed them to eternal life. Imitating in both these the care and esteem of the primitive church, which both imposed very heavy and severe penances upon all such as permitted any the least quantity of the sacred chalice to be spilt, and was accoustomed to give this Sacrament sometimes in form of bread only both to hermits in the wilderness, 
Dion. Alex. ep. ad Sabina. Beda Hist. lib. 4. c. 14. Prat. Spir. c. 79. Enas. li. 4. c. 35. Euag. Matisco. 2. c. ●  pilgrims in their journeys, sick persons in their beds, laymen in their houses and children in the church: and in form of wine only to little infants in their cradles, which clearly convinces that the primitive church had no belief or knowledgement of any absolute necessity or divine precept to receive always both; which not withstanding as it read as diligently, so understood it more clearly and observed more punctually the laws and commands of Christ, than our adversaries now do.  
Some there are who being convinced of the real presence, and that there is neither necessity nor command in Scripture of receiving always both, notwithstanding for the precedent places objected, say that every particular Christian is obliged sometimes in his life to communicate under both at the same time, and thus they esteem themselves both to agree with those places of Scripture now cited which affirm that by eating alone eternal life is acquired, and avoid those inconveniences which happen to the blood of our Saviour amongst such multitudes of Christians so frequently communicating by granting that this Sacrament ordinarily may be received under the forms of bread only: and agree with the practice of the primitive Christians who though they often received under one privately, or when the other could not conveniently be had: yet at other times they received publicly under both▪ and on the other side conform themselves both to the institution of our Saviour and those other precepts of receiving both by doing it sometimes in their lives when the precept obliges. This opinion though it seem fairly to compose all difficulties, yet the newness and unhardnesse of it, where there nothing else, render it suspect of superficiality and falsehood, for how is it possible that each Christian should have so weighty an obligation, and neither any doctor in the modern Roman Church, so much as dream of it, nor any amongst her present adversaries once press it against us, or think of it themselves. or if we look to the late five hundred years before us where in it hath been the custom in many particular churches to communicate publicly under the forms of bread only without the least reflection or practice of any such precept, 
3. part qu. 150. ar. 2. cor.  as S. Thomas witnesses, those churches always communicating the laity under one kind only, or if we ascend to the primitive times, there is no step nor impression to be found of any such precept, for than they not sometimes only or ever by way of divine precept, for so much as can be gathered from the authors of those times, but frequently in public celebrations of those mysteries communicated under both. and those childerens which communicated under one only kind, we never read to have communicated under both, though they died in their childhood, which not withstanding they should have done, had the Christians of the primitive times believed any such need, as is here conceived of sometimes communicating under both. how, I say, is it possible that this opinion should be true & solid seeing neither modern nor ancient, nor primitive times, nor friends nor adversaries of the Roman Church so much as once mention it? but beside the newness it hath other reasons enough to convince it of falsehood, for first when the primitive Christians communicated little infants presently after baptism under the forms of wine, only they never are read to have given it under both if they came to be in danger of death when, they had acquired strength enough to receive both; which notwithstanding they had been obliged to do had there been any divine precept obliging all Christians to receive both sometimes or at least once in their lives.  
Secondly the same difficulty may be pressed against this new hatched opinion, of children arrived to the age of six or seven years who being accoustumed in the primitive Church to consummate the particles or relics of the sacred hosts, raceaved under the forms of bread only, for there is not a step imprinted in antiquity of conferring both kinds to them when they came to die about that age. The like is of hermits who lived perpetually in the deserts and had the custom of taking with them the most blessed Sacrament under the forms of bread only.  
But that which discowers most clearly the non existency of this new fangled opinion, is that it hath no ground in holy Scripture. for when our Saviour saith joh. 6. he who eateth this bread shall live for ever, whosoever holds this opinion must say that he who receives devoutly under the form of bread only, receives grace and spiritual life in his soul; suppose therefore that still persevering in that grace received he come to die before he teceive under both kinds, certainly he will be saved; which shows evidently that the receiving of both kinds before death is not necessaty to salvation necessitate medij (as the school speaks) that is, so necessary that salvation can no more be acquired without it, than it can be without faith, or the grace of God. neither can communion under both kinds be said to be necessary to salvation necessitate praecepti, or by divine precept: for these words of S. joh. c. 6. nisi manducaveritis carnem filij hominis etc. being a mere declaration of a truth, cannot properly be said to be a precept or command and rather seems to include necessitatem medij then precepti. and whatsoever command may be deduced from those words, or pressed from any other place of Scripture, I have already showed to be of no force, to put a necessity upon all Christians to receive under both kinds, either all ways when they frequent this Sacrament, or at any time in their lives.  
What I answer to this opinion will easily prevent the forging of an other of the like nature that might happily occur to some acquaint novelist, that though there should be no necessity of ever receiving both kinds at the same time, yet these words of S. john: Unless you eat the flesh of the soon of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you, import a necessity of both eating and drinking at the least at several times, now doing the one and then the other, which being done, each Christian may be truly said both to have eaten the flesh and drunk the blood of the soon of man, and so sufficiently to have fulfiled this declaration of our Saviour. This imagination, I say, is wholly cut of by what I have answered to the former opinion, (to omit the novelty of this invention) for the community of Christians, comply sufficiently with this command, if some receive under the form of bread, and others of wine, this being amongst themselves to have both eaten the flesh, and drunk the blood of the soon of man, though each in particular do not both of them, the command being given not in the singular but in the plural number.  
Now that I may convince even from the confession of our Adversaries, that communion under both kinds is not necessary to salvation.  
1. First whatsoever Luther holds in some places, (as he is most unconstant in his assertions) yet in very many others, he clearly defines, that communion under both kinds is not necessary to salvation, nor was ever commanded by our Saviour. 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 utrâque specie Sacramenti: Si veneris ad locum, in quo una tantùm species ministratur, accipe tantùm unam, quemadmodum ibi accipiunt; si praebentur duae, duas accipe, nec quidquam singular infer, nec te multitudini oppone. If thou comest to a place where one only kind is administered, receive one only; if where both, receive both, and induce no singularity, nor appose thyself to the multitude. Thus Luther.  
2. The same is held by Melancthon, in loc. come. edit. 2. nu. 1551. sol. 78.  
3. And in the English Statutes. In the first Parliament under K. Edward the 6. pag. 818, In case of necessity communion under one kind is permitted; neither is any way condemned the use of those Churches where communion under the form of bread only is practised.  
Which clearly prove that, those English Protestants held not communion under both kinds necessary to salvation.  
And here I make an end of this whole treatis, which (had the spirit of Christian humility, and obedience persevered in the hearts of Christians) need never have been begun; and was undertaken 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 have, to disobey the precepts, and contradict the decrees, of their no less tender, then powerful mother the universal Church; that being no other, nor better than a weak pretence of Scripture mistaken the common plea of all sectaries against the general consent of Christendom. For this mistake of a few curious and disquiet Novelists, the mystical body of Christ must be rend in pieces, Kingdoms and Provinces swinne in each others blood, Churches, and Religious houses, the monuments of Christian piety, razed and defaced; cities sacced and pillaged, country's dispeopled and desolated, castles burned, families ruined, parents bathed in their own tears, their children half famished, like those of the Israelites, crying out for bread, and none found to give it them; and that I may shut up all, in those sad lines of Vincentius Lirenensis Commonitorio 1. c. 6. speaking of the Arrian beresie and giving no less a true description of those, than a presage of our times, after he had declared how the whole Roman Empire was shaken, the west and eastern Churches either by fraud or force, dangerously infectcd, and all things both sacred and Profane, distempered, and distracted, he uses these words, Tunc temeratae coniuges, depullatae viduae, prophanatae virgins, dilacerata monasteria, disturbati clerici, verberate Levitae, acti in exilium Sacerdotes, oppleta sanctis ergastula, carceres metalla. Then married women were abused, widows despoiled, of their purple mourning garments, sacred virgins profaned, monasteries torn in pieces, clergy men displaced, Levites beaten, priests sent into banishment, dungeons, prisons, and mettle mine's filled with Saints. O unhappy, and accursed mistake! what mischeefs hast thou already wrought, and art still a working in the bozom of Christendom! how hast thou hoodwinked the eyes, bewitched the ears, clouded the brains, and set on fire the hearts of mistaken Christians, who are so deeply besotted, with thee, that like one in a frenzy, they can neither believe, nor endure to hear that they are mistaken: and yet are not to be deserted as wholly desperate and incurable, there is still a sun which can dart a beam of light into their souls, to discover these cymerion clouds; a never erring truth to correct these mistakes, and a most provident wisdom, to lead them to the certain way of salvation. Dear countrymen, I have only exposed before your eyes (and more I cannot) a clear looking glass wherein you may behold, the foulest, grossest, and most dangerous of your mistakes, and beholding, loathe them, and loathing leave them, though you leave the whole world, and your own lives with them, for being once discowred, left they must be, or God will leave you.      
FINIS.   

THE INDEX.  


A.  
Angel's have been worshipped in Scripture. pag. 34.35.  
Angels endued with supernatural graces. 16.17.18.  
How he Ark is called God. 293.    


B.  
BEza. Translates in all the Evangelists and S. Paul, for is my Body, signifies my Body. 514.  
Beza says that these words, which is poured out for you, as they stand in the Greek, are crept out of the margin into the text. 214.215.  
How our Saviour's true body is broken. 200.201.102.103. Christ never said, this is my Body, that is to say, a commemoration of my Body. 215.216.217. Nor could say so. 218 c 219. etc. S. Paul calls the consecrated elements, the bread, and cup of our Lord. 253.255.256. Why the consecrated Host is called bread. 265.266. etc. The Host is called no otherwise bread after consecration, than wine was called water. Io. 6.196.  
Bread taken, but not given by our Saviour. 193.194. Natural bread cannot be really the Body of Christ. 213. & 257. True natural bread cannot be the Body of Christ, as his true flesh is called bread Io. 6.281. ad 285. The Apostles did not eat bread remaning bread, but bread made the Body of Christ as in Cana of Galilee, they did not drink water remaining water, but water made wine. 150.251.    


C.  
How the Chalice is the new Testament. 231.232. etc. Whole particular Churches above 400. years ago communicated publicly under one kind. How Circumcision is called the covenant. 287.288. Commandments put shorter in one place of Scripture then in other. 114.115. The division of the Comwandements more reasonable according to Catholicques than Protestants. 118.119. No Commandment left out of the Roman Bibles. 112.113.  
Council of Trents Doctrine of, worshipping of Saints, and Angels. 1.2.3.4. and how tbey pray to God for us. ibidem. Concerning Images. 69.70.71.72.73. Concerning justisiccation. 137.138. to the 143. Concerning merit of good works. 162.163.164. concerning good works. 52.53. Concerning Purgatory. 179.180. Of the real Presence. 189.190. etc. Concerning communion under one kind. 317.318. to 322. The second Council of Nice concerning Images. 83. Communion in one kind supposes the real Presence. 323. How the cup is the fruit of the vine. 257.258. etc.    


D.  
●he Divinity of God never pictured by Roman Catholics. 72.73.  
Do this etc. Signified nothing to be done in time of the Institution. Do this etc. cannot be extended to lay men. 347. to 350.  
Doulia, is indifferently taken in Scripture for the worship of God, and of creature. 33.34.35.  
Drink ye all, signifies not all Christians. 34. to 346.    


F.  
FAith only justifieth not, prowed by Scripture. 143.144. etc.  
Faith joined with other virtues the disposition to the first justification. 138.139. & 153.  
The flesh, Io. 6. cannot signify the flesh of Christ. 303.    


G.  
Some GLory may be given to creatures but not that which is proper to God. 26.27.    


I.  
IF all worship of Image, were forbidden, one place of Scripture would be contrary to another. 110.111.  
Image put for Idol. 105. a graven Image signifies a false God in the Protestant Bibles. 119.  
The name of jesus is as much worshipped by Protestants, as the picture of jesus by Catholics 28. What an Idol properly is. 8.81. What in Image properly is. 80.81. The difference betwixt an Image and an Idol. 82.83. How Images are to be worshipped. 124.125. Graved Image scarce ever put in Protestant Bibles but in place of words which signify Idols, or false Gods. Image-worship for Idolatry. 105.106. Image added to Scripture. 95.96. & 98.101. etc. The worship done to the Image redounds to the person represented, proved by Scripture. 132.133. justification not acquired, but increased by good works. 152. What relation Images have to God the Fader, and the holy Gost. 75.76.77.    


K.  
In one Kind is a true Sacrament conferring grace. 326. to 3 n0. How these words, though ye eat etc. Io. 6. declare the necessity of receiving both kinds. 351. to 355.    


L.  
LAy people are deprived of no grace necessary to salvation, by wanting one kind. 328.329. & 334. How one kind is a complete refection. 332.333. How the actual sacrament all graces of both kinds, are giuen by each apart. 335. & 340. No lay man is bound some limbs in his life to receive under the form of wine, either joinly with the other kind, or separately. 397.398.  
How the Lamb is called the Passover. 289. to 293.  
Latria, is always used in Scripture (when it is brought for religious worship) for the worship dew to God only. 32.33.34. How eternal life is a gift of God. 171.172. Luther thought the words of consecration most clear. 313.    


M.  
Mediator and Advocate of 2. sorts. 60.91.62.63. Merit of good works takes not a way humility. 175.    


P.  
The Hebrew word Phesel, Exod. 20. falssly translaeed Image. 84.85. Phesel translated Idol in some Protestant Bibles, Isay 44. 85.  
Protestants pray as much to sinners on earth, as Catholics to Saints in heaven. 58.59. Protestants worship bread and wine, as much as Roman Catholics worship Images. 129.130. Protestants themselves esteem it not necessary to salvation to communicate under both kinds Divisions amongst Protestants, and not amongst Catholics in matter of the understading Christ words. 243.244. Protestants bear little or no reverence to the blood of Christ in this Sacrament. 367. Protestants frame a most mean opinion of the Body, and the blood of Christ. 365.366. No Scripture against Purgatory. 182.183. etc.  
Proofs out of Scripture for Purgatory. 187.  
Six mistranstations in Ex. 20.4. in the Protestant Bibles. 91.92.93.94.    


R.  
REligion and Religious taken in 2. senses, in Scriptu●re. 21.22.23.24.25. That which our Saviour gave his Apostles in his last supper could be no remembrance of his Body. 222.223. etc. How any thing may be a remembrance of itself. 227.228.229. How the Rock is called Christ. 295. to 296.    


S.  
SAcraments according to their essential parts are to be received, as they were instituted, whensoever they are received. 325. The bare institution of a Sacrament induces to necessity no receive it. 3.  
Saints and Angels prayree to God for us, are herad only trough the merits of Christ. 58. & 62. The worship of liuing●Saints as much forbidden in Scripture, as of Angels. 35.36. Whensoever by prayers we come to the Saints, we come mediately, but truly to Christ. 56.57. jintreating the Saints to pray for us is not a necessary means, but a profitable help to salvation. 1.2.3. & 65. Saints endowed with supernatural graces. 16.17.18.  
Saturday commanded to be Kept holy. Ex. 20.116.117. The words of Scripture are always to be understood properly, when no other article of faith compels us to the contrary. 315.416. The Scriptures allows of praying to Saints departed, and Angels. 66.67.68. No text in Scripture says expressly that we are justified by faith only. 149. etc. Scripture mistranflated. 78.79.80.81. & 88.89. and from 95. to 127.128. Scripture either mistranflated, or misinterpreted, or missapplied, or misused, or augmented, or altered, or rejected, and generally mistaken one way, or other by Protestants. per totum. The seaventh day not Sunday, but Saturday, and the jewish Sabbath. 116.  
All Service is not dew to God only. 29.30.    


T.  
What is meant by new Testament. 235.236. etc.  
Testament in my blood, is not to fay, sign of my blood. 239.  
Threskia, signifies not worshipping but Religion. 45.46.47.  
Perpetual tradition teaches, that some always received under one kind. 370.  
Objections drawn from natural reason against Transubstantiation briefly answered. 306.312.  
The torment of dearh, or of trial of malefactors touches not souls of the just. 158.    


W.  
WHat the word this signifies, in, these words, this is my Body. 107.108. etc.  
Words have two significations, ancient, and now in use. 30. civil and Ecclesiastical. 31.32.  
Words of Scripture are not to be extended beyond their ordinary signification, without necessity. 361. to 364. When words spoken to the Apostles are to be extended to others, and how far. 334.344. The words of consecration wholly true according to Catholics. 245.246. The word est, is, cannot be signifies. 301. Which are works of the law. 149.150. etc. and 156.157.158. etc. All Good works and words are the gifts of God. 164. God works which are fruits faith are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, according to English Protestants. 167.  
The difference betwixt worship & serve. 123.  
To worship God is not to worship him only. 6.7.8.9. worship of 3. kinds. 9.10.11. Religious worship strictly taken dew to God only. 11.12. Taken in a large sense, may be given to creatures which are endued with supernatural graces. 12.13.14 n 15.16.17. etc. Creatures commanded to be worshipped. 108.106. S. john is as much forbid to weep by an Angel, as to worship. 36.37. The worship which the Roman Church gives to Saints and Angels cannot be given to God without blasphemy, and sacrilege. 25.26. Creatures may be worshipped with the worship of Doulia. 19.20. The worship of Latria given in Scripture to God only. The Angel Reuel. 22.89. might forbid S. john to worship him out of humility, as S. Peter did forbid Cornelius, Act. 10. pag. 25.26.37.38.39.40. etc. S. Paul forbids no worshipping of Angels, but what makes them equal with Christ, or superior to him. 48.49.  
Heathens worshipped as Gods, the material Idols which were before them. 84.85. etc.    
FINIS.