twelue seates iudging the twelue tribes of Israell And S. Paul Know you not that the Saints shal iudge the world if the world shall be iudged by you are you vnworthie to iudge of small matters Know you not that vvee shall iudge the Angells how much more things of this life And S. Iohn brings in the 24. Elders saying thou hast made vs a kindome and Priestes and vve shall reigne vppon the earth whence most clearly appeares that the Saints in heauen haue those two highest dignities which are in esteeme amongst men of Iudges and Kings of the whole world which notwithstanding is aboue the power of all mortall men to confer vppon them and only in the power of God and therefore these iudiciary and Royall powers must be of a higher ranck and order then are any dignities meerely ciuill humane and naturall And the like dignities are ascribed in holy writ to the Angells for our Sauiour calls them holy Angells and soe they must haue true holinesse wihch is a gift of God aboue the force of nature They were the Promulgers of the ould lavv the Embassadours of God in matters of highest concernment the inflicters of Gods punischments Gen. 19.1 Reu. 15. trough out The captaines generalls of the armies of God Iosua 5.14 The Gouerners controulers of kingdomes Dan. 10.12.13.14 The. deuiders of the Reprobate from the elect in the day of Iudgment Mat. 13.49 And the Sendres of the wicked in to hell fier ibidem with many such like dignities and preheminences all great and high in them selues and aboue the reach both of all humane and Angelicall nature bestowed freely vppon them through the liberality of God And as this supernaturall excellency is found in Saints and Angells soe is it ascribed all soe to other things in Scripture to which God hath freely communicated certaine blessings and priuileges Thus we read in Iosua Loose the shoes from thy feete for the place where thou standest is holy And in Exodus Loose thy shoes from thy feete sor the place where thou standest is holy ground Thus the bread of the temple is called holy bread and sanctifyed bread The Temple is called holy yea soe holy that our sauiour saith that the temple Sanctisieth the gold which is in it and the Alter sanctifieth the gift which is offered vppon it Thus the most inward place of the temple had noe other name then Sanctam Sanctorum the holy of holies that is the most holy place of the whole world The holinesse of these and the like things where in soeuer it consisted issued not from any ciuill or humane power but was drawne from the power and authority of God as authour of the true Sauing religion of those times Thus I haue made it cleare out of Scripture that there is a worth a dignity a power an excellency which is meerely created and infinitely inferiour to the attributes and perfections of God and yet far excelling all ciuill and humane worth and aboue the reatch sphere and force of all ciuill power and authority The most cleare rule to the capacity of the vulgar to distinguish ciuill worths and excellencies from Spirituall and supernaturall is that those which are common to the true religion with all other kinds and professions of men are only ciuill and naturall such as are wit vnderstanding knowledge learning eloquence nobility valour Gouernment Magistracy c. But those which are proper to the true religion are Spirituall and Supernaturall as are the dignity of a Saint in heauen of an Angell a holy man yet liuing a Prophet an Appostle a Bishop a Priest a Godfather a God mother c. And because these and the likc excellencies are proper to religion they may in a large sence be termed religious excellencies or dignities· That this may be better vnderstood the Reader may take notice that the word Religion may eyther be taken in a strict sense for the vertue of Religion as it is distinguished from othet infused and supernaturall vertues whereby true worship and honour is giuen to God or in a more large and generall sence for the whole profession of those who esteeme them selues to haue the true sauing way of seruing God and attaining Saluation And this is the more obuious and vulgar vnderstanding of this word Religion thus we commonly say the Catholicque Religion c. that is theyr whole beleefe and profession In the first strict and and rigid sense Religion is taken amongst the Schoole doctours when they dispute of the nature of infused vertues and in the like sense it is often taken in the bookes of Moyses Exod. 12.26.43 Exod. 29.9 Leuit. 26.31 n. 19.2 where it is restrayned eyther to sacrifice or or some other worshrp of God In the Second more large acception it is found both in the old and new testament Hester 8.17 Soe that many of an other nation and sect ioyned them selues to theyr Religion and ceremonies Hester 9.27 Vppon all those who would vnite them selues to theyr Religion Acts 26.3 Saint Paul saith that before his conuersion Hee liued a Pharesie according to the most certaine sect of his Religion Iames e. 2. If any one seeme to be religious and bridleth not his tongue this mans religion is vaine In which texts it is manifest that Religion is taken for the whole beleefe and Profession both of Iewes and Christians Hence it followes that as the word Religion soe the word Religious deriued from it may be taken in the two fore said differēte senses yet I find it vsually in Scripture in the secōd larger acception where a Religious Persone signifies nothing but a person truly deuout vertuous and fairhfull Thus Acts 2.5 But there vvere dvvelling in Ierusalem Ievves Religious men of all nations vvhieh are vnder heauen And Acts 10.2 where it is said of Cornelius that he vvas Religious and fearing God vvith his vvhole houshould giuing many almes to the common people and all vvayes praying God And Acts 13.50 The Iewes stirred vp certaine Religious and honest woemen and the chiefe of the citty c. And Iames the 1.26 If any man seeme to himselfe to be Religious not bridling his tongue this mans Religion is vaine where Religious is taken for pious vertuous c. For ells the ill gouernment of the tongue would not hinder a true exercise of the vertue of religion strictly vnderstood as it differs from other theologicall and morall vertues as it hinders not the true exercise of faith and hope as they are particular vertues This large acception therefore of these words Religion and Religious being soe clearely deliuered in Scripture It will be sufficient for defence of the Catholique Romaine faith in this point to affirme that when our Doctours say that any thing created may be or is worshipped with Religious worship that it is Religious in this large acception found soe familiarly in Scripture that is vertuous pious christian a worship belonging to our Religion proper to
a huÌ„dred yeares proclamed through the eares of Christendome that the Romane Church resists the known truth and the euident testimonies of the written word of God a heauy accusation I demand in the poursuit of this discours that these testimonies be cited and euidenced out of the authenticall editions and originall languages of the holy Bible In place of these they presse the words of theyr own late translations These I proue to be dissonant dissagreeing from the originall and soe not the words of true Scripture but of a false translation will make against vs. They tell me that whatsoeuer the words are in the originall yet the sense is euideÌ„tly against the Roman Church I demaÌ„d how shall the sense at least in theyr principle of sole Scripture euer euidently appeare but by the words of the originall They tell me whatsoeuer the words be yet the sense is euident I reply that I am nothing mouued with theyr saing without theyr prouuing They bid me proue that it is not euident I tell them that it belongs to him who affirmes to proue his own assertion which if they refuse the whol world will discouer that they haue nothing euident in the whol Bible against the Tenets of the Roman Church Yet to comply beyond all obligation I vndertake to proue that the texts which they most presse against vs are neyther euideÌ„t not soe much as probable but euidently insufficient and not soe much as capable of that sense which they draw from them to make them sound against vs and consequently nothing but pure mistakes And yet farther that nothing may be vvanting to a full victory I presse against them clere vvords eyther out of theyr own TraÌ„slations or out of the originall the force whereof they cannot possibly auoyd but eyther by denijng the plaine and proper sense of the vvords and flying to tropes and figures improprieties shadows and abscurities and that vvithout any necessity saue only of mainteyning theyr own assertions or translating the vvords in a secondary signification leauing the primary and most proper vvhen it makes against them vvhich notvvithstanding they put in other places vvhere it makes not against them or by translating the words quite contrary to the originall eueÌ„ by theyr own acknowledgemeÌ„t or vvhen they are soe troughly prest that theyr is noe way of escaping to reject the expresse words of the neuer questioned originall and affirme that they crept out the margent into the text The discouery of these and such like particulars is the maine drift and summe of this Treatis vvhich I haue intiteled Scripture mistaken the ground of Protestants c. The occasion of my falling vppon which vvas as follows This Treatis vvas at first a priuate controuersie in answer to a long Cathalogue of texts taken and mistaken out of the Protestants Bible and sent to a Persone of quality to diuert him from the Romane faith Through importunity of friends I condescended that it might passe the print hoping that some might reape profit from it and therefore couched it in a plaine easy stile that not only the learned but the vulgar also might vnderstand it I keepe my selfe close to Scripture in the vvhol processe and connexion of my proofes eyther against my Aduersary or in my own cause scarce affirming any thing vvhich I confirme not by one clere texr or other and those such as I haue read and diligeÌ„tly examined my selfe in vvhat language foeuer I cite them and therefore if any false dealing be found in the citations I am content as in that case I should vvell deserue to bere the shame of it The texts whieh I answer are those vvhich are commonly and cheefly stood vppon by Protestants and indeede vvhich mainly vvithhold them from imbracing the Romane faith and the points of controuersie such as are the most pressed against vs and maintayned by our Aduersaries soe that I haue noe reason to doubt if the Readers be once conuinced that they haue noe ground against vs euen in theyr own Bible in these maine and radicall controuersies as I am in greate hope they vvil be that they vvill at least beginne to suspect the vveakenesse of theyr own and to diseouer the strength of our cause and soe put themselues in a fare vvay of returning to the bosome of that mother-church from vvhich the late mistakers and misusers of holy Scripture haue seduced them Some controuerfies of lesser moment set down in the paper I haue here omitted which I reserre to an other occasion being now pressed for vvant of time to content my selfe vvith these Wherein that I may proceed vppon a suer foote I obserue this methode first I set down plainly and vnquestionably the Doctrine of the present Romane Church deliuered as such in the expresse vvords of the Council of Trent in each controuersy vvhich I treat there by stating aright the question disabusing the Protestant Readers vvho are commonly vvholy missin formed of our doctrine by a vvrong conceipt of it in stilled into them preserued in them by eyther the malice or ignorance of theyr Teachers Secondly I set down the Protestant positions eyther as I finde them in the paper or in the nine-and thirty Articles of the English Protestant church Thirdly I cite and answer the texts of the Aduersary by discouuering clerely the seuerall mistakes coÌ„teyned in them and lastly I alleadge some plaine passages of Scripture as they stand in the Protestant Bible in confirmation of our doctrine The greatest fauour therefore that I expect from you deare contrymen is that you spare me not neyther in troughly examining what I alleadge nor in demanding satisfaction in matters which you cannot fully examine of persones abler and learneder then your selues Please therefore to ponder vvhat you read noe lesse impartially then seriously to disingage your selues from that vvithdrawing bias vvhich education custome contry friends selfe loue will and iudgement haue insensibly instilled into your harts labour with a strong humble desire to be informed aright with a loue of truth aboue all transitory interests of this short and miserable life lastly haue your earnest recourse to Allm. God both to discouer what is best for your etetnal welfare and to imbrace it when you haue discouered it preferre God before creatures your soul before your body heauen before earth and before time eternity SCRIPTVRE MISTAKEN THE GROVND OF PROTESTANTS c. THE FIRST CONTROVERSIE Concerning the vvorship of Saints and Angells The doctrine taught beleeued and professed in this point as matter of faith by the Romain Church And dliuered in the Concil of Trent as Such Sessione 24. MAndat sancta Synodus omnibus Episcopis caeteris docendi munus curamque sustinentibus vt Fideles diligenter instruant docentes eos Sanctos vnà cum Christo regnantes orationes suas pro hominibus Deo offerre bonum atque vtile esse suppliciter eosinuocare ob beneficia impetranda à Deo per Filiâ—m
our Religion and tending finally to the acknowledgment of God and our Sauiours honour as authour of our faith and Religion Soe that hauing these references to Gods honour though those Acts of Religious worship tend immediately to the acknowledgement of some created supernaiurall excellence in that which wee worshipp by them yet that hinders not theyr beeing Religious acts in this larger sence As appeares by these following texts of Scripture where Moyses is commaunded to prescribe certaine ceremoniall rites in Sacrifices Holocausts amongst which one was that the brest right Shoulder of that which was offered in sacrifice should be giuen to the Priests as belonging to them by right and ordinance of God The giuing of these two parts of the thing offered to the priest was an action done immediately to a pure creature and not to God and yet it is called Religion as appeares by the words These things God commaunded to be giuen to them that is to Aaron and his ofspring as it is in the precedent words from the children of Israell by a perpetuall Religion in theyr generations Secondly S. Iames. Pure and vndefiled Religion with God and the father is this to visite the orphanes and widowes in theyr tribulation and to keepe himselfe vnspotted in this life where a worke of mercy to the pore is called Religion that is a worke proceeding from Religion and belongrg to Religion though done to creatures such as are orphanes and wedows All that I haue cited out of Scripture in the discouery of this second mistake will I hope haue coÌ„uinced the iudicious and well minded Reader that there is a Supernaturall created excellency communicated liberally from Allm God to some creatures infinitely below the diuine excellency of God and yet far aboue all naturall and ciuill worth which therefore must deserue honour and worship seeing that naturall and ciuill excellencies euen according to protestants though far inferiour to them deserue it which worship seeing it is done in acknowledgment of the Spirituall and supernaturall dignities which are only proper to Gods true religion and soe are religious excellencies may be rightly termed a religious worship in the fore named sense For seeing the humble acknowledgmeÌ„t of diuine perfections is deseruedly termed diuine worship and of ciuill perfections rightly styled ciuill worship soe the humble acknowledgment of religious perfections for the like reason is to be named Religious worship which will yet seeme lesse strange to an indiffereÌ„t eye if one consider that the some different degrees may be found in Acts of other vertues which are here fouÌ„d in worships I haue allready proued from Scripture that there are different kinds and degrees of feares and loues whence it followes that when one feares the iustice and wrath of some ciuill Prince or magistrate it may be called ciuill feare but when one feares the iustice and authority of an Apostle a Prophet c. whose power is drawn from Religion it may be named a Religious seare Thus the feare of Adam hiding himselfe from God was a diuine feare The feare of Adonias flying from king Salomon was a ciuill feare but the feare of the Primâ—tiue Christians of S. Peeter when Ananias fel down dead at his feete was a Religious feare And the same distinction is in differeÌ„t ordres of loue S. Peeter loued our Sauiour as his God and Redcemer with diuine loue Ifack loued Esau with a ciuill loue but the Primitiue Christians loued S. Paul with a Religious loue And in the same manner as I haue allready Proued Moyses worshipped the infinit maiesty of God with a diuine worship the children of Iacob worshipped the power and excellency of Ioseph with a ciuill worship but rhe Sunamite worshipped Elizeus and the captaine of fifty men Elias whose authorities were deriued known and acknowledged only from faith and Religion with Religious worship And the giuing such a Religious worship as this which I haue described to a creature is soe far from derogating any thing from the due worship of God or from ascribing any worship proper to him to any creature that it would be an insufferable iniury to God And horrid Sacriledge to affirme that he is to be worshipped with any such worship for that were to acknowledge in him only a created finite imperfect excellencie which were to make him an Idoll a false God Neyther can his honour be any thing diminished by exhibiting this kinde of Religious worship to a creature indued with spitituall graces for his honour cannot be iniured but by giuing to a creature the wotship proper and due to him only seeing therefore this is no worship due to him neyther only nor at all it cannot be any way a preiudice to his honour For as ciuill and religious feare and loue commanded to be giuen to creatures is no way preiudicious to the diuine feare and loue which we-owe to God Soe neyther can ciuill nor religious worship commaunded to be exhibited to creatures as I haue proued be preiudicious to the highest diuine worship which we owe to God And thus much Allm God seemes to say by his Ptophet Isay. I am the Lord this is my name I will not giue my glory to any other nor my praise to Idols where he saith not I will not giue glory to any other for that would be contrary to the words of the Psalmist speaking of man in his first creation Thou hast crowned him with glory and honour but I will not giue my glory to an other that is that infinite glory which properly belongs to God only wich is specifyed in the precedent words I am the Lord this in my name soe that God wil neuer giue that which is his proper name and title to be Lord of all things to an other which is yet more expressely set down by the same Prophet And I will not giue my glory to an other heare o Iacob and Israell whom I call I I my selfe am the firrst and I am the last And my hand also layd tbe foundarions of the earth and my right hand measured the heauens c. This is that glory proper to him alone of being the eternall God creator of heauen and earth which he will not giue to an other which soe long as he keepes inuiolable to him selfe all vnder glories limited and created which are like soe many little motes compared with the infinite extent and light of his glory he both liberally giues himselfe and wills they should respectiuely be giuen to his creatures If not withstanding all these euidences both of Scripture and Reason any one should remayne soe strangely willfull and immouable by force of education and continuall custome from his infancie as to deny all kind of Religious worship in how large a sence soeuer it be taken to be lawfully exhibited to any saue God alone I say if any such should be found soe long as he yeelds to the thing it selfe that is to
question of for though the coming by prayer to them be not commanded here yet that hinders not but eyther in some other place of Scripture or by other lawfull authority commended in Scripture it may be either commanded or allowed as if one should argue against Protestants euen out of this place in this manner our Sauiour sayes Matth 11. v. 28. Come vnto mee all yee that labour c. Hee sayes not here addresse your prayers expresly and by name to God the Father or the oly Ghost by saying our Father which art in heauen c. or come holy Ghost eternall God c. but come vnto mee therefore it is vnlawfull to vtter such perticular prayers to God the Father or the holy Ghost expressing them by name but all must be made to our Sauiour only who sees not how false and senslesse this reasoning is for though our expresse coming to God the Father and the holy Ghost be not commanded here yet neyther is it forbidden and is commanded in other places and practized by the whole church of God yea and by the Protestants themselues Others vrge the Same text in this manner Come vnto me sayth our Sauiour Therefore to mee alone and to no other and so neyther to Saint nor Angell which hath as much force as this Come vnto mee sayth our Sauiour therefore goe not by name to any other diuine person but to me and so neyther to God the Father nor to God the holy Ghost expressly who are two distinct Persons from him or as forcible as this come vnto me all yee that are pore and needy and I will releeue you saith some rich charitable person to the pore of the citty where he dwells therefore he commands them to come to no other but to him and forbids them the asking almes of any â—aue himselfe Or very like to this Come vnto me c. sayth our Sauiour therefore to no other but to him and so forbids children to pray to their Parents or to beseech other Christians yet liuing to pray for them c. which notwithstanding Protestants dayly practise for if our Sauiours meaning be to exclude all saue himselfe when he said come vnto me c. then the liuing must be excluded noe lesse then the Saints and Angels of heauen and if the Saints yet liuing be not excluded then our Sauiour did not intend by those words to exclude all and if not all then it can neuer be prouued from this text alone that the coming as wee doe to Saints and Angels is forbidden in this text I answere therefore that though our Sauiour in these words command all sinners to come vnto him yet he commands them not to come vnto him only and so forbids not the comming vnto others and this answer will I hope satisfy any considerate person standing precisely in the force of the wotds and in what by true discourse may be deduced from them Yet for a more full satisfaction all Protestants are to understand that when Catholikes come by prayr vnto any Saint or Angell they still performe what our Sauiour here commands of comming to him for wee come by their intercession mediately vnto him when wee beg of them to pray to him for vs no lesse then Protestants children come mediatly vnto him by the intercession of their parents when they desire them to pray to God to blesse them and as the Centurian who by one Euangelist is sayd to haue gone to our Sauiour and yet by an other he only went to some of his friends to speake to our Sauiour for him which was to come mediately or by their meanes to him especially seeing that when wee pray to any Saint or Angell wee desire that all theyr praires for vs may be heard through the merits of Christ. The text of S. Luke mistaken When you pray say our Father which art in heauen THis text if it were only cited to proue that wee ought to pray to God in this forme is not against vs but against those Nouellists who disallow of it If to proue that wee are to pray in no other words nor forme suaue this It concludes as much against Protestants who vse other formes as against vs if to proue that wee are only to pray to God the father it contradicts the former of comming to God the Sone and if to pray to God only and not to Saints or Angells it proues as well that one Christian liuing may not pray to another So that Protestants must confesse it proues either too much or nothing In a word all that can be drawne from it is that it teaches an excellent forme of praying to God as appeares by the Apostles demand Lord teach vs to pray and the scope of our Sauiours doctrine against the hypocrisy of the Iewes Matth. 6. v. 7. The text of S. Iohn mistaken VVhatsoeuer yee shall aske the Father in my name he will giue it you THis is the constant and vniuersall doctrine and practise of the Church of Rome for whether wee pray to any Person of the Blessed Trinity or to any Saint or Angell or to Father or Mother or any Christian yet liuing wee beg all Per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum c. through our Lord Iesus Christ or in his name knowing that nothing is to be demanded or granted in heauen or in earth but for his sake which I repeate often because it imports much An other text of S. Luke mistaken Aske and yee shall haue seeke and yee shall finde knocke and it shall bee opened vnto you THis text hath not so much as any shew of proofe against vs for wee dayly aske and seeke and knocke with full hope of what is here promised The third Protestant Position Christ our Sauiour only mediatour our Aduocate and intercessour how dare wee admit of any other This is proued by Scipture mistaken For there is one God and one mediatour betwixt God and man the man Christ Iesus The first Proof mistaken The word mediatour misapplyed against vs. THis text speakes of a mediatour of Redemtion only as appeares by the words following v. 6. One mediatour c. who gaue himselfe a ransome for all which all Romain Catholikes grant to be but only one to wit our Sauiour If any man sin we haue an Aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours but also for the sins of the whole world It is Christ that dyed yea rather that is risen againe who is euen at the right hand of God who also maketh intercession for vs. The second Proof mistaken The wâ—rd Aduocate misvnderstood and misapplyed IN this whole text is not found that Christ only makes intercession for vs or that he only is our aduocate which is to be proued all that is sayd here is that wee haue an Aduocate with the Father Christ Iesus c and who also waketh intercession for vs
which hinders not but that there may be other aduocates and others who make intercession for vs in an inferiour kinde besides this text as the former speakes only of an aduocate and intercessour of redemption for sins as appeares by those words If any man sin we haue an aduocate c. and he is the propitiation for our sins and it is Christ that dyed c. which wee grant must be only one Thirdly thâ—â—e two texts speake of an aduocate and intercessour worthy to be heard for himselfe and his owne merits which is our Sauiour only not of other inferiour intercessours and aduocates who are not worthy to be heard for themserues or by vertue of any merits proceeding from themselues considered according to their owne naturall forces or dignities but haue only accesse through the dignity merits of Christ. This appeares by the words now cited that they speake of an aduocate worthy to bee heard for himselfe 1. Timoth. 2. v. 6. VVho gaue himselfe a ransome for all 1. Ioannis 2. v. 1.2 Hee is the propitiation for our sins it is Christ that dyed so that if in the title of this obiection when it is sayd Christ our only mediaâ—uor our aduocate and intercessour how dare wee admit of any other be meant how dare wee admit of any other mediatour aduocate or intercessour of redemption and propitiation for our sins and who is worthy to be heard for his own dignity and merits all Romain Catholikes vnanimously grant that wee dare not admitt of any other saue Christ but if by the same words be meant how dare wee admit of any other mediatuor aduocate or intercessour not of Redemption but merely of praying to Allmighty God for vs as his seruants and our friends and fellow seruants and that to be heard not for themselues but for Christ wee may returne the same question vppon Protestans and demaund of them how dare they permit their children euery night to kneele downe and beg of their pareÌ„ts that they will pray to God to blesse them for what is this but to be a mediatour aduocate and intercessour betwixt God and them not of propitiation or redemption but of praying to God for them through the metits of Christ The same practise amongst Protestants is of grand-children nephewes god-children c. nay of all generally amongst them commending themselues to the praires of others So that it is euident that such aduocates as these euen according to Protestants are not to be excluded by vertue of these texts vnlesse they will condemne themselues And this is the very same intercession that wee put amongst the Saints and Angells in heauen because both the one and the other pray to God for vs through the merits of Christ neither imports it for our present question of one sole aduocate c. that those to whom wee pray be in this world or in heauen for if there be but only one then no lesse those others on earth then those in heauen are excluded or if the intercession for vs vppon earth be not excluded by force of this text then Protestants must confesse that they themselues must acknowledge Christ not so to be our mediatour aduocate and intercessour but that they dare and doe admit of others and so are faulty themselues in what they aecuse vs or if they acknowledge no fault in this as indeed there is none then they must cease to accuse vs and vse the same distinction and explications of the texts here cited in the obiection with vs to wit that they admit only one mediatour or intercessour and aduocate of Redemption and Saluation where of the texts speake but more then one of praying vnto Allmighty God with vs and for vs by way of charity and society as S. Augustine sayes whereof the texts doe not speake or thus that there is but one only intercessour which is worthy to be heard for his own dignity and merits but more then one who are made worthy by the merits of Christ who is that only independent mediatour and all others depending of him and his merits Besides these are mediatours and intercessours to Christ as he is both God and man for vs which Christ cannot be to himselfe for à mediatour must be bewixt two as S. Paul saith The Third mistake It hath beene alwayes the practise of God's Saints in their troubles and at all tymes to call vppon him VVhen I was in trouble I called vppon the Lord and he heard me Moyses and Aaron and Samuel these called vppon the Lord and he heard them And in the night Paul and Silas being in Prison prayed and sung prayse to God so that the prisoners heard them The third proof mistaken These texts are cited to no purposse WEe grant all this as nothing at all against our doctrine or practice for who can deny that wee both teach and vse to pray to God in all occasions and in all our tribulations But if it be intended that these texts proue that wee are at all tymes to pray to God and so at noe time to any creature to pray to God through Christ for vs it is a pure mistake for the texts say noe such matter The fourth mistake BY all this is playne that it is the ancientest the best and the safest way to come only to God in our prayers and the contrary doctrine is both new and absolutely against Gods word This mistake discouered Noe such mater can be draun from the texts cited for by all that I haue answered appeares that Protestans themselues come not only to God in their prayers but haue recourse oftentymes one to an others prayers and desire others to pray to God with them and for them no lesse nor otherwise then do those of the Romain Church and therrfore this practice eyther must be ancient and agreeing with Gods word or the Protestants practice is new and against Gods word Here alsoe may be added as a further satisfaction to these aboue cited mistaken Proofes that there is an other maine difference betwixt praying to Christ the Blessed Trinity or any of the diuine Persons and our praying to an Angel a heauenly Saint or a good Christian yet liuing For our praires to God and Christ as our only Redeemer are stritly commaÌ„ded and are necessary meanes to Saluation and are acts belonging to the worship of God properly and primarily and soe are exercizes appertayning to the vertue of Religion taken presly and thus the inuocation or praying to eyther Angel Saint or liuing Chtistian is neyther vniuersally commanded nor a meanes absolutly necessary to saluation though it be a very great helpe towards it nor an act belonging immediarely and necessarily to the strict vertue of Religion or the worship of God bur an exercice good and profitable and necessarily to be esteemed as such by all true Christians as I haue allready deduced out of the Council of Trent which I thought fit to renew in the
that the Pictures which thus represent the apparitions of God the Father or God the holy Ghost should be had and reteyned espeacially in churchs for there the Council mentions only the Images of our Sauiour and of Saints but she only tolerates or permits that such other pictures may be made when it is found expedient and that only historically The second Protestant Position Noe Image whatsoeuer ought to be worshipped This is proued by Scripture mistaken The first Proofe YEe shall make you no Idolls nor grauen Image◠neither reare yee vp a standing image neither shall yee set vp an Image of stone in your Land to bowe downe to it for I am the Lord your God The first mistake Noe word in this text neeessarily signifies Image in the originall which is heere translated Image HEre is named Image three tymes in so few words and yet neither the 70. Interpretes in greeke nor the vulgar translation in Latine haue so much as once this word Image in the whole verse neither is there any word in the Hebrew text which necessarily signifyes Image in this place as is cleare out of Pagninus his translation word for word So that this appeares alsoe to be a mistake like the former Coloss. 2. to deceiue the ignorant reader by making him abhorre holy Images seeing them so clearly and often forbidden in his English Bible I deny therefore that Images are forbidden in this place or the reuerence due to them and it belongs to Protestants to proue it neither will it be inough if they proue that some one of these words may be taken to signify an Image for they must shew that it must needs signify an Image in this very place if they will conuince any thing against the worship of holy Images out of it for it may signify also that which is no Image and till they proue that it necessarily here signifyes an Image they effect nothing especially seeing that though any of these words in the Hebrew mighr signify an Image in some secondary sinification yet here they doe not both because the 70. Interpreters and the ancient vulgar translation and Pagninus and almost all saue the new Protestant translations put it otherwise and because the first word Elilim in Hebrew signifyes an Idol or false God as it is here translated by Protestants and cōsequently all the words following must be taken for Idolls to agree with it the difference betwixt an Idol and an Image I will giue you presently The Second Proofe THou shall not make to thy selfe any grauen Image nor the likenesse of any thing that is in heauen aboue or in the earth heneath or in the water vnder the earth thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them The Second mistake The Hebrew and Greek words here put Grauen Image are mistranslated HEre againe is the word grauen Image put in to the English text contrary both to the Hebrew and Greeke text the Hebrew word here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pesel which the 70. Interpreters in this place translate in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Idol or false God and the Latine sculptile which in the eeclesiasticall signification is always through the whole Scripture taken for an Idol or representation of a false God when it is forbidden as also the Hebrew word pesel which is neuer taken in a good sense for any Image truly representing anything existent as it is really in it selfe as carued or grauen curiosityes Now the difference betwixt an Image and an Idol is this an Image is a representation of a true thing which either is or is possible to be in that very maner wherin he who makes or vses the Image intends to represent it as the paintings or caruings of trees of flowers of beasts of men or women which we ordinarily vse in our houses Thus the word Image is taken Gen. 1.26 and 27. Gen. 5. v. 36. Deut. 4. v. 16. 2. Cor. 4. v. 4. Coloss. 1. v. 15. and in many other places and in Hebrew it is called tsalem in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ikon But an Idol is a representation of what neither is nor can possibly be as he who makes or vsees it intends to represent it and therfore is called Abacuc 2. v. 18. a false phantasie in the 70. Interpreters and according to the Hebrew a thing which tells a lye that is represēts that to be which neither is not can be And Isay 44. v. 10. an Idol is called vanity or profitable for nothing And S. Paul 1. Cor. 8.4 we know that an Idol is nothing in the world because it represents that to be God which neither is nor possibly can be God because there is but one only true God and therefore in Hebrew Idols are called Elilim that is vanity or falsity and in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an empty and Idle fiction of the brayne Hence it comes to passe that the very same materiall representation may in diuers respects be an Image and an Idol an Image in regard of that which is truly represented by it an Idol in reference to that which it represents falsly and lyingly Thus the picture of the Sun is an Image therof so far as it represents the face beames and figure of the visibile sun and puts vs in remembrance of it But the very same materiall picture will be an Idol in as much as it is made to represent the sun as a God and a soueraine diuine power as the heathens represent it in their Idols And hence by different persons the same materiall picture or statue may be esteemed and respected as an Image or as an Idol for a true Christian seeing the Image of the Sun will regard only the true representation of the true sun̄e in it but the Heathen will esteeme it as conteyning or representing some diuinity or deity and so to him it will be an Idol That which here I exemplify in the Sunnes picture is to be extended to all other representations of men or other creatures for if any one in an historicall way would represent some reall passage in the life of Mars Iuno Iupiter Saturne Venus c. as they were men or weomen once here liuing vppon earth and go no further those very pictures will be Images only that is true representations of that which once was but if one intend to draw their pictures or carue their statues with designe to represent them as Gods and Goddesses it will be in that regard no Image but a pure Idol falsly representing that to be God which neither was nor can he God And the very same different respect is in force in those very pictures which Protestants allow of for if one should haue the pictures of Queene Elizabeth or King Iames merely to represent them as they indeed were the one true King the other true Queen of England the would be Images only but if a Heathen should make a God of each of them
forbid one capitall sin nor one two sinnes This our diuision strictly obserues but that of our aducrsaryes not so for their two first commandements forbid only the sin of Idolatry as being the capitall sin forbidden in them both and so can be but one commandement as we put them and their last prohibites two maine distinct sinnes the desire of adultery thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife and the desire of theft thou shalt not couet thy neighbours goods c. which are as different in thought as adultery and stealing are in act if therefore as they acknowledge there be two commandements to forbid them in all reason there must be two to forbid the desires of them and this reason is pressed by S. Augustin in the place alleadged It is further most manifest that these which are made two commandements by the Protestants can be noe more then one and the same commandement for in the 2. of Kings 17. v. 35. the whole substance of that which Protestants call the second commandement is put in one single senteÌ„ce togeather with the first in these words you shall not feare strange Gods neyther shal you worship them neyther shall you serue them neyther shall sacrifize to them now what is meant by those strange Gods is declared v. 40. and the 41. How be it they did not harken but they did after theyr former maner soe these nations feared the Lord and serued theyr grauen Images whence it is euident that that which is called strange Gods v. 35. is called grauen Images v. 41. and soe to forbid the seruice and worship of strange Gods which is in the Protestants first commandement and to forbid the seruice and worship of grauen Images is the same command as forbidding the same thing Hence also appeares that the word Phesel vsed Exod. 20.4 and is also vsed here v. 41. signifies an Idol or a strange God as I haue often said and noe lesse is manifest from these words thâ—t the seruice which is here mentioned to those grauen Images Pheselim v. 41. was to feare them and sacrifice to them as strange Gods v. 35. And moreouer thus these which are here called strange Gods v. 35. were materiall Idoles or as Protestants terme them grauen Images is most cleare v. 33. They feared the Lord and serued theyr own Gods after the maner of the nations whom they carried away from thence for they could not carry with them any other Gods saue such as these from one place to an other That nothing may me wanting to the full satisfaction of the Reader I haue here adioyned the hebrew words as they stand in the originall of this text which is so violently and frequently pressed against vs. Exod. 20. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 5. v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which words out of what I haue allready alleadged may be thus translated Thou shalt not make to thy sâ—lfe an Idoâ— any figure which is in heauen aboue or in the earth beneath or in the water vnder the earth thou shalt not bow down to them nor serue them or thus· Thou shalt not make to thy selfe an Idol of any figure which is in heauen aboue for the Protestants themselues giue the like translation to the like phrase Deut. 4. v. 16. and Pagninus giues for the first signification of Moun or Temounach figuram a figure not only artificiall but naturall or apparent as when angels appeare in the figures of men Deut. 4.15 Psal. 17.15 I shal be satified when I awake with thy likenesse Temounacb which is nothing but the substance and essence of God conceiued clearly in our vnderstanding as we commonly say in our language let him appeare in his likenesse that is in his own shape figure or persone Soe that the meaning of these words as they ly in the 20. of Exod. and 5. of Deutronomy compared with the 2. of Kings 17. where a strange God a grauen Image are the same thing as I shewed iust now can only haue this sence that Allmighty God here forbids that we should haue any strange Gods before him that is that we should not make an Idol according to any visible figure whieh wee see eyther in the materiall heauens or in the earth or in the waters worshipping and seruing that is fearing those very Idoles and sacrifizing to them as to things indewed with life power vnderstanding diuinity which horrible Idolatry is as farre from the doctrine of the Romain Church which in the beginning of this controuersie I cited out of the cleare words of the Council of Trent as darckenesse is from light To correspond to the desire of other Readers I haue also thought it conuenient to cite the Greeke text of the 70. Interpreres Exodus 20. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where they doe not only translate it serue but shew that it is a seruice proper to God which is here forbidden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thou shalt not serue them with a diuine or highest seruice as I shewed in the begining out of Scripture to be vnderstood by the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. Augustin q. 61. vppon Genesis confirmes the same Now that the difference betwixt worshipping and seruing may be better vnderstood and that worship may in some true sence be attributed to things inanimate and without knowledge but not seruice the Protestants themselues grant that ciuill worship may be giuen to te chayre of state or picture of a temporall King but seruice only to his Royall person not to his picture so that no man can be rightly sayd to serue the Kings chayre of state or his picture but to serue the Kinge and yet they may be and are sayd truly to worship or honour by some externall signe his chayre of state c. In the very same manner with proportion one may truly be sayd to worship or reuerence the picture of our Sauiour or his Saints as things known and esteemed to be as indeed they are wholy dead and inanimate without any power att all in themselues to heare vs or helpe vs merely because they represent those holy persons whose pictures they are but we cannot be sayd in any true or proper sence to serue them so long as we make only this esteeme of them And hence it is that the reuerence or worship wich we yeeld to holy Images is not intended to them or to begge any fauour of them or thinke that any help can be conferred vppon vs by any power in them and no Romain Catholike is to doe otherwise But we pray before them that we hauing them before our eyes may better and more attentiuely thinke of those whom they represent and the reuerence and honour which we giue to them is in a double respect first we giue them that reuerence which is due to holy things dedicated and consecrated or tending to the worship of God as are altars holy vessells and