thy God who sees not that there is noe shew at all of proofe in it as when the Scripture sayth Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue one might at least seemingly proue from this sentence that God only is to be serued but one shall neuer proue by the force of those words that God only is to be feared If a Protestant should reply that worship and serue seeme to signify the same thing and soe only being added to serue is as much as if it were added to worship I answer that if wee haue regard to the Greeke text in which only the difference betwixt worship and serue in Mat. the 4. v. 10. is clearly discouered there is a large difference betwixt those two words the one signifying properly and by mere force of the word worship in generall and soe vsed familiarly in holy Scripture to signify both rhe worship due to God and to men Saincts and Angells and the other a seruice due to God only and neuer applyed to the religious seruice of any creature which I shall here after make manifest Beside serue signifies more largely then worship for wee serue God by faith hope charitie obedience and all good workes done to his honour but wee worship 〈◊〉 him only by an act of Religion As appeares Hebr. 12.28 let vs haue grace wereby we may serue God acceptably with Reuerence and Godly feare MISTAKE II. Worship missapplied in this text Mat. 4.10 I Haue allready proued that this text commands not that God only should be worshipped because it saies not thou shallte worship the Lord thy God only but though it had said soe yet it were to be vnderstood not to forbid the exhibiting of all kind of worship to any saue God but only such worship as is proper to God alone and which without Sacrilege and Idolatry cannot be giuen to any but to God Thus though Saint Paul say that God only hath immortality yet that must be vnderstood of a most diuine infinite and vncreated immortaliâ—y proper to God alone and not of all kinde of immortalities for then S. Paul would contradict him selfe when he saith that our mortall bodies shall put on imusortality Thus when our Sauiour said none is good saue one that is God it must only be vnderstood of an essentiall incomprehensible goodnes for otherwise that text would be contrarie to S. Luke saying and behould there was a man named Ioseph which was a counseller a good man and a iust and to that of the Acts which speaking of S. Barnabas saith that he was a good man and full of the holy Ghost Now as there are different kinds of Immortalities and goodnesses the one infinitely perfect diuine essentiall and vncreared the other imperfect humane accidentall and created soe that the scriptures ascribing the one to God only and the other to creatures are easily reconciled and playnly vnderstood without any shew of contrariety or contradiction amongst them selues or iniury to God soe are there in Scrtpture different kindes of worships the one acknowledging and exhibiting honour to an Infinite diuine vncreated immortality and goodesse in the Person which he worships and the other a creaded and finite Thus in the text cited Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God though the word worship considered in it selfe signifie properly both these kinds of worships yet as it lyes here it must be taken for the first kinde of highest and cheifest worship only but the very same word both in hebrew greeke latine and English in other places of Scripture must be taken for the Second kinde of lower and inferour worship acknowledging and intending only to expresse an imperfect limited and created goodnesse in the persoÌ„s or things worshpped Thus we read in Genesis The sones of thy father shall adore or worshipp thee Saith Iacob blessing his sonne Iuda And of the btetheren of Ioseph saluting theyr brother when his bretheren had worshipped him and nothing more ordinary in holy hcripture then worship giuen to persons in dignity and authority As therefore this Protestant position that God only is to be worshipped being vnderstood at it must here by the opponent that noe worship at h all is to be giuen to any saue God playnly contradicts those and the like places of Scripture Soe the Romaine Catholique position that some kinde of worship is to be exhibited to others then God is both euidently consonant to these texts and noe way dissagreeing from that of Mat. 4.10 and the like texts wich command vs to worship God nay though they should command vs to worship God only beecause such commands are all wayes to be vnderstood of that first and highest kinde of worship aboue mentioned neyther is there any possible meanes to reconcile different places of Scripture which seeme to ascribe to God only that which in other places is ascribed to creatures but by such distinctions of perfections or worships as I haue declared And this is soe cleare that it must be and is confessed by Protestans themselues who generally graunt that Religious worship is to be giuen to God only but ciuil worship to creatures wich distinction being once admitted the opponent will neuer be able to conuince any thing against the worship of Saincts and Angels out of Mat. 4.10 for if one will terme the worship giuen to Saincts and Angels a ciuil worship as I will presently demonstrate Protestants must doe if they make noe distinction betwixt religious worships then euen Saincts and Angles may be worshipped at the least with some kinde of ciuil worship euen according to Protestants notwithstanding thath text of Mat. 4.10 which according to them must be vnderstood to forbid only Religious worship to any saue God But because the common tenet of Catholique Doctours is that things created may be worshipped with some kinde of Religious worship I will make it euident out of Scripture that some Religious worship hath been and may be lawfully exhibited to creatures and soe not to God only Thus wee read in the bookes of kings that the captaine of 50 men worshipped Elias the Prophete and 50 men together the Prophete Elizeus and after the Sunamite receiuing her reuiued sone adored the same Prophete Thesame is of Moyses commanded to adore the grouÌ„d where on God stood and of Dauid commanding to worship the footstoole of God And least it should be thought that this manner of worshipping was only in vse in the ould testament wee haue an expresse president of it in the new for our Sauiour in the reuelation speakes to the Angell of philadelphia thus Behould I wil make them that is his enimyes come and worship before thy feet Now that it may appeare that these acts of worship were Religious and not meerely ciuill wee must know in generall that worship is nothing but an humiliation of our selues in acknowledgmeÌ„t of some goodnesse and excelleÌ„cie in that which wee worship Soe
dispersed amongst the vulgar that any Romane Catholicque Doctours by the word is vnderstand shall become or shall be transubstantiated for though they gather as a necessary sequel transubstantiation from the reall and proper signification of these words this is my Body yet they all vnderstand the word is in its own natiue common and ordinary signification and none of them take it for transubstantiated or become my Body neyther indeede can they vnlesse they destroy their own principles for if they should by is vnderstand become or transubstantiated then they must vnderstand by the word this bread seeing they all affirme that bread only becomes or is transubstantiated into Christ's body but that were plainly to contradict themselues it being one of the maynest points in this controuersy betwixt Caluinists and vs they affirming that hread is vnderstood by the word this and we denying it That which is added that those distractions can be no testimonyes of truth that is the diuersity of opinions amongst vs here reckoned vp about the vnderstanding of these wordes this and is seemes to me to haue something of that eye condemned in the Gospell which sees a mote in anothers eye and discouers not a beame in it selfe The opponent summes here vp fower differeÌ„t opinions whereof the last I haue proued to be a false imposition and no opinion of ours the first and second of the word this signifying vnder this or vnder these species are one and the same opinion set down by the opponent in different words for seeing by vnder this none of our Authours vnderstand vnder this bread they must needs meane by it vnder these species of bread to omit that no Catholicque Authour sayes that the word this precisely signifyes vnder this or vnder these species c. but that which is vnder these species is my Body the third opinion that by the word this is signifyed nothing present if by nothing present be meant nothing present after consecration it is another imposition vppon Catholicque Authours making them speake like Caluinists against themselues but if therby be meant nothing present precisely in that momeÌ„t when the word this was pronounced it is true and Catholicque as I haue shewed but then it is not opposite to the former opinion for seing no Catholike teaches that the body of our Sauiour is vnder the species of bread till the substance of bread be transubstantiated into it agrees well with their opinion that nothing in particular be vnderstood by the word this which is existent when that word was spoktn bread being then vnder its own species Thus vppon a iust examination we finde that in truth there is but one only opinion of Catholicques in the whol reckoning and therefore vnderseruedly termed distractions or no testimonies of truth But had the opponent put some reall diuersity of opinions amongst Catholicque Authours about the vnderstanding of these words and brought them to the number of fower as here is a shew made yet seing they all agree in the proper and natiue signification of these words This is my Body without all figures or improprieties which exclude the reall presence this variety can be no more termed no testimony of truth in this poynt controuersed then are other different opinions of Schoolemen in many other mysteries of faith being nothing but diuers wayes which learned men take to explicate or defend the same point of faith wherin they all agree against Infidells or Heretiques But had the Opponent known or considered the diuersityes of opinions risen vp within the space of few more then a hundrcd yeares about the vnderstanding of these words this is my Body amongst Protestants and that in the mayne signification of them which Luther confesses to haue amounted to the number of ten before his death and another not many yeares after rekons vp to the number of two hundred there had beene iust occasion giuen to say these disâ—ractions can be ne testimonyes of truth Objection In the middest of these discords they make these words this is my Body but halfe true for they all hold that there were two things in the hands of Christ when he spake these words his Body the species of bread wherof it followeth that these wordes are true but of the halfe of that he held in his hands and if he had sayd this is not my body hauing regard to the other halfe of that he held the species of bread he had also spoken the truth Answer This difficulty arises from want of knowledge in Philosophy to distinguish an accident from a substance so that it cannot well be so explicated that the vnlearned will be capable of it and so will be better vnderstood by a familiar instance euen in this present matter then by a philosophicall discourse The Opponent cannot deny but our Sauiour might haue sayd of that which he had in his hands this is bread when he sayd the word this now I demand seing according to all there were two thinges as the Opponent termes them the substance of bread and the species of bread whether these words this is bread had been only halfe true or no if it be answered that they had been but halfe true it will follow that whensoeuer we demonstrate any thing in ordinary conuersation saying this is a man a horse a tree a stone c. we speake but halfe truly because there is always the substance and species or accidents of those things yea when S. Iohn Baptist sayd behold the lamb of God or the heauenly Father this is my beloued Son our Sauiour hauing both substance and species those propositions had been but halfe true if it be answered that this proposition this is bread is absolutely and entirely true then I answer the same to all that is here opposed for species or accidents are not different thinges absolutely speaking but relatiue appendixes dependances adjuncts or exhibitions of thinges which are so absolutly denominated that is substances as when we see a person cloathed it is absolutely and wholly true to say this is Peeter or Iohn for though there be two things the person and the cloathes yet the cloathes being only adjuncts or meanes to demonstrate the person whose they are are not intended to be included in this demonstration and so if one hauing only regard to the cloake of a person should say this is not Peter meaning this cloake is not Peeter though he should speake true to such as know his meaning yet in ordinary conuersation vnlesse by some particular signe he gaue to vnderstand his meaning he would either not be vnderstood or vnderstood to speake false because the demonstration this is instituted in such circumstances to signify the person or thing demonstrable and not their adjuncts ot accidents Apply this to our present purpose and all is solued Objection Now let any iudge which opinion is lesse forged and more naturall ours who say tbis signifyes that which Christ held or that of theyrs who say
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