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
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
and indeed though the text in the 20. of Exod. be obscure and generall in Protestants translations in these words thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them yet in hebrew and the 70. in greeke there is light enough giuen to direct vs in the true vnderstanding of them namely that it is a diuine worship alone which is forbidden for the hebrew words ve lo tagauethenâ— signify and you shall not serue them which word shewes an homage or seruice done to those Idols as to things capable of such offices done vnto them and endued with knowledge vnderstanding power and diuinity for no man is strictly and properly sayd to serue that which is wholy voyd of knowledge to exact or accept of that seruice and hence appeares that if the ProtestaÌ„ts had followed closely the first and ordinary signification of this word in the originall as they professe to do and translated it thus thou shalt not bow down to them nor serue them the word serue would haue giuen occasion of vnderstanding a right the word bow down that is such a bowing down as is vsed to those whom wee serue who are only in the proper ordinary vnderstanding of seruice such as we esteeme to be endued with knowledge understanding and power able to receiue our seruice and assist vs in our petitions And to demonstrate that this translation of yours is not without partiality and dubble dealing of putting worship for serue the word worship being put in of purpose to bring the ignorant people from the reuerence of holy Images as they are reuerenced amongst Romain Catholikes you must know that in a hundred other places of Scripture where Moyses Caleb Iosua Dauid and othets are called seruants of God in your translation not worshippers the hebrew hath the very same word gauedy my seruant which is vsed here in the 20. of Exodus end yet further the fraud appeares more clearly Hier. 13. v. 10. the 16. v. 11. and 22. v. 9. where the two very same words put in hebrew which are in Exod. 20. now cited and applyed to false Gods are alwayes translated adore and serue because it serued not their purpose to translate it otherwise only in Exod. 20. and the like to breed a hatred of the worship of holy Images in the common peoples minds it must be translated fall down and worship and yet more clearly by their owne translation they conuince themselues of partiality for in the Psalme 96. aliter the 97. v. 7. they haue these words confounded be all those who serue grauen Images who boost themselues of Idols where in the Hebrew the same words are which are Exod. 20. gauthe ' peselâ— where also may be gathered that that which they please falsly to translate grauen Image is the very same with a heathen Idol as being ioyned with it as the same thing in signification And to vrge an other place this partiality is clearly conuinced out of the first text cited by the person who writ it Matth. 4. v. 10. It is written thou shalt worship the Lord by God and him only shalt thou serue where the 6. of Deut. v. 13. from which that of S. Matthew is taken hath the very same hebrew word gauedth which is here translated worship in the 20. of Exodus and there serue But to put all out of question and to bring an vndeniable discouery of their fraud and falhood in the translating of this hebrew word gauedh worship not serue it is to be noted that in their more ancient translations of these words Exod. 20. v. 4. they translated it thou shalt not bow down vnto them nor worship them as appeares by the text here cited in the obiection and by the Bibles themselues but in their later impressions and translations of the yeare 1638. and somwhat before and since they haue corrected this errour and put it thou shalt not bouw down vnto them nor serue them both in Eod. and Leuiticus yet because they had taught all the common people to say it after the ancient erroneous maÌ„ner it is still in the cateâ—hisme set down in the common prayre booke thou shalt not bow down vnto them nor worship them least if they should haue changed it there the people might haue discouered that they had beene taught their commandements amisse and that in the ancient editions of the common prayer the commandements were otherwise then in the latter but the correction in the Bible might more easily be admitted because few of the common people read the commandements as they stand there But that at one view may be seene the manifold tricks and diuises frauds and deceits vsed in the sophisticating and falsifying of this text in their translations I will briefly set them all down together First therefore contrary to both hebrew and greeke and Latin and all antiquity they translate pesel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sculptile grauen Image Secondly they ad the word any thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image which is not in the hebrew but thus thou shalt not make to thy selue an Idol or if the Protestant translation of pesel were true it should haue beene a grauen Image not any grauen Image And this they seeme to adde therby to make the ignorant beleeue that all sorts of Images whatsoeuer euen of our Sauiour and of his Saints are here forbidden by this generall clause thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image Thirdly to make the text yet more to sound against vs in the eares of the vulgar they make it say nor the likenesse of any thing that is in heauen aboue c. when it should be according to the hebrew col tegumach asher nor any likenesse which is in heauen or verbatim thus or all and euery likenesse which is in heauen not of any thing which is in heauen these words any thing being added vnto the hebrew text therby to perswade the vnlearned that the likenesse of all things in heauen and consequently of our Sauiour the Angells and Saints are here prohibited wher as the direct meaning of the text is to forbidde these likenesses to be made which appeare visibly in the materiall heauen to the corporeall eys as the sunne moone slarrs c. as is cleare Deut. 4. v. 19. which agrees well with the hebrew text any likenesse which is in heauen for at that time when this commandement was giuen there was nothing in the imperiall heauen which had any visible figure or could be immediatly expressed by any visible picture as a true Image of it for there was nothing then in heauen but God and his holy Angels But the English translation the likenesse of any thing which is in heauen is subiect to giue occasion to the simple reader who being taught that our Sauiour with his Saints are in heauen and that they are forbidden in this commandement to make the likenesse of any thing which is in heauen to thinke that they are clearly forbidden to make