plaine Infidelity and blasphemy against our Sauiour Now that this is so appeares euidētly first out of the text it selfe if it had been wholy cited for it followes immediately v. 18. in your owne Bible and not holding the head by which all the body by ioynts and bands hauing nourishment ministred and knit togeather increaseth with the increase of God Which is nothing but so to worship Angells that they deny the souerainty of Christ and acknowledge him not to be the chiefe nourishing head of the church which all Romain Catholikes condemne as mainly iniurious to Christ and destructiue of the church because it takes a way his diuinity and exhibites worship to the Angells not as Christ seruants and vassalls infinitly inferiour to him and on whom he hath no dependance at all but as to his equalls or Superiours But Romain Catholikes not denying Christ's absolute souerainty and Diuinity but most constantly beleeuing it euen whilst they worship Angells as his seruants doe not any thing against this text of S. Paul Coloss. 2. v. 18. and 19. wherin is forbidden only such a worship of them as destroyes the beleefe that he is the Soueraine head of his church worshipping of Angells c. v. 18. not holding the head c. v. 19. The Second mistaken The greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mistranslated SEcondly that not all honour and worship of Angells is forbidden in this text but only such as destroyes the Souerainty and Diuinity of Christ may be gathered out of the greeke word here vsed by the Apostle threskeia which as Scapula a Protestant in his lexicon notes hath for the first signification Religion and so the vulgar latin translates it Religionem Angelorum the Religion of Angells which intimates thus much that those against whom the Apostle here writes did compose out of theyr own heads a religion of Angells whom they had neuer seene nor did they vnderstand as the Apostle signifies in these words v. 18. intruding into those things which they haue not seene and fayning vnto them selues certaine subordinations and dependences amongst the Angells and making our Sauiour a mere Angell as the rest and not God And so framing theyr whole faith and religion in Angells that it might iustly be termed by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 threskeia ton Angelon the religion of Angells And had your Protestant translations beene so punctuall and faithfull in giuing the full signification of the greeke text as you imagine they should rather haue translated the greeke word Threskeia according to the prime and first signification religion then according to a secondary signification worshipping but they chose this rather then the former because it sounds in the eares of the vnlearned more against the doctrine an practise of the Romain Church who are carried away much more by the words then the sense of Scripture which the vnlearned and vnstable peruert to theyr owne destruction 1. of Peetet the 3. v. 16. and this is the ordinary deceit of your new translatours in very many other places of holy Scripture when the greeke or hebrew words haue different significations allwayes to put that which makes most against vs leauing the rest which notwithstanding they put when the other serue theyr turnes better against vs though the greeke word be the same which I am able to demonstrate if it be demanded the translation of the word Threskeia shall now suffice for though they translate it here worshipping because that word seemed to be of force amongst the ignorant readers against vs yet Iames 1. v. 26. and 27. they translate the very same word threskeia here vsed religion not worshipping or worship this mans religion is vaine v. 26. pure religion c. v. 27. because there it was no aduantage for them nor disaduantage to vs to translate it Religion but howsoeuer when such texts as these are vsed against vs Protestants must not thinke that we are bound to stand to theyr translation which we allow not of but to the hebrew greeke or Latin with proportion and so when the words in those languages haue different significations we are not bound to answer to the text as it stands in theyr new translations but haue freedome to take the word in some other signification especially when antiquity hath soe translated and onderstood it therefore I answer here that the greeke word hauing different significations it is not the worshipping but the religion of Angells which is here forbidden for soe the vulgar translation hath it which is ancient about twelue hundred yeares and how can any Protestant though learned euer conuince out of Scripture that the word threskeia is rather to be translated worshipping then religion seeing the greeke word signifies both and the scope and context of the Apostle rather agrees with religion then worshipping nay how shall the pore vnlearned readers be certaine that their translation is the word of God and the true and only signification of the word in the originall in that place when the originall word hath sundry significations and further how shall they not haue cause to doubt of and call in question the whole translation of the bible seeing they know not when the words in the originall haue different significations or only one and so may doubt wether the true signification and that which is only meant there by the holy Ghost is put or rather an other which was not intended by the holy Ghost in that place especially in places of controuersy where their Translatours vse to take all aduantages against vs as I haue shewed And yet neyther of those two inconueniences toutch Romain Catholikes because their translation is commended and approued by the holy church which thy beleeue cannot erre in her definitions in poynts of faith and so rest assured that their translation deliuereth the true signification of the words meant by the holy Ghost in each particular place though the words in themselues be indifferent to many significations in the originall Now it appeares euidently that S. Paul speakes of a Religion or as the Protestants will haue it a worshipping of Angells which makes them equall to Christ or Christ dependant of them because the streame of holy ancient fathers affirme that the Apostle wrote here against Symon Magus and other Arch-heretikes in the Apostles time who coyned these errours of the Angells forging certaine subordinations dependences and preeminencyes amongst them that our Sauiour was one of them as some thought subiect to them The ancient Fathers who affirme that the aboue said heretikes held these errours about the Angells are Clemens Romanus who liued in the tyme of the Apostles lib. 6. Constitut. c. 10. S. Ireneus who liued in the next age after the Apostles lib. 2. against hereseys c. S. Epiphanius who florished about 300. yeares after Christ in his Catalogue os heresyes speaking of Symon Magus and the rest and Theodoret who wrote about 400. yeares after
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
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
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
exhibite reuerence and worship to persons and things in acknowledgement of the supernaturall and free gifts graces and blessinges of God where with they are inriched as I haue shewed many holy persons mentioned in the Scriptures haue done let him call that worship supernaturall or christian or pious or an exterordinary ranke of ciuill worship I shall not much contend about rhe name when the thing is done For what soeuer he call it it is and cannot but be a Religious worship in it selfe at least in that large sense soe clearely drawn from the Seriptures And Thus much of the discouery redresse of the second mistake THE THIRD MISTAKE The vvord serue in Mat. 4.10 is misunderstood THe opponent indeuoring to proue that God only is to be worshipped and therefore neyther S. nor Angell from the text of Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worshipp the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue Seeing there is noe proofe in the former part of the text as I haue shewed must haue recourse to the latter and him only shalt thou Serue and that this clause may haue any appearance of force it must suppose that the word Serue here vsed signifies all kind of Seruice Soe that these words and him only shalt thou Serue must signify thus much that noe seruice must be done but to God alone which must needs be a very grosse mistake for the word Seruice taken in this generall sence playnly contradicts the Precept of S. Paul Obey your temporall Lords c. Seruing them with a good will as to our Lord and not to men And that Prophesie in Genesis of Iacob and Esau. The greater shall serue the Lesse Soe that it is manifest that not God only is to be serued Whence may breefely be noted that before one cite any text of Scripture for the proofe of any thing one must first coÌ„sider whether the sence in which that text must be taken to be of force to proue what we intend contradict not other playne places of Scripture as this does which if it doe we must seeke some other proofe for that will not be a proofe but a mistake But the mistake in this place of Mat. 4.10 proceedes not only from want of reflection vppon other places of Scripture but from want of knowledge of the greeke word vsed here by the EuaÌ„gelist For though both in English Latin and Hehrew there be only one word to signifie the seruing of God and creatures Yet in the greeke there is a proper word which signifies only the seruice of God or proper to him alone and is neuer vsed for the religious seâ—uice done to any creature as a creature but as esteemed by those whoe exhibite that seruice to be a God This word in greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 latreuin vsed by the holy Ghost in this place Mat. 4 10. to signifie serue That this may be vnderstood the Reader may please to note that many words haue two kinds of significations the one by force of theyr first institution which they anciently had and haue amongst heathen Authours the other by vse and application to some one particular Sence by vertue of common vse and custome which hath in processe of tyme obtayned force to limite them to that perticular Sense Thus the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tyrannos amongst the ancient Greekes first signifyed a king and was taken in a good Sence but amongst later Authours and now vniuersally it signifies a Tyrant or cruell and vniust oppresser of such as are vnder him And as the vnanimous consent of approued Authours and common wealths hath a power to giue a new signification to words or rather to limite or restrayne the ould to some determinate parte of what they signifyed by force of theyr first institution soe hath allsoe the vniuersall consent of ecclesiasticall approued Authours and the common voyce of Christendome the like power soe to alter the ancient signification of some words that it determines the indifferency and vniuersality of theyr originall Signification to some one part or member of it when they apply it to expresse something in Christian Religion Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptismus which anciently signifyed any kind of washing amongst ecclesiasticall and Christian Authours is taken for a SacrameÌ„t known by that name Thus Euangelist which originally signifeyed any one who told good tydinges signifies a wryter or promulger of the Gospell In the like manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifyed amongst the auncient infidels any kind of feruice amongst Ecclesiasticall Authours signifies only that kinde of Religious seruice which is don to God Soe that it hath two significations the one morall the other Ecclesiasticall as Scapula a Protestant authour of our nation acknowledges in his Lexicon both of this and the former and many other words graunting that according to the Sence which it hath amongst Ecclesiasticall authours and in the new Testament it signifies a Religious worship only and in proofe of this cites the epistle to the Hebrewes where beeing put absolutely it signifiâ—es the worship of God This dubble significaâ—ion supposed I vrge further that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latreuin in the Scripture signifies that Religious worship only which is exhibited to God or diuine worship and is neuer vsed through the whole Scripture for a religious Seruice done to any creature as to a creature I haue bestowed some dayes study to examine this matter and hauing searched all the places of Sctipture where this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is I neuer found it signify any religious sesuice saue diuine and I Prouocke any Protestant authour to proue the contrarie True it is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 douleuin is indifferently vsed very commonly in both Testaments to signify the religious seruing of God or creatutes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latreuin neuer but for seruing eyther a true or false God when it is referred to worship blonging to Religion And though Scapula being a Protestant only say that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a religious worship yet the proofe which he bringes for it out of the epistle to the Hebrews conuinces that being absolutely put that is alone without any oblique case it signifyes as he acknowledges the Seruice done to God only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectum facere seruientem that could not make him that did the seruice perfect And he might alsoe haue cited the same word put absolutely and signifying only the seruice of God in S. Luke where he sayth Anna the Prophetesse was night and day in the Temple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seruing that is doing seruice to God This text Luke the 2.37 The Protestant bible of 1589. with Fulks commentarie translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Serued God And Heb. 9.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seruings of God and the later Bibles translate it diuine feruice whence it appeares that the absolute significarion of this word is the seruice of God or diuine
seruice In the like manner I find it Acts 7.7 Rom. 1.9 and Reuel 22. taken for the seruice of the true God and for the seruice of Idoles or false Gods Acts 7. v. 41. 1. Cor. 5.1 and Rom. 22.15 in the old Testamēt very often From this ground proceeds the ordinary distinction of Religious worship into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latria and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doulia for seeing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Latreuo signifyes noe other Religious Seruice saue that which is due to God through the whole Scripture and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 douleuo signifyes in hundreds of places as well that which is due to God as to creatures hence the seruice done to finit Persons belonging to Religion may rightly be termed doulia and that which is exhibited to God alone Latria and hence it proceeds alsoe that the seruice of false Gods or Idoles is neuer called eyther in Scripture nor in approued Ecclesiasticall Authours noe nor by Protestants themselues Idolodoulia but Idololatria Idolatrie because it giues to them diuine seruice due to God only being deriued from Larria which signifies noe other Religious seruice saue diuine Seeing therefore noe Romaine Catholique teaches that diuine seruice due to God only is to be giuen to any creature but the quite contrary they hould nothing against this text of S. Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is with the seruice of Latria or highest degree of Seruice which as I haue demonstrated by Scripture is due to God only Thus haue I discouered three plaine mistakes in these few words of Mat. 4.10 to proue that God only is to be worshipped where in I haue beene forced to be more large then I wished because vppon what I haue here deliuered depends the clearing of the insuing controuersies in this matter of worship The second Protestant Position Forbidden the worship of Angells This is proued by Scripture mistaken I Iohn saw all these thinges and heard them and when I had heard and seene I fell downe to worship before the feete of the Angell wich shewed me these things then said he vnto me see thou doe it not for I am thy fellow seruant worship God The first mistake This text is made contrary to other playne texts of Scripturc allowing the worshp of Angells ANd two Angells came into Sodome at ninght Lot sitting at the gates of the citty who when he had seene them rose and went to meete them and he adored prostrate vppon the groūd c. which worship the Angells accepted noe way reprehending Lot or forbidding him as appeares in the text And when Iosua was in the feeld of Hierico he lift vp his eyes and saw a man standing against him houlding a naked sword and he went vnto him and sayd art thou ours or our aduersaryes who answeared no but I am a prince of the army of our Lord and and now I come Iosua fell groueling vppon the ground and adoring sayd wy doth my Lord speake vnto his seruant c. where it appeares that this Angel was a creature and not God for he is called a prince That is one of the Princes of Gods army The second mistake THis text of S. Iohn proues noe more that all worship of Angells is forbidden then an other of S. Luke that the worship of Saints yet liuing is forbidden As Peeter was coming in Cornelius met him and fell downe at is feet and worshipped him But Peeter tooke him vp saying stand vp I my selfe alsoe am a man And yet it is cleare out of Scripture that holy men yet liuing are to be worshipped and haue accepted of the worship of others Againe he sent a third captaine of fifty men and fifty men with him who when he was come bowed his knees tovvard Elias and prayed him and said man of God despise not my life and the liues of thy seruants that are vvith me c. She that is the Sunamite fell at his feete and adored vppon the groond where we see that the Prophete Eliseus was worshipped and he refused it not And it is the common practice of Protestants in Engeland to kneele downe and aske blessing of theyr Godfathers and Godmothers desiring them to pray for them to God which is a true worship and yet it is noe ciuill worship because the reason why they doe it belonges not to any dignity in the common wealth but to Religion and therefore it must be a worship appertaining to Religion as was the worship of Elias and Eliseus now cited which is the wery same with that worship which by Romain Catholickes is giuen to Saints and Angells as creatures belonging to faith and Religion The third mistake ONe may proue as well that it is vnlawful to weepe as ro wurship Angells beecause an Angell forbad S. Iohn to weepe And I wept much because noe man was found-worthy to open and to read the booke neyther to looke therein And one of the Elders said vnto me weepe not And yet certainly it is lawfull to weepe for if it weare not neyther our Sauiour would haue wept ouer Hierusalem nor commaunded the woemen of Hierusalem to weepe ouer themselues c. The text of S. Iohn Reuel 22. v. 8. v. 8. ad 9. reconciled with the other texts of Scripture IF any one would proue out of the 10. of the Acts v. 25. and 26. now cited that noe Apostle or saint yet liuing were to be worshipped because S. Peeter refused the worship which Cornelius exhibited to him I demaund what would a Protestant answer to such an obiection Eyther he must say that S. Peeter refused this worshep though he might laufully haue accepted it as beeing due no lesse then the like worship was accepted by Elias and Eliseus that S. Peeter I say notwithstanding Refused it out of humility and respect which he bare to Cornelius and this supposed Protestants must giue vs leaue to apply with the greatest part of the ancient Fathers and Doctours the same answer to S. Iohn's worshipping the Angell and his refusing it for some worship was noe lesse due to this Angell then it was to the two Angells which Lot worshipped Gen. 19. v. 1. and the Angell which Iosua worshipped Iosua 5. v. 14. now cited and yet this Angell refused it out of humility and respect which he bore to S. Iohn as S. Peeter did Acts 10. v. 25. and 26. or if this answer seeme not soe conuenient to this plare of the Acts a Protestāt must answer that Cornelius here gaue him the worship which was due to God only that is the highest diuine worship which he therefore refused ' as iniurious to God noe otherwise then ' S. Paul and Barnabas with all earnestnesse possible refused the saerifice which the heathen Priest of Lystra would haue offered to them as to two Gods Iupiter and Mercurius whom they tooke them to be
our Sauiour witnesses that the holy Apostle S. Paul in this place writes against these heretikes S. Epiphanius alsoe witnesses that Simon Mahus excluded our Sauiour from the office of mediatour and put the Angells in his place as the Apostle seemes here to say The Third mistake This text is made contrary to other texts of Scripture THirdly the Religion or worship of Angells here forbidden cannot be all kinde of worship exhibited to them for then this place of Scripture would be contrary to the other which I cited before Gen. 19. v. 1. Iosua 5. v. 14. where Angells were lawfully worshipped and so this place cannot conclude any thing against vs for if some worship may be lawfully giuen to Angells notwithstanding this place it can neuer be proued from hence that the worship we giue them is forbidden vnlesse it be first proued to be vnlawfull which can neuer be deduced from this generall prohibition And if any one should obiect here that seeing this word threskeia signifyes religion and vvorship thence may be gathered that all vvorship appertayning to Religion or all religius worship is forbidden to be giuen to Angells I answer that if wee take religion and religious worship as it is strictly and presly taken amongst the Doctours in its prime and formall acception for a vertue whereby due honour is giuen immediately to God it is true that all such religion or religious worship is there forbidden to be giuen to Angells and in this sense noe Catholike teaches that religious worship is to be giuen to Angells or any creature but only to the creatour of all things because he only it true God but if by religion or religious worship be vnderstood in a larger sense a vertue or reuerence belonging to religion and exceeding the bounds of nature and ciuill worship then religious worship to Angells is not forbidden in this place Now that religion may be taken in this larger sense is cleare as I haue allready shewed out of S. Iames now cited chap 1. v. 26. and 27. If any man amongst you seeme to be religiouus and bridleth not his tongue but deceiueth his owne hart this mans religion is vaine Pure religion and vndefyled before God and the father is to visit the fatherlesse and widowes in their afflictions and to keepe himselfe vnspotted from the world Where wee see that actions performed to creatures of piety and mercy are called religion and are religious actions and so this worship though it be done to creatures may according to the phrase of Scripture be called religious worship at least in this large sense that workes of piety and mercy are called religion or religious actions here by S. Iames. And thus much for the second place Wee are commanded to pray vnto God therefore no presumption but a bounden duty Proofes out of Scripture mistaken Come vnto me all yee that labour and are heauy loaden and I will giue you rest When you pray say our father which art in heauen And what soeuer yee shall aske the father in my name he will giue it you Aske and yee shall haue seeke and yee shall finde knocke and it shall be opened vnto you If the opponent meane here that wee are to pray to God without all presumption of our selues or our own workes for the words are obscure wee most willingly admit this whole obiection and all the proofes of it as most consonant with the doctrine of the Romain Church and only against Pelagian and Semipelagian Heretikes For shee teacheth that the good workes of Gods children are truly good and pleasing to God and meritorious of the increase of grace and eternall glory yet she teaches also that all good workes are the free gifts of God proceeding from his grace and not to be ascribed to any naturall force of ours left to it self which is not able to doe any thing at all pleasing to Allmighty God and so wee cannot glory in our selues but in God only as S. Paul teacheth vs Againe she teacheth that though the good workes of God's children be meritorious as is declared where they are yet no man can be in this life without a particular reuelation infallibly assured that he is the child of God or that he euer did any one worke truly good and pleasing to God and so liues and dyes wholy relying vppon the mercies of God and merits of our deare Sauiours bitter death and Passion of which he is assured by a firme and stedfast hope not presumptuously relying vppon his owne workes whereof he hath no sufficient assurance whereon to found his saluation and so he is kept in a most humble and low esteeme of himselfe and all he euer did through his whole life for it is not the beleeuing that good workes where thy are are meritorious but the beleeuing that wee haue such meritorious workes which can giue any shew of reason to rely vppon them I say beleuing with an infallible faith which Reformers teach for wee may and ought to haue a stedfast hope that through the grace of Christ wee haue done some good workes and meritorious as it is not the assurance that the abundance of mony and gould where it is is able to purchase great possessions but the assurance that one hath such an abundance of gould which makes one confide that he is able to compasse such a purchase and yet though a iust man should infallibly know that he had done workes truly pleasing to God he would not be presumptuous because he knowes they proceede from the grace of God If therefore this be all that is intended by this obiection that wee are commanded to pray to God without all presumption and vppon bounden duty wee haue nothing against it but if hereby be intended that wee are commaunded to pray to God vppon boundē duty and therefore it is noe presumption to pray to him yet so that wee are to pray to him alone as the insuing obiections and proofes seeme to insinuate then wee giue our reasons for the contrary in the insuing answer which will be alsoe common to this only à word or two vnto these fower places cited for proofe of this difficulty thus vnderstood The text of Mat. 11. v. 28. mistaken Come vnro me all yee that labour and are heauie loaden and I will giue you rest THis text is in the mouth of euery ignorant Protestant to proue that wee are neither to pray to saint nor Angell but to Christ alone Come vnto mee saith our Sauiour he bids vs not come vnto Saints ot Angells say some illiterate Scripturistes therefore wee must neither come to Saints nor Angells according to our Sauiours command But how far this discourse is from common sense euery vnderstanding person will easily discouer for to say that our Sauiour bids vs not here come to Saints or Angells expressly is most true but that shewes only that coming to Saints or Angells is not here commanded which no man makes
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