set down in an other English Catechisme which I haue seene and read in a publike auditory of Protestants The ground therefore of this false imposition if it may be termed a ground may happily haue beene some small short Catechismes made for little children and new beginners for the help of their memories to be learned by hart wherin this commandement as all the rest of the longer commandements set down Exod. 20. Deut. 5. is abridged and brought to so many words as merely serue to expresse the substance of them omitting the rest thus 1. I am the Lord thy God thou shalt not haue any other Gods before me 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vayne 3. Remember thou sanctify the festiuall dayes 4. Honour thy father and mother where not only many words adioyned to the command against adoring false Gods or Idols Exod. 20. Deut. 5. but to the three ensuing also are here for breuity's sake omitted setting down in few words the substance and making no mention of the reasons and amplifications found in Exodus and Deuteronomy least were they all sett at large as they are there both the memory of yong children might be ouercharged and their weake vnderstandings confounded not being able to distinguish the substance of the command from the reasons and amplifications of it Now if we deliuered the commandements with this preface as Protestants do in their common prayer booke The same which God spake in the 20. chapter of Exodus saying c. we were obliged to put them all word for word as they are found there For otherwise the commandements would not be answerable to the Title But seeing we find them in other places of Scripture set down in a much briefer manner then they are there and find no precept neither in Scripture nor in the Church to deliuer them to Christians as they are deliuered in Exod. 20. and Deut. 5. rather then in other places our aduersaryes can no more condemne vs of falsefying them when we put them briefer then they can the holy Scripture it selfe for abbreuiating them more in other places then they are in Exodus now cited and Leuiticus That they are thus abbreuiated in Scripture is manifest Leuit. 19. v. 1.2.3 And the Lord spake vnto Moyses saying speake vnto all the congregation of the children of Israel and say vnto them yee shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy yee shall feare euery man his father and his mother and shall keepe my sabbaths I am the Lord your God yee shall not turne vndo Idols nor make molten Gods I am the Lord your God c. where that which our aduersaryes account the second commandement is put euen shorter then many of our catechismes haue it Turne not your selues vnto Idols nor make vnto your selues molten Gods as it is in Exod. 20. v. 23. Yee shall not make vnto your selues Gods of siluer neither shall yee make Gods of gould Neither indeed is it any way conuenient to deliuer the commandements publikely and generally to Christian people word for word as they stand Exod. 20. Leuitit 26. because therby they are indangered either to take sunday to be saturday or the Iewish Sabbath or must hold themselues obliged to obserue Saturday with the Iewes that alone being dies Sabbati the Sabbath day wherin only God rested after the creation of the world which only he also Sanctifyed and commanded to be kept as clearly appeares by the words of the commandement soe that it is not any seuenth day or one indeterminately euery weeke which God commands to be kept holy in this precept but one only and determinately that is the same seuenth day where in God rested from the worke of the creation as appeares Gen. 2.1.2.3 Et benedixit diei septimo sanctisicauit illum quia in ipso cessauerat ab omni opere suo quod creauit Deus vt faceret And God blessed the seuenth day and sanctified it hecause that in it he had rested from all his workes which God created and made now it is most euident that God rested only vppon one determinate day and that noe other then the Iewish Sabbath or Saturday or if they vnderstand well what day is meant in the commandemenr they must needs be scandalized to see a commandement vniuersally deliuered to them of keeping the Iewish Sabbath which is and euer was Saturday and yet neuer obserued by any of them but Sunday in place of it Hence therefore we see in generall that it is very inconuenient to propose Gods commandements publikely to Christians word for word as they stand in Exodus and so wee can neuer be iustly condemned if we put some of them as they are more briefly deliuered in other places of Scripture or now to be in obseruance amongst Christians But there is an other poynt boggeled at chiefly by the ignorant about the diuision of Gods cōmandements Yee obiect they against vs put the two first commandements into one and diuide the last into two I answere that a Catholike seeing their diuision may with much more reason tell Protestants yee put the two last commandements into one and diuide the first into two Briefly therefore to cleare this poynt it is to be noted that though it be expresly declared in Scripture that Gods commandements were ten in number and written in two tables yet through the whole Bible neuer is it declared which is the first second third c. nor so much as one word spoken concerning the diuision of them but this was left either to tradition or to the prudent determination of Doctours so that howsoeuer they are prudently diuided there will be nothing contrary to Scripture so long as the whol substance be expressed and the number of them be obserued Hence in and euen before S. Augustins tyme as he witnesses there was a double diuision of the commandements amongst Christians some diuiding them as we doe and others as our aduersaryes Yet both S. Augustine himselfe q. 71. in Exod. and S. Hierome Comment in Psalm 32. and Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 6. Stromatum follow our diuision S. Augustin prouing it very largly to be the better and putting in the first commandement Idol not Image and serue not worship and S. Hierome setting down the three commandements conteyned in the first table as short or shorter then any of our Catechismes doe and from them euen to our tymes it seemes to haue beene the receiued diuision at least in the westerne Church and should haue beene followed by those of our nation who euer before the breach were estemeed a part of it and yet pretend to be so had not the spirit of contradiction against the Romain Church induced them to the contrary Now as we haue authority so haue we solid reason to prefer this diuision before that of our aduersaryes for certaine it is that each different commandement forbids a different maine sin so that neither are we to make two
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
stand to his former couuenant of shewing his grace and mercy vnto Abraham and his children So that that which the objcctiō saies that the word couuenant is here taken for the signe of the couuenant if it meanes thereby that it signifies not a true couuenant in it felfe which was a signe of a former couuenant is farre ftom the truth And though this solution be cleare and cannot be questioned yet if one would stand meerely in the words cited one might easely answer that the obligation of circumcision put here vppon Abraham and his children was a true couuenant but the actuall performance and execution that is circumcision in it selfe performed vppon the Israëlites was a signe of this obligatory couuenant and so it is said ver 10. hoc est pactum meum c. circumcidetur this is my couuenant c. euery mal child shall be circumcised that it may be a signe of the couuenant between me and you that is that the actuall circumcision may be a signe of this couuenant So that neither is here the obligation to be circumcised called a signe of the couuenant nor circumcision called the couuenant as the opponent affirmes not out of Scripture but from the Protestant glosse or addition to it And these answers which I haue giuen are clearly confirmed by S. Paul Rom. 4. v. 11. where speaking of Abraham he said he tooke the signe of circumcision the seale of the iustice of faith c. that he might be the father of all beleeuers where not the obligation appointed by Allmighty God to be circumcised but circumcision it selfe is called the signe and chiefly the signe or seale of his being the father of all beleeuers which was the first couuenant here made with him Objection So the lambe of the Passouet was called the Passeouer because it did figure the passing ouer of the Angell Answer The Scripture in this place calls not expresfely the Lambe the Passeour Ye shall gird your loines and put shooes on your feet holding staues in your handes and ye shall eate hastily for it is the Passeouer of our Lord. the hebrew hath it the Passeouer to our Lord. which whether it be meant of the lambe it selfe or of the whole compliment of the ceremonies required or of thc lambe as eaten in that manner or order imports little because it makes nothing at all against vs. for we must obserue that the word pascha hath a double sense sometimes it is taken properly and primarily for the reall passing of the Angell from one house to another through Egypt at other times and that commonly improperly or figuratiuely for the solemnity or feast ordained on that day when he passed and so yearely vppon the same in insuing ages Thus we take ordinarily the words Natiuity Resurrection Ascension of our Lord either for his reall birth rising from the dead or his ascending into heauen or for the solemnities of Christmas Easter or Ascension and to come to our purpose we take the word Corpus Christi the body of Christ either for his reall and true body or for the feast in honour of his body called amongst vs Corpus Christi so that vppon that day one might say Hic dies est corpus Christi this day is Corpus Christi Now the same was amongst the Iewes and instituted by Allmighty God in this place so that by the word Pesach or Passeouer was vnderstood not the reall passing ouer of the Angell but the feast or Passeouer in honour of it and so it is not called in hebrew as I haue noted the passing ouer of out Lord but to our Lord that is in his honour for the great benefit represented in the feast of the Pascha Now if the Scripture had said This is that very Passeouer wherein our Lord killed so many thousand Egyptians and saued so many of our forefathers as here is This is my Body which is braken for you This is my blood which shall be shed for many for the remission of sinnes whereby the words body and blood are determined to his reall body and blood for noe figure or type of them was brooken or shed for our finnes it might haue had some shew of parity for then must the paschall lambe needs haue been called the reall passage of the angell and not the festiuityes nominated by the same word Thus vppon Corpus Christi day one may say This day is the body of our Lord vnderstanding by Corpus Christi the solemnity so called as it is ordinarily vnderstood it might well passe hut if one should say vppon that day Hic dies est Corpus Christi quod pro nobis datum est this day is the body of Christ whieh so many hunderd yearcs a goe was giuen for our saluation all the world would condemne him noe lesse of foolery then of falshood and impiety Though therefore the thing it selfe and the picture memoriall and solemnity of it may be called by the same name in a large or generall acception thus the picture of Caesar is called Caesar the solemnity of Corpus Christi is called Corpus Christi yet when there be certaine other particles and words adioyned which tye it to a signification of the thing it selfe and distinguish it from the picture or memoriall of it then the figure or memoriall can neuer be vnderstood by that word accompanied with such adiuncts neither can the pourtraict or solemnity be euer ioyned with that word explicated with those said restrictiue particules Thus though seeing the picture of the present King of Spaine I can say this is King Phillip the fourth for that word signifies as wel King Phillip painted as really existing yet I cannot say with truth if the word is be taken in its proper and substantiall signification which for the present is supposed I this is that King Phillip who liues now in Spaine and whom this picture represents neither can I say seeing the King himselue this is King Philip which stands in such a chamber painted in the low countryes for that is not the reall but painted King seeing therefore in the words of the institution that which our Sauiour gaue his Apostles is not only called his body which happily alone were indisserent to fignifie his body painted or reall substantiall or figuratiue naturall or mysticall but addes this restrictiue which is giuen for you which particle can agree only with his reall body the opponent will proue nothing at all against Roman Catholikes vnlesse there be produced out of Scripture some text where the word signifiing the thing it selfe be applyed to the signe or figure with the same restrictiue and limiting particles as proper to that thing it selfe as here the word my Body is affirmed of the word this and declared to be that body which was giuen for vs so that the words my Body which is broken or giuen for you can neuer be taken for any signe or figure of his true body for then a mere signe of his body should