to this effect That Tradition which was of so much use in the Primitive Church was not unwritten Traditions or Customs commended or ratified by the supposed infallibility of any visible Church but did especially consist in the Confessions or Registers of particular Churches And the unanimous consent of so many several Churches as exhibited their Consessions to the Nicene Council out of such Forms as had been framed and taught before this Controversie arose about the Divinity of CHRIST and that voluntaâ—ily and freely these Churches being not dependent one upon another nor overswayed by any Authority over them nor misled by Faction to frame their Confessions of Faith by imitation or according to some patern set them was a pregnant argument that this Faith wherein they all agreed had been delivered to them by the Apostles and their Followers and was he true meaning of the holy Writings in this great Article and evidently proved that Arius did obtrude such interprerations of Scripture as had not been heard of before or were but the sense of some private persons in the Church and not of the generality of Believers In short the unanimous consent of so many distinct visible Churches as exhibited their several Consessions Catechisms or Testimonies of their own Forefathers Faith unto the Council of Nice was an argument of the same force and efficacy against Arius and his Partakers as the general consent and practice of all Nations in worshipping a Divine Power in all Ages is against Atheists Nothing but the ingrafted notion of a Deity could have induced so many several Nations so much different in natural disposition in civil Discipline and Education to effect or practise the duty of Adoration And nothing but the evidence of the ingrafied word as St. James calls the Gospel delivered by CHRIST and his Apostles in the holy Scriptures could have kept so many several Churches as communicated their Confessions unto that Council in the unity of the same Faith The like may be said of the rest of the four first General Councils whose Decrees are a great confirmation of our belief because they deliver to us the consent of the Churches of CHRIST in those great Truths which they assert out of the holy Scriptures And could there any Traditive Interpretation of the whole Scripture be produced upon the Authority of such Original Tradition as that now named we would most thankfully and joyfully receive it But there never was any such pretended no not by the Roman Church whose Doctors differ among themselves about the meaning of hundreds of places in the Bible Which they would not do sure nor spend their time unprofiâ—ably in making the best conjectures they are able if they knew of any exposition of those places in which all Christian Doctors had agreed from the beginning V. But more then this we allow that Tradition gives us a considerable assistance in such points as are not in so many letters and syllables contained in the Scriptures but may be gathered from thence by good and manifest reasoning Or in plainer words perhaps whatsoever Tradition justifies any Doctrine that may be proved by the Scriptures though not found in express terms there we acknowledge to be of great use and readily receive and follow it as serving very much to establish us more firmly in that Truth when we see all Christians have adhered to it This may be called a confirming Tradition of which we have an instance in the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism which some ancient Fathers call an Apostolical Tradition Not that it cannot be proved by any place of Scripture no such matter for though we do not find it written in so many words that Infants are to be baptised or that the Apostles baptised Infants yet it may be proved out of the Scriptures and the Fathers themselves who call it an Apostolical Tradition do alledge testimonies of the Scriptures to make it good And therefore we may be sure they comprehend the Scriptures within the name of Apostolical Tradition and believed that this Doctrine was gathered out of the Scriptures though not expresly treated of there In like manner we in this Church assert the authority of Bishops above Presbyters by a Divine right as appears by the Book of Consecration of Bishops where the persons to be ordained to this Office expresses his belief That he is truly called to this Ministration according to the will of our LORD JESVS CHRIST Now this we are perswaded may be plainly enough proved to any man that is ingenuous and will fairly consider things out of the holy Scriptures without the help of Tradition but we also take in the assistance of this for the conviction of gain-sayers and by the perpetual practice and Tradition of the Church from the beginning confirm our Scripture proofs so strongly that he seems to us very obstinate or extreamly prejudiced that yields not to them And therefore to make our Doctrine in this point the more authentick our Church hath put both these Proofs together in the Preface to the Form of giving Orders which begins in these words It is evident unto all men diligently reading the holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been three Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons I hope no body among us is so weak as to imagine when he reads this that by admitting Tradition to be of such use and force as I have mentioned we yield too much to the Popish Cause which supports it self by this pretence But if any one shall suggest his to any of our people let them reply That it is but the pretence and only by the Name of Tradition that the Romish Church supports it self For true Tradition is as great a proof against Popery as it is for Episcopacy The very foundation of the Popes Empire which is his succession in St. Peters Supremacy is uâ—terly subverted by this the constant Tradition of the Church being evidently against it And therefore let us not lose this Advantage we have against them by ignorantly refusing to receive true and constant Tradition which will be so far from leading us into their Church that it will never suffer us to think of being of it while it remains so opposite to that which is truely Apostolical I conclude this with the Direction which our Church gives to Preachers in the Books of Canons 1â—71 in the Title Concionatores That no man shall teach the people any thing to be held and believed by them religiously but what is consentaneous to the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament and what the Catholick Fathers and Ancient Bishops have gathered out of that very Doctrine This is our Rule whereby we are to guide our selves which was set us on purpose to preserve our Preachers from broaching any idle novel or popish Doctrines as appears by the conclusion of that Injunction Vain and old Wives Opinions and Heresies and Popish Errours abhorring from the Doctrine and
Militant in general but in particular for those whose persons and conditions were well known to them on Earth and these are cunningly shufled in by the Romish Doctors as proofs for invocation of them with a design to impose on the unwary vulgar who are supposed not to take notice of the difference but 't is a wonder if they should not for 't is wide enough betwixt their Praying for us and our Praying to them Neither is this the only instance wherein those cunning Sophisters play this game First alter the Nature of the Question and then where they have no Adversary to Triumph in demonstrating the truth of it If the Question be whither the Bishop of Rome be the Supreme head of the Church and has an absolute Jurisdiction and Monarchy over all other Bishops and Churches they shall bring Bellar. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 15. 16. you a number of Testimonies out of both Greek and Latin Fathers to prove St Peter had a Primacy of Honour and Authority If the be Question be whither the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament be Substantially turned into the body Bellar. de Euchar l. 2 and blood of Christ they shall write a whole Volum to prove the Truth and Reality of Christ's presence in it which we own as well as they but after a Spiritual manner not corporally and by the way of Transubstantiation If the Question be about Purgatory a place prepared for the Purification of those Souls that depart hence not quite cleansed they shall alledge you Fathers and those St. Ambr. Hil. Orig. Hierom. c. not a few of unquestionable name to prove the utter Consumption of all things by Fire at the end of the World So here when the Question is whither we ought to Pray to Saints departed they bring innumerable Fathers to prove that the Saints departed do Pray for us hence we hear of that of St. Ignatius My spirit salutes you not only Epist ad Tral now but also when I enjoy God and of St. Chrysostom in his Oration to those that were to be Baptized Remember me when that Kingdom receives you 4. They produce the sayings and practices of some few in the Church for the general and allowed Doctrine and Practice of the whole Church If the story should be true that Justina a Christian Virgin did in great distress jointly supplicate the blessed Virgin with God and Christ does it follow that it was the practice of all to do so It cannot be denied but that many of the Fathers let slip in the heat of their Affection and Oration many unwary speeches to this purpose and that many otherwise good Men were guilty of this excess of Devotion to the Martyrs the many miracles God was pleased to work at the Memorials of the Martyrs for the Honour and Confirmation of the Faith reasonably begat a custom amongst Christians to resort to those places and there to offer their Prayers to God and thinking it may be they could not easily honour those too much whom God was pleased after so wonderful a manner to declare his esteem of from Praying to God at their Tombs they began to Pray to them themselves But now We are to distinguish betwixt the speeches of some particular Fathers and the general Doctrine of the Church betwixt what they express in Rhetorical strains to move affection and what they lay down in plain terms to inform the judgement betwixt what comes from them in the heat of their Discourses and popular Orations and what in cool and deliberate debates they set down for the truth of Christ it 's generally confest that the Fathers of times hyperbolize particularly S. Chrysostom and we must not take their flights of Fancy for the Doctrine of the Church We are to distinguish also betwixt what the Church did teach and allow and what she only tolerated and was forced to bear with the Bishops and Governours of the Church being many times engaged in weightier mattersin defending the Christian cause again Heathens and Hereticks were not alwayes at leisure to reform abuses and irregular practices but were forced too often to connive at those Faults which they had not time and opportunity to redress St. Austine complains much of this piece S. Aust de morib Eccles c. 31. tom 1 Epis 119. ad Janu. approbare non possum liberius improbare non andeo of superstition in his dayes that it had got such an head that the good Father wanted power to give a check to it I can no way allow them sayes he and yet I dare not freely reprove them lest I either offend some good Men or provocke some turbulenâ— spirits 5. They cite the practice of the Ancients Praying to God that for the Intercession of those Holy Men that had died in the Lord he would grant them their requests as a good proof for direct Praying to them The Ancients generally believing that the Saints and Martyrs in the future state did continually Pray to God in behalf of the Church Militant on Earth and some that their Souls were present at their Shrines and Tombs and did joyn their Intercessions with those Prayers of the Christians that were there offered up to God were wont in their addresses to mention the Martyrs and to beg the effects of their Intercessions that God would be moved by their supplications as well as their own to grant a supply of their wants and necessities but this is no more Praying to them then Moses may be said to Pray to Abraham Isaac and Jacob when he besought God to remember them in behalf of the People of Israel then we may be said to Pray for help to that part of the Church of Christ that is at a great distance from us when we desire God to hear the Prayers of his Church Catholick disperst throughout the whole World in the behalf of all Christian people that in all places call upon him Thus it 's said by the Historian that the Emperor Theodâ—sius Ruâ—â—in Hist l. 2. c. 33. when Eugeniâ— and his Complâ—ces raised that dangerous Rebellion against him repaired With his Clergy and Laity to the Oraâ—ories and Chapples and Sanctorum intercessione there lyâ—â—g Prostrate before the Tombs and Monuments of the Aposties and Marâ—yrs begged aâ—d and succour by intercession of the Saints He did not pray to any Saintâ—r Saints he did not beg help of them but supposing they Prayed with him and for him he prayed unto God that he would send him help for the sake of their Inâ—eâ—cession in his behalf This is also the meaning of those expressions in St. Austin that They ought to commend themselves to the Prayers of the Martyrs and frequent Aug. de Cur. promort c. 4. their tombs with a Religious Solemnity that they may become partakers of their Meâ—its and be helpt by their Prayers that is not by praying to them bâ—â— holding as was then commonly believed that when Christians came to
now such a force to induce belief as it had then The reason of which is given by the same Vicentius who so highly commends that way which was then taken of reproving Heresie but adds this most wise Caution in the last Chapter but one of the first part of his commonitorium But you must not think that all Heresies and all wayes are thus to be opposed but only new and fresh Heresies when they first rise up that is before they have falsified the Rules of the ancient Faith c. As for inveterate Heresies which have spred themselves they are in no wise to be assaulted this way because in a long tract of time many opportunities may have presented themselves to Hereticks of stealing Truth out of the ancient Records and of corrupting the Volumes of our Ancestors Which if it be applied to the present state of things it is evident the Roman Church hath had such opportunities of falsifying Antiquity ever since the first acknowledgment of the Papal Supremacy that we cannot rely merely upon any written Testimonies or unwritten Traditions which never so great a number of their Bishops met together shall produce which amount not to so much as one legal Testimony but they are to be look'd upon or suspected as a multitude of false Witnesses conspiring together in their own cause How then may some say can Heresies of long standing be confuted The same Vincentius resolves us in this in the very next words We may convince them if need be by the sole authority of the Scriptures or eschew them as already convicted and condemned in ancient times by the general Councils of Catholick Priests The Tradition which is found there must direct all future councils not the Opinions of their present churches IV. I will adde but one thing more which is That the Tradition called Oral because it comes by word of mouth from one Age to another without any written Record is the most uncertain and can be least relied upon of all other This hath been demonstrated so fully by the Writers of our Church and there are such pregnant instances of the errours into which men have been led by it that it needs no long discourse Two instances of it are very common and I shall adde a third 1. The first is that which Papias who lived presently after the Apostles times and conversed with those who had seen them set on foot His way was as Eusebius relates out of his Works not so much to read as to enquire of the Elders what Saint Andrew or Saint Peter said what was the Saying of Saint Thomas Saint James and the rest of the Disciples of our LORD And he pretended that some of them told him among other things that after the resurrection of our Bodies we shall reign a thousand years here upon Earth which he gathered saith Eusebius from some Saying of the Apostles wrong understood But this Fancy was embraced very greedily and was taught for two whole Ages as an Apostolical Tradition no body opposing it and yet having nothing to say for it but only the antiquitie of the man as Eusebius his words are L. 3. cap. ult who delivered it to them yet this Tradition hath been generally since taken for an imposture and teaches us no more then this That if one man could set a going such a Doctrine and make it pass so current for so long a time upon no other pretence then that an Apostle said so in private discourse we have great reason to think that other Traditions have had no better beginning or not so good especially since they never so universally prevailed as that did 2. A second instance is that famous contention about the observation of Easter which miserably afflicted the Church in the dayes of Victòr Bishop of Ròme by dividing the Eastern Christians from the Western One pretending Tradition from Saint Jòhn and Saint Philip the other from Saint Peter and Saint Paul Concerning which I will not say as Rigaltius doth in his sharp note upon the words of Firmilian who pretended Tradition for the rebaptizing of Hereticks That under the Names and Persons of great men there were sottish and sophistical things delivered for Apostolical Traditions by Fools and Sophisters But this I affirm that there are many more instances of mens forwardness and they neither Fools nor Sophisters but onely wedded to the Opinions of their own Churches to obtrude things as Apostolical for which they had no proof at all For when they knew not how to defend themselves presently they flew to Tradition Apostolical 3. A third instance of whose uncertainty we have in Irenaeus L. 2. c. 39. concerning the age of our blessed Saviour when he died which he confidently affirms to have been forty if not fifty years and saith the Elders which knew St. John and were his Scholar◠received this relation from him And yet all agree that he beginning to preach at thirtie years of age was crucified about three years and an half after The like relation Clement makes of his preaching but one year which he calls a secret Tradition from the Apostles but hath no more truth in it then the other Now if in the first Ages when they were so near the fountain and beginning of Tradition men were deceived nay such great men as these were deceived and led others into errours in these matters we cannot with any safety trust to Traditions that have passed men pretend from one to another until now but we can find no mention of in any Writer till some Ages after the Apostles and then were by some body or other who had authority in those dayes called Apostolical Traditions merely to gain them the more credit Thus Andreas Caesariensis in his commentaries upon the Book of Revelation p. 743. Saith that the coming of Enoch and Elias before the second coming of Christ though it be not found in Scripture was a constant report received by Tradition without any variation from the Teachers of the Church Which is sufficient to shew how ready they were to father their own private Opinions upon ancient universal Tradition and how little reason we have to trust to that which was so uncertain even in the first Ages and therefore must needs be more dubious now Thus I have endeavoured to lay before the eyes of those who will be pleased to look over this short Treatise what they are to think and speak about Tradition It is a calumny to affirm that the Church of England rejects all Tradition and I hope none of her true Children are so ignorant as when they hear that word to imagine they must rise up and oppose it No the Scripture it self is a Tradition and we admit all other Traditions which are subordinate and agreeable unto that together with all those things which can be proved to be Apostolical by the general Testimony of the Church in all Ages nay if any thing not contained in Scripture which the Roman Church now
that all do read and silence being made that all hear This is also agreeable to the former Opinion of the Church of Rome it self and for proof of which what can we desire more then the Declarations of Popes and Councils and this we have For we read of a permission given by the Pope to the Moravians at the instance of Cyril who had Aeneas Sylvius Hist Bohem. l. 1. c. 13. Aunâ— 260. converted them and other Nations of the Sclavâ—nians to have Divine Service in their own Tongue and that he and the Conclave were induced to it when not a few did oppose it by a voice from Heaven that said Let every Spirit praise the LORD and every Tongue confess to him as Aeneas Sylvius afterward Pope relates And Pope John the VIII not long after in Anno 880. writes thus to S fento opulcer a Prince Coneil Tom. 24. Epist 217. Paris 1644. of the Sclavonians We command that the Praises and Works of our Lord Christ be declared in the same Sclavonian Tongue For we are admonished by sacred Writ to praise the Lord not only in three but in all Tongues saying Praise the Lord all ye Nations praise him all the people And the Apostles filled with the Holy Ghost spake in all Tongues And S. Paul admonisheth Let every Tongue confess and in the first to the Corinthians he doth sufficiently and plainly admonish us that in speaking we should edifie the Church of God Neither doth it hinder the Faith or Doctrine to have the Mass sung or the Gospel and Lessons well translated read or other divine Offices sung in the same Selavonian Tongue because he who made three principal Tongues viz. Hebrew Greek and Latine made all to his praise c. And consormable to this is the Decree of the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. Anno 1215. that because in Con. 9. many parts within the same City and Diocess there are many people of different manners and Rites mixed together but of one Faith We therefore command that the Bishops of such Cities or Diocesses provide fit Men who shall celebrate Divine Offices according to the diversity of Tongues and Riâ—es and administer the Sacraments This may be farther confirmed by the very Offices of the Church of Rome but this is sufficient Vid. Cassandri Liturg. c. 36. to shew that the Church of Rome hath departed from Scripture Antiquity and it self when it doth require that Divine Service be performed in a Tongue unknown to the people and that it was never the opinion of the Fathers nor any Church nor even of the Church of Rome that it is most expedient to have it so performed So little was it then thought that religious things the less they are understood Epist Cleri Gall. Collect. p. 63. Epist P. Alex. 7. in Collect. p. 69. Hosius p. 64. Bellarm. Sect. Septimâ— P. Sanct. c. 17. n 3. E. W. Truth will out p. 45. 47. Râ—â—erus c. 22. Portraiture c. 14 p. 224. Bellarm. l. 1. de â—â—ssa c. 11. Sanders orat p. 72 Râ—em Annot p. 461. the more they would be admired and that to preserve a reverence for them and the people from dangerous errours it is requisâ—te to keep them from being understood So little was it pleaded that there are any Tongues sacred in themselves and that as the three upon the Cross of Christ are to be preferred before others and to exclude the rest so the Latine as next to the head of Christ is the most venerable of the three So little was it then thought that there is a certain kind of Divinity in Latin and something more of Majesty and fitter to stir up Devotion then in other Tongues So little were they afraid that Latin would be lost if the service were not kept in it or however so little evident is it that they valued the preservation of that Tongue above the Edification of the Church Lastly So little did they think of the expedience of having the service in one common Tongue as Latin That Christians where-ever they travel may find the self same Service and Priests may officiate in it as at home As if for the sake of the few that travel the many that stay at home should be left destitute and for one Mans convenience 10000. be exposed to eternal perdâ—ioâ— These are Arguments coined on purpose to defend the Cause and so are peculiar to the Church that needs them II. Let us consider whither from the time of its having been a Rits it hath been the Rite of every Church To this I shall only produce their own Confessions Cassander Liturg c. 11. 13. 15 Ledesm c. 33 n. 5 Bellarm. c. 16. sect obj ult Salmer on in 1 cor 16. sect septime for it is acknowledged that the Armenians Egyptianâ— Habassines Muscovites and Sclavâ—nians have their Service in a Tongue known to the people And their giving them the hard Names of Hereticks Schismaticks and Barbarous will not save the Council from being fallible when it saith It is the rite of every church But were there no such Churches in the World that herein practised contrary to the Church of Rome yet it would no more justifie her then it can make that good which is evil that expedient which is mischievous to the Church of God or reconcile one part of the Council to the other that when it hath declared The Masi contaiâ—â—â— great instruction for the people yet adds That it is expedient and an approved Rite that it be not celebrated in the Vulgar Tongue But say they this is granted If there were no interpretation but that is provided for by the Council for it is ordered That lest Christs sheep should hunger all that have the care of Souls shall frequently expound c. And that we are now to consider SECT IV Whither the Provisions made by the Council of Trent for having some part of the Mass expounded be sufficient to countervail the mischief of having the whole celebrated in a Tongue not understood of the People and to excuse the Church of Rome in the injunction of it THis is the last refuge they betake themselves to S. C. Answ to D. Piece 7. 175. Sanders orat p. 63. confessing that without an Interpretation S. Paul is against them but with this they plead he is for them But what shall we then think of the case in their Church at a time when as the people could not understand so the Priests could not interpret and wanted both the gift and had not acquired so much as the art of it What shall we think of their case and their Church that hath neither provided nor doth use such an Interpretation as the Apostle speaks of but what differs as much from it in respect of the light it gives to the people as both that and the Tongue they use do in the way by which they are obtained If it were a translation what a ludicrous thing would it be for
Credulity is certainly a fault as well as Infidelity And he who said blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed hath no where said blessed are they that have seen and yet have not believed much less blessed are they that believe directly contrary to what they see To conclude this Discourse By what hath been said upon this Argument it will appear with how little truth and reason and regard to the interest of our common Christianity it is so often said by our Adversaries that there are as good arguments for the belief of Transubstantiation as of the Doctrine of the Trinity When they themselves do acknowledge with us that the Doctrine of the Trinity is grounded upon the Scriptures and that according to the interpretation of them by the consent of the ancient Fathers But their Doctrine of Transubstantiation I have plainly shewn to have no such ground and that this is acknowledged by very many learned men of their own Church And this Doctrine of theirs being first plainly proved by us to be destitute of all Divine Warrant and Authority our Objections against it from the manifold contradictions of it to Reason and sense are so many Demonstrations of the falsehood of it Against all which they have nothing to put in the opposite Scale but the Infallibility of their Church for which there is even less colour of proof from Scripture then for Transubstantiation it self But so fond are they of their own Innovations and Errours that rather then the Dictates of their Church how groundless and absurd soever should be call'd in question rather then not have their will of us in imposing upon us what they please they will owerthrow any Article of the Christian Faith and shake the very foundations of our common Religion A clear evidence that this Church of Rome is not the true Mother since she can be so well contented that Christianity should be destroyed rather then the Point in question should be decided against her FINIS A DISCOURSE Concerning the ADORATION OF THE HOST As it is Taught and Practiced in the CHURCH of ROME Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. oâ— that Subject And to Monsieut Boileau's late book De Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. EDINEVRGH Re-printed by John Reid Anno DOM 1686. A DISCOURSE OF THE ADORATION Of the HOST c. IDolatry is so great a Blot in any Church what ever other glorious Marks it may pretend to that it is not to be wondred that the Church of Rome is very angry to be charged with it as it has alwayes been by all the Reform'd who have given in this among many others as a just and necessary Reason of their Reformation and it must be confessed to be so if it be fully and clearly made good against it and if it be not it must be owned to be great Uncharitableness on the other side which is no good Note of a Church neither as grievous Slander and most uncharitable Calumny which will fall especially upon all the Clergy of the Church of England who by their Consent and Subscription to its Articles and to the Doctrine of its Homilies and to the Book of Common Prayer do expresly join in it For it is not the private Opinion only of some particular and forward men in their Zeal and Heat against Popery thus to accuse it of Idolatry but it is the deliberate and sober and downright Charge of the Church of England of which no honest man can be a Member and Minister who does not make and believe it I might give several Instances to shew this but shall only mention one wherein I have undertaken to defend our Church in its charge of Idolatry upon the Papists in their Adoration of the Host which is in its Declaration about Kneeling at the Sacrament after the Office of the Communion in which are these remarkeable words It is hereby declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood for the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians Here it most plainly declares its mind against that which is the Ground and Foundation of their Worshipping the Host That the Elements do not remain in their natural Substances after Consecration if they do remain as we and all Protestants hold even the Lutherians then in Worshipping the consecrated Elements they worship meer Creatures and are by their own Confession guilty of Idolatry as I shall shew by and by and if Christs natural Flesh and Blood â—e not corporally present there neither with the Substance nor Signs of the Elements then the Adoring what there is most be the Adoring some things else then Christs body and if Bread only be there and they adore that which is there they must surely adore the Bread it self in the opinion of our Church but I shall afterwards state the Controversie more exactly between us Our Church has here taken notice of the true Issue of it and declared that to be false and that it is both Unfit and Idolatrous too to Worship the Elements upon any account after Consecration and it continued of the same mind and exprest iâ— is particularly and directly in the Canons of 1640. where it sayes a Canon 7. 1640. about placing the Communion Table under this head A Declaration about some Rites and Ceremonis That for the cause of the Idolatry committed in the Mass all Popish Altars were demolish'd so that none can more fully charge them with Idolatry in this point then our Church has done It recommends at the same time but with great Temper and Moderation the religious Gesture of bowing towards the Altar both before and out of the time of Celebration of the Holy Eucharist and in it and in neither a Ib. can 7. 1â—40 Vpon any opinion of a corporal presence of Christ on the Holy Table or in the mystical Elements but only to give outward and bodily as well as inward worship to the Divine Majesty and it commands all Persons to receive the Sacrament Kneeling b Rubric at Communion in a posture of Adoration as the Primitive Church used to do with the greatest Expression of Reverence and Humility tropo proskynesios kai sebasmatos St. Cyrill of Hierusalem speaks c Cyril Hierosolym Catech. Mystag 5. and as I shall shew is the meaning of the greatest Authorities they produce out of the Ancients for Adoration not to but at the Sacrament so far are we from any unbecoming or irreverent usage of that Mystery as Bellarmine d Controv. de Eucharist when he is angry with those who will not Worship it tells them out of Optatus that the Donatists gave it to Dogs and out of Victor Vticencis that the Arriaâ—s trod it under their Feet
that we should abhor any such disrespect shewn to the sacred Symbols of our Saviours Body as is used by them in throwing it into the Flames to quench a Fire or into the Air or Water to stop a Tempest or Inundation or keep themselves from drowning or any the like mischief to prevent which they will throw away even the God they Worship or the putting it to any the like undecent Superstitions 'T is out of the great Honour and Respect that we bear to the Sacrament that we are against the carrying it up and down as a show and the Exposing and Prostituting it to so shameful an Abuse and so gross an Idolatry We give very great Respect and Reverence to all things that relate to God and are set apart to his Worship and Service to the Temple where God is said himself to dwell and to be more immediately present to the Altar whereon the Mysteries of Christs Body and Blood are solemnly celebrated to the Holy Vessels that are alwayes used in those Administrations to the Holy Bible which is the Word of God in the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the Sacrament is his Body and the New Testament in his Blood to the Font which is the Laver of Regeneration wherein we put on Christ as well as we eat him in the Eucharisâ— and if we would strain things and pick out of the Ancient and Devout Christians what is said of all these it would go as far and look as like to adoring them as what with all their care they collect and produce for adoring the Sacrament as I shall afterwards make appear in answer to what the a Jacob. Boileau Paris De Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. latest Defender of the Adoration of the Eucharist has culled or rather raked together out of the Fathers It seems from that Declaration of our Church that some were either so silly or so spiteful as to suppose that by our Kneeling at the Sacrament we gave Worship to the Elements and that learned man is willing to have it believed that we do thereby externè Eucharistiam colere c outwardly b Boil p. 145. Worship the Sacrament and he blames us for not doing it inwardly in our minds as well as outwardly with our Bodies so willing are these men to joyn with our wildest Dissenters in their unreasonable Charges against our Church use any crutches that may help their own weak Cause or be made use of to strike at us but it may as well be said that the Dissenters Worship their Cushions or their Seats when they kneel before them the roof of the Church or the crowns of their Hats when they fix their Eyes upon them at the same time they are at their Prayers upon their Knees or that the Papists worship the Priest himself before whom they Kneel in their Confessions or that on Ashwednesday they adore the holy Ashes as they call them and on Palmsunday the holy Boughs which they do not pretend to do because they Kneel when they are given them as well as that we Worship the Eucharist or the Mystical Elements when we receive them Kneeling and disavow any such thing and declare it to be Idolatry to be abhorr'd of all faithful Christians But is it Idolatry to Worship Christ Or or to Worship the Body of Christ tho' not for it self yet for the sake of the Divine Nature to which it is alwayes hypostatically united Noâ— by no means I know no Hereticks tho' they denied Christs Divinity but yet were for worshipping him the old Arrians and the late Socinians but how justifiably when they believe him but a meer man or only a more excellent Creature they and the Church of Rome are both concerned to defend and to clear it if they can of Idolatry As to the Worship of the Flesh tho' Nestorius could not do this according to his Principles as St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus argue against him nor could the Ebionites nor Doketai of old yet I know none but some of their School-men dispute now of Adoring the Flesh or Humane Nature of Christ which however it be in our minds is never in truth abstracted from his Divinity But we will not at all trouble our selves with those parts of the Science of controversie nor shall we stand upon any of those things Well then why may not Christ and his Body be adored in the Sacrament if they are proper Objects of Adorations No doubt but they may be adored in this Sacrament in the Sacrament of Baptism too and in all the Offices of the Christian Religion wherein we pray to Christ and Kneel before him and exercise the devout acts of the Mind toward him put our trust and hope in him and expect Salvation from him and devout our selves in all Subjection to him and bow both our Souls and our Bodies and give all both internal and external Worship to him this Adoration we give to Christ who is God blessed for ever and who sits at the right hand of God the Father And the very same the Papists give to the Sacrament to the Host and the consecrated Elements the the most Soveraigne and Absolute and highest Degree of Religious Worship that is due to God whose creatures those Elements are or to Christ himself who commanded us receive them in remembrance of him But it is only Christ say they whom we Worship in the Sacrament whom we adore as being present there with his Body in the Host and not the Host or the Sacrament it self so a great many of them would fain bring off the matter or at least colour and disguise it Bellarmine a Lib. 4. de Eucharist c. 29. Quicquid sit de modo loquendi slatus quaestionis non est nisian Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae when he had entangled himself with the distinctions of worshipping the Sacrament whither formally or materially would extricate himself by thus stating the matter and reducing it to this question Whither Christ be to be adored in the Eucharist And St. Clara b St. Clara Deus Natura Gratia p. 308 〈◊〉 bene non dicit concilium Tridentinum Sacramentum sed Christuns in Sacramento latria adorandum would reconcile the dispute with this Observation Nota benè Mark this the council of Trent does not say that the Sacrament is to be adored but Christ in the Sacrament I wonder so great a man as Cassander c Adoratio non ad exteriâ—s signum quod exterius videtur sed ad ipsam rem veritatem quae interiuâ— creditur referenda Cassand consult de Adorat Euchar. should say Unless with a design to condemn the thing That the Adoration is not to be given to the outward sign which is seen but is to be referr'd to the thing it self and to that which is truly and inwardly believed But Reconcilers who will attempt the vain project of Accomodation must do with the
Tongue understood and spoken by none in a Nation or so few as are next to none and which if used in Divine Offices would be wholly unintelligible Such are Persick and Indian with us The use of all this niceness is partly to clear the state of the Question and partly to prevent many of the Objections which the case is cumbred with And without the observing of which the Dispute will be turned from the point that is contraverted to that which is not As it happens for the most part among those of the Church of Rome that undertake the management of this Cause who do either distinguish where they are not to distinguish or do not distinguish where they should distinguish For sometimes they oppose the Dialects of a Tongue to that Tongue of which they are the Dialects At other times they oppose the common Tongue to the Vulgar Sometimes they confound the Learned Tongue with the common And then again oppose the learned and utterly unknown as if these two were of as different kinds as known and unknown To give an instance of each of these Ledesma c. 9. n. 4 5. 9. c. 20. n. 2. Sanders orat de Ling. Offic. eccl Do they undertake to shew how unfit and unreasonable it is to translate the Service or Scriptures into a Vulgar Tongue They endeavour to make it out by shewing how unfit it is to think of Translating and how unreasonable it is to expect they should be translated into the several Dialects of each Tongue Would they farther shew that the Divine Offices c. were not of old so translated they attempt to prove it from their not having been translated into different Dialects As if the Dialects of a Tongue differed as much from each other and all from the main Tongue of a Nation as a learned Tongue differs from the Vulgar which is to speak charitably for want of observing that the Dialects are but several modes of speaking the same Tongue and that ordinarily there is some common Standard which as I have said over-rules the rest and iâ— a guide common to all As here in England notwithstanding there be several Dialects and that there is one in Scotland differs much from them all yet there is but one Translation of the Bible and one Service for the use of the whole and that is fully if not equally understood by all Farthermore would they prove that anciently the Christian Churches used not a Vulgar Tongue in Divine Lâ—desma c. 9. n. 6. Service they presently multiply Authorities to shew that in many places they used Greek and Latine and that Greek and Latine were oftentimes Likâ—â—â—â— de SS in vulg non vert p. 51. not the Vulgar Tongues where they were so used As if the common Tongue for such were those two in elder in times where they were not the Vulgar was opposed to the Vulgar as much as unknown is to knownâ— and each was inconsistent with the other Bellarm. de verbo l. 2. c. 15. Thus they tell us from S. Jerom That the Vulgar Tongue in Galatia was in effect the same with that of the Treviri in Germany And yet there and in the neighbouring Countries they had the Scriptures if not their Divine Service in Greek Not observing that Greek was the common Tongue of those parts and that both that and a Vulgar were there freely and generally spoken as Greek and Latine as well as the Gallick Tongues were so frequent in Massilia that it was called Trilinguis as S. Jerome shews in the same Dissertation of his So that these two the Common and Vulgar are so far from being inconsistent that notwithstanding the bold saying of our Countrey-man Sanders That the common people understand nothing but their Mother Tongue The experience of Orat. ut antea all Ages as well as our own shews that they are frequently met together But to proceed would they demonstrate that they do and may lawfully use the Latine now in Divine Service they attempt with great industry to prove that both that and the Greek were anciently Ledesma c. 9. n. 1. c. 27. n. 9. used therein And so they confound the learned and the common Tongues and compare those times and places in which the Latin and Greek were commonly known and understood with our times and places in which neither of them are understood but by the learned Lastly Would they shew that S. Paul in 1 Corinthiaâ—s Ledesma c. 27. n. 9. Sanders orat Bellarm. de verb. l. 2. c. 16. 14. doth not oppose Service in Latine they undertake to shew That he opposeth no other Service then what is altogether unknown and no Body understands as Persick and Arabick and that he doth not condemn a Learned Tongue thereby supposing the Learned Tongue and Tongue altogether unknown to be different in kind whereas they only differ so that the one is rarely understood and by very few in comparison and other is understood by none Now in all this they say litle or nothing to the purpose For if they plead for their Latin Service as Greek was in Galatia and Latin in Africa who is their Adversary For these Tongues were as I have shewed in those and the like places as well or litle less spoken and understood then the Vulgar and Mother Tongues And the Protestants do not think it unlawful to have the common Service in a Tongue which is commonly understood though it be not the Vulgar Tongue of the Nation especially in Maritim and Provincial Countries where there is a concourse of diverse Nations and where either these several Languages are understood or there is a componnd Language that serves for all as the Lingua Franca before spoken of But if they plead for Latin as it is now when a Dead and Learned Tongue that is where it is not known at all as in the West-Indies where yet it is as much used by those of the Roman communion in Mass as in Europe or where it is not known to the Vulgar people as it is with us and every where else then they speak to the purpose for that the Reformed do oppose but then the way of arguing hitherto taken notice of is of no use to them in the World and is no more to the purpose then if they would undertake to prove that there is at this day a famous University at Athens and that Latin is the Vulgar Tongue now at Rome because these were so formerly So that if we will know where the Controversie lies and what is contended for and against we must restore things to their proper places and I think all may be brought to an Issue by puting and resolving this plain Question viz. SECT II. Qu. Whither it be lawful and expedient to use such a Tongue in the publick Worship of GOD as is not vulgarly or commonly understood by the people acording to the way at this day required and practised in the Church of Rome If we
imitation not to be Adored for Religion that at the Communion Table they were named but not Invocated And again you see the head of the most renowned Empire stooping with his Diadem and Praying at the Sepulchre of Peter the Fisherman namely 't is to God himself that he Prayes though at the Tomb of Peter Epiphanius reproving as he calls it the Womens Hoeres 79. adver Collyridian Heresie who were wont to offer up a Cake to the Blessed Virgin hath these words Let Mary be in Honour but let the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost be Worshipped and to shew us what a very ill opinion he had of that at least Superstitious practice he six times repeats in that tract Marian medies â—roskyneito Let no Man Adore Mary To name no more Tertullian in his Apology for the Apol. c. Sect. 30. 2. 3. Christians thus expresses himself after he had set down the many great Blessings the Christians thought themselves ever oblidged to beg for their Emperours As long life and Valiant Armies and a Faithful Senate and Loyal Subjects and a peaceable Reign these things saith he I may not Pray for from any other but from him of whom I know I shall obtain them because both it is he who is alone able to give and I am he to whom it appertains to obtain that which is requested being his Servant who observe him alone VII That the Doctrine and Practice of Saint-Invocation is Impious and Idolatrous THis I think will be fully made out from these three particulars 1. This ascribes to Angels and Saints the Attributes and Perfections that are solely proper and peculiar to God viz. his Omniscience and Omnipresence for not only when Mental Prayers as the Church of Rome directs but since the blessed Spirits above can't be supposed to espouse the cause of an insincere Votary when vocal Prayers also are offered up to them it supposes them Privy to the very thoughts and acquainted with the Hearts of Men again when innumerable Prayers and Supplications from Millions of places at the greatest distance from one another are at the same time immediately put up to them it supposes in like manner that they are present in all places and at the same time can give Audience to all their Petitioners Now what more or greater can be said of God Is not this that infinite knowledge that Omnipresent Power and never absent Nature that the Scriptures solely attribute to the Creator of all things and have denied to any of the highest Form of the Creatures And although I will not undertake to describe to you the exact bounds aad Measures of the Angelical Nature and Perfections how perspective their Knowledge is How piercing their understanding How swift their motion Yet sure I am that neither they nor any other the most elevated part of Gods Creation can by their Natural Power know the Hearts of Men and be in all places at one instant of time It is God alone whose understanding is infinite who looks down from Heaven beholds all the wayes of the Sons of Men He even he knoweth all the Hearts of the Children 1 King 8. 27. of Men. 'T is he that seeth in secret And God challenges it as a peculiar to himself The Heart is Matt. 6. 4. Jerem. 17. 9. 10. deceitful above all things and disperatly Wicked who can know it I the Lord search the Heart and try the Reins By this Argument the Fathers Triumph'd over the Arrians and Macedonians in proving the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost which yet would have been no Argument at all had not this Knowledge been an Incommunicable perfection in the Divine Nature But 't is said that 't is God indeed that only Naturally and of himself knows the Hearts o Men but this hinders not but that others his Saints and Angels may know them by Communication from him viz. Either by Revelation from God or by the Beatifick Vision Seeing all things in God who sees all things In answer to this not to mention how it contradicts the express words of Scripture which without any distinction or limitation does as plainly assert as words can do it That God only knows the Heart not to mention the many disputes the Romanists have among themselves which way is to be chosen as the most probable and after what manner is either way this knowledge is derived and past from God to them these things may be said 1. That God hath no where declared that he hath Communicated this Priviledge and Prerogative of his Nature to Saints and Angels or that he does any way make visible or known to them the Hearts and the Requests of Men and now if what is not of Faith is Sin we having no Text of Scripture to Build our Faith upon in this particular must of necessity Sin in Praying to them on that supposition and commit that very sin too which we doubt whither we so doing commit or no nay the silence of the Scripture in this particular has in a manner determined the point and we may conclude that the most jealous God has reserved the Honour of Intimation to himself alone since he has no where given us the least hint or intimation of leave to pray to them 2. We are informed in Scripture that the Saints departed do not particularly know or mind what 's done 2 Chron. 34. 28. here below God tells Josiah thou shalt be gathered to thy Grave in Peace neither shall thine Eyes see the Evil I will bring upon this place The Dead know not any thing that is of the affairs of this World saith the Eccl. 9. 5. Preacher His Sons come to Honour and he kneweth it not and they are brought low and he perceiveth it not of them sayes Job of Man in the other State When 2 Kings 2. 9. Elijah was about to be taken up into Heaven he thus spake to Elisha Ask what thou wilt before I am taken from thee Strongly implying that when he was once gone 't was in vain to ask any thing of him Elijah was immediately taken up into Heaven made no stay by the way in Limbo as the Romanists themselves agree being in Heaven his Love to Elisha could not be forgot nor his Interest in God lessened but rather both by being exalted thither very much encreased and augmented so that no reason can be given why he should limit and fix his making his desires known to him to the time of his abode with him on Earth but only this his perswasion that in the other State he should not be capable to hear his requests and so all his future addresses to him would be ineffectual To these we may add that known place in Isaiah Abraham doth not know us and Israel is ignorant of us from whence St. Austin concludes that if those great Men Isa 63. 16. and Founders of their Nation were ignorant of what was done in after Ages to their