and promulged this Law this reason can never repeal it nor dissolve the obligation of it Thus if the Saints and Angels being in Heaven be a good reason why they should be worshipped this was as good a reason at the giving of of the Law as it is now for thö we should suppose with the Church of Rome that Saints departed were not in Heaven then yet certainly the Angels were and if their being in Heaven made them fit objects of our worship why did God so expresly forbid it and if he forbad it then when there was as much reason to allow the worship of of those heavenly Inhabitants as there is now this argument cannot prove but that God forbids it still The same may be said of the Intercession of Saints and Angels The Papists suppose that the Saints and Angels pray and intercede for us in Heaven and obtain for and convey many blessings to us and therefore it is good and profitable to pray to them and to flie to their patronage now though indeed they date the Intercession of Saints as they do their admission into heaven from the Resurrection of our Saviour yet there is as much evidence for the aids and intercessions of Angels before and under the Law as there is now nay I think somewhat more for the government of the world was much more under the administration of Angels in the time of the Law then it is now and yet notwithstanding this God did by an express law forbid the worship of any being but himself and therefore of these Angelical powers who are somewhat superiour to Saints in Heaven and if this were no good reason against making this law it can be no good reason to prove the abrogation of it â— The next way they take to evade the obligation of this law of worshipping God only is by distinctions As to name the chief of them They tell us that this law is only opposed to the worship of false Gods such Gods as the Heathens worshipped not to the worship of Saints and Angels who are the Friends and Favourites of God And then they distinguish about the nature of worship they confess there is a worship which is peculiar to God Supreme and Soveraign worship which is peculiar to the Supreme Beeing and this for what reason I know not they call Latria but then there is an inferiour degree of worship which they call Dulia which may be given to excellent Creatures to Saints and Angels who reign with Christ in Heaven They farther distinguish between absolute and relative worship Absolute worship is when we worship a Beeing for its self and thus God only is to be worshipped but relative worship is when we worship one Beeing out of respect to another and thus we may worship Saints and Angels upon account of their relation to God Now I shall have occasion to examine these distinctions more particularly hereafter my business at present is to examine how far these distinctions can justifie the worship of Saints and Angels against an express Law which commands us to worship God only And I have three things to say on this argument 1. That the letter of the law will admit of no such distinctions as these 2. That the Scripture no where allows any such distinctions And 3. That no distinctions can justifie our acting against the letter of a law which have not the same authority which the Law has 1. The letter of the Law will admit of no such distinctions Exod. 20 as these The Law is Thou shalt have none other Gods before ME. The explication of this Law is Deut. 10 20. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God him shalt thou serve and to him shalt thou cleave and swear by his name Or as Matth 4 10 our Saviour expounds it Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Now these words do plainly exclude the worship of all other Beeings besides the Supreme God They exclude indeed the worship of all the Heathen Gods which were at that time worshipped in the world but they are not confined to the worship of the Heathen Gods nor meerly to the worship of those Gods who were at that time worshipped but should any new Gods start up in after Ages whither among Jews or Christians the words extend to all that are and all that ever shall be worshipped Thou shalt have noe other Gods before Me signifies that we must worship no other Beeing but the Supreme God for to have a God is to give religious worship to some Beeing as appears from that exposition which both Moses and our Saviour Christ gives of it Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve For it is impossible to have any God besides the Supreme God in any other sense then as we worship some other Beeing besides the Supreme God with Divine honours and whatever being we so worship become our God and therefore this Law forbids the worship of any Beeing which is not God be it Saint or Angel or the Virgin Mary how excellent and perfect Creatures soever they be they are not our God and therefore must not be worshipped If we must worship and serve God only as our Saviour expresly tells us that we must worship no creature whatever it be the worship of saints and Angels is as expresly forbid by this Law as the worship of the Heathen Gods for that Law which commands us to worship GOD onely excludes the worship of all Creatures whatever they be But may not the meaning of this Law be onely this That we must not give supreme and soveraign worship to any other â—eeing but the supreme GOD but we may give an inferiour degree of worship to some excellent spirits who under God have the care of us And is not this plainly signified in the very letter of the Law when it sayes Thou shalt have none other Gods before me For no other worship makes any Beeing a God but that which is supreme and soveraign peculiar and appropriate to the One supreme God and therefore not to have any other Beeing for our God is not to give Supreme and Soveraign Worship to it Now what that worship is which is peculiar and appropriate to the Supreme God I shall discourse particularly in the second part our present inquiry is whither this Law makes any such distinction The Laws says Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Here is no distinction between supreme and subordinate worship whatever is an Act of worshâ—p must be given to God onely But the Law sayes Thou shalt have no other Gods before me and therefore it must signifie supreme and soveraign worship for no other degree of worship makes a God Did the Heathens then worship no inferiour gods did those who worshipped so many several gods look â—pon them all as supreme and absolute or were they so senseless as to give supreme and soveraign
one Lord Mediatour the Heathens had many Soveraign Gods betwixt whom and Men they supposed there was no immediate intercourse they had also many under Gods or Doemons by whose Agency and Mediatourship they addrest themselves to their Soveraign Gods this the Apostle confutes and shews that Christians are taught to believe and profess but one God Maker of all things to whom they ought to Pray and but one Lord Mediatour and Advocate by whom they offer their Petitions to him 2. That there needed no other besides this one he being a Mediator of Redemption too and on that account had not only an Authority and Commission from God to shew for that office but an infinite worth and invaluable merits of his own to plead in behalf of Mankind and to procure the granâ—ing of their requests he hath purchast what he begs for and atoned for what he Praâ—s for having no Sin of his own to answer for he was excellently qualified to interceed for Pardon for our Sins and having perfectly fulfilled all righteousness and shed his most precious Blood for us he highly merited of God both for us and for himself for us the several blessings he interceeds for for himself the God like Honour and Royalty to be the Donour and Dispenser of them Hence it is that the Apostle here makes his Mediation â—â—â—â—pend on his Propitiation and after he had told there is but one Mediatour presently subjoins Who gave himself a Ransom for all to the same purpose is that of St. John Ver. 6. 1. Joh. 21. 2. If any Man Sin we have an Advocate with the Father that is the same with a Mediatour of Intercession and that we might be fully assured of the greatness of his John 2. 1 2. Authority and Power he adds Jesus Christ the Righteous and he is the Propitiation for our Sins A third Scripture against Saint-Invocation are those words of our Saviour Mat. 4. 10. Taken out of Deut. 6. 13. Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Now if Prayer be a necessary and chief part of God's Worship as all are agreed it is we are bound by this Scripture to Pray only to God But to this they say there are several degrees of Religious Worship and that it is only an inferiour kind wherewith they Worship the Saints departed called by them Duleia when it 's applied to ordinary Saints and hyperduleia when to the blessed Virgin and that they never Worship them as they do God with Latreia the highest kind of Worship if it be asked How does this appear since the same Signs and outward Acts of Worship are performed to the one as well as to the other They answer that they have higher conceptions and intentions of Honour to God in the exercise of their officâ—â— to him then when they perform the like to any Angel or Saint deparâ—ed To this several things may be said 1. If these words him only shalt thou serve are to be understood only of the highest degree of Religious worship as a part of the whole and distinguish'd from a lower kind they had not been a sufficient answer to the Devils demand he might thus have answered I acknowledge the Soveraign and Almighty Power of God as well as you That it is he alone can command Ver. 3 Stones to become Bread and this Power I have over the Kingdoms of the World I own to have received from him for it was delivered to me And therefore I do not Luke 4. 6. desire that thou shouldest Worship me as thou doest God with Latreia with the highest degree of worship but only with Duleia a lower kind thy Heart the highest and most elevated thoughts and conceptions of thy mind may be given to God 't is only the outward Act that I challenge of thee that thou wouldest only fall down and Worship me or by falling down worship Me. 2. That the Scriptures often use these two words Latreia and Duleia promiscuously to signify the same thing and as sometimes Latreia is set to signify that Civil Honour and Service that 's due to Men in Eminency and Authority so is Duleia to express that Religious worship that 's only due to God As to the first God Deut. 28. 48. Latreuseis thus threatens the Isralites therefore thou shalt serve thine Enemies as to the other many places may be instanced in thus when Samuel exhorted the House of Isarel to prepare their Hearts unto the Lord and to serve him only and when the Apostles urged Christians to be fervent in Spirit serving the Lord and when our Saviour said ye cannot 1. Sam 7. 3. duleusate Rom. 10. 11. duleuontes Matt. 6. 24. u dunasthe Theo dulein serve God and Mammon Duleuein is the word made use of 3. That there is no such distinction in Religious worship as an higher and lower kind because whatever is Religious worship is such with respect to God only as the Object and therefore can be but one and that in the highest degree as God is one and infinitely exalted above all Religion say the School-Men is a Moral Vertue which exhibits due Worship to God as the L. 4 Inst c. 28. de ver Rel. c. 55. Principal of all things Lactantius therefore derives it a Religando because it ties Man to God and St. Austin à Religendo because Men choose God again whom they had forsaken 'T is not therefore whatsoever is excellent but whatsoever is Divine and as it is Divine that is the Object of Religion now Angels and Holy Men although there be some kind of Honour due to those excellencies that are found in them an Honour Commensurate to those excellencies yet falling infinitely short of Divinity must be excluded from having any share of that worship which either by God himself or the universal consent of Mankind is made Religious that is appropriate to God Neither 4. Will it help the matter to say that though the outward Acts and Expressions of worship to both are the same there is a vast differrence in the inward Devotions of their minds and Souls and that which they Pray to Saints and Angels they must not be thought to do it with that height of Affection and trust and resignation wherewith they call upon God For when all is done words and outward Acts will be reckon'd to signify according to that sense and meaning Custom and Institution hath stamp'd upon them and let the inward thoughts of the Votary be what they will if he apply to Saints and Angels in such expressions and offices or with such Rites and Ceremonies as according to the usual acceptation of them naturally import that Hope and Confidence that Love and Duty that is due to God alone he will be deem'd to ascribe unto them naturally import that Hope and Confidence that Love and Duty that is due to God alone he will be deem'd to ascribe unto them the Honour which he owes to
denial that Transubstantiation hath not been the perpetual belief of the christian church And thâ—s likewise is acknowledged by many great and learned men of the Roman church a In Sent. l. 4. Dist 11. Q. 3. Scotus acknowledgeth that this Doctrine was not alwayes thought necessary to be believed but that the necessity of believing it was consequent to that Declaration of the Church made in the council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the III. And b In sent l. 4. dist 11. q. 1. n. 15. Durandus freely discovers his inclination to have believed the contrary if the Church had not by that determination oblidged men to believe it c de Euchar. l. 1. p. 146. Tonstal Bishop of Durham also yields that before the Lateran council men were at liberty as to the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament And d In 1. Epist ad corinth c. 7. citan te etiam Salmerone Tom. 9. Tract 16. p. 108. Erasmus who lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church and then whom no man was better read in the ancient Fathers doth confess that it was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation unknown to the Ancients both name and thing And e De Haeres l. 8. Alphonsus a castro sayes plainly that concerning the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ there is seldom any mention in the ancient Writers And who can imagine that these learned men would have granted the ancient Church and Fathers to have been so much Strangers to this Doctrine had they thought it to have been the perpetual belief of the Church I shall now in the Second place give an account of the particular time and occasion of the coming in of this Doctrine and by what steps and degrees it grew up and was advanced into an Article of Faith in the Romish Church The Doctrine of the Corporal presence of Christ was first started started upon occasion of the Dispute about the Worship of Images in opposition whereto the Synod of Constantinople about the year DCCL did argue thus That our Lord having left us no other Image of himself but the Sacrament in which the substance of bread is the image of his body we ought to make no other image of our Lord. In answer to this Argument the second Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII did declare that the Sacrament after Consecration is not the image and antitype of Christs body and bloud but is properlie his body and bloud So that the corporal Body of Christ in the sacrament was first brought in to support the stupid worship of Images And indeed it could never have come in upon a more proper occasion nor have been applied to a fitter purpose And here I cannot but take notice how well this agrees with * De Eucharist l. 1. c. 1. Bellarmine's Observation that none of the Ancients who wrote of Heresies hath put this errour viz. of denying Transubstantiation in his catalogue nor did any of the Ancients dispute against this errour for the first 600 years Which is very true because there could be no occasion then to dipute against those who denied Transubstantiation since as I have shewn this Doctrine was not in being unless amongst the Eutychian Heretiques for the first 600 years and more But ‡ Ibid. Bellarmine goes on and tells us that the first who call'd in question the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist were the ICONOMACHI the opposers of Images after the year DCC in the Council of Constantinople for these said there was one image of Christ instituted by himself viz the bread and wine in the Eucharist which represents the body and bloud of Christ Wherefore from that time the Greek Writers often admonish us that the Eucharist is not the figure or image of the body of the Lord but his true body as appears from the VII Synod which agrees most exactly with the account which I have given of the first rise of this Doctrine which began with the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament and afterwards proceeded to Transubstantiation And as this was the first occasion of introducing this Doctrine among the Greek so in the Latine or Roman Church Paschasius Radbertus first a Monk and afterwards Abbot of Corbey was the first broacher of it in the year DCCCXVIII And for this besides the Evidence of History we have the acknowledgment of two very Eminent Persons in the Church of Rome Bellarmine and Sirmondus who do in effect confess that this Paschasius was the first who wrote to purpose upon this Argument * Descriptor Eccles Bellarmine in those words this Author was the first who hath seriously and copiously written concerning the truth of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist And †In vita Paschasii Sirmoâ—dus in these he so first explained the genuine sense of the Catholick church that he opened the way to the rest who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the same Argument But though Sirmondus is pleased to say that he only first explained the sense of the Catholique Church in this Point yet it is very plain from the Records of that Age which are left to us that this was the first time that this Doctrine was broached in the Latin Church and it met with great opposition in that Age as I shall have occasion hereafter to shew For Rabanus Maurus Arch-biship of Meâ—tz about the year DCCCXLVII reciting the very words of Paschusius wherein he had deliver'd this Doctrine hath this remarkable passage concerning the novelty of it ‡ Epist. ad Heribaldum c. 33. Some sayes he of late not having a right opinion concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord have said that this is the body and bloud of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered upon the cross and rose from the dead which errour sayes he we have opposed with all our might From whence it is plain by the Testimony of one of the greatest and most learned bishops of that Age and of eminent reputation for Piety that what is now the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament was then esteem'd an Errour broach'd by some particular Persons but was far from being the generally received Doctrine of that Age. Can any one think it possible that so eminent a Person in the Church both for piety and learning could have condemned this Doctrine as an Errour and a Novelty had it been the general Doctrine of the Christian Church not only in that but in all former Ages and no censure pass'd upon him for that which is now the great burning Article in the Church of Rome and esteemed by them one of the greatest and most prenicious Heresies Afterwards in the year MLIX when Berengarius in France and Germany had raised a fresh opposition against this Doctrine he was compelled to recant it by pope Nicholas
glorious with arrogant Titles and borrow'd Names Search into the Pedegree of Romes Religion we do not find Christ or St. Peter or any of his Apostles to be the Authors of it but Pride Interest and Design old Vices indeed but new Fathers of a Christian church which brought in a late and new generation of Opinions and additions to Christs Religion clothing them with the venerable Names of Primitive and Apostolical Where was the Romish Religion before the Council of Trent concluded onely about the year 1563. of a latter date then when Luther first began which legitimated all their Innovations the issue of Scholastick Wranglings pretended Dreaâ—â—s and Visions forc'd and unnatural Senses of Scripture Ambition and Profit the Fxchequer of Rome to be made Sons of the Church and Fundamentals of the Christian Faith Many of their own Writers confess that for 1400 or â— 500 years the Pope was not believ'd to be infallible till of late some of their flaming Zealots have vested him with infallibility whereby the Roman Church is sick unto death and no cure is to be applyed because she is so certain and sure that she is well Their lewd Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not made an Article of Faith till the Council of Laâ—eran under Innocent the third above 1200 years after Christ and many of their own Writers are still dissatisfied about it The Title of Vniversal Bishop was obtained by Pope Boniface the Third not till about 600 years after Christ fearing a powerful Rival the Constantinopolitan Bishop who affected the same and therefore by the Popes themselves was declaimed against as proud and Antichristian but now by Hypocrisie and base compliance with the wicked Phocas who was guilty of Treason and Murder against the Emperour Mauritius Rome gained the delicious point and has made it a fundamental Article of her new Religion though the Popes came not up to their swaggering temper and Power of Hectoring Christian Princes some hundred of years afâ—erwards The Doctrine of Purgatory which some derive from the Platonick Fancies of Origen the Montanism of Tertullian pretended Visions and Pagan Stories Rhetorical Flourishes and doubtful Expressions of the later Fathers yet it was not positively affirmed till about the year 1140. and not made an Article of Faith till the Council of Trent then indeed a good Estate became a surer way to Heaven then a good Life and Conversation The use of indulgences was the Moral to the Fable of Purgatory and began to grow much what about the same time though it came not to the height and perfection till Pope Leo the Tenths time when Luther so stoutly opposed them then Heaven was set to sale and the best Chapman was the greatest Saint though they boast of the second Council of Nice for the Antiquitie of their Image Worship And if it will do thern any good so they may of Simon Magus who was of an elder date and a very fit Patron of Acts 11. 13 such an Opinion yet the Council of Frankfurt condemned it and the purest times did not so much as allow the making of Images And it was not the Catholick Doctrine in France for almost 900 years after Christ nor in Germany till after the 12th Câ—â—tury then indeed such a Doctrine might be very proper when true Religion was turned into Pageantry and a form of Godliness The number of the seven Sacraments is now an Article of the Romish Faith yet the Council of Florence ended in the year 1439 was the first Council and Peter Lombard the first man that precisely fixt that number That the Laity ought to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper onely in one kind was never made an Article of Faith till the Council of Constance concluded in the year 1418 then indeed that Council with the greatest insolence and a direct Invasion of the Authority of CHRIST took the Cup from the Laymens mouths notwithstanding as it was then acknowledged the Institution of CHRIST to the contrary and they may as well Christen the Laicks Children only in the name of the Holy Ghost leaving out the Father and the Son by the way of concomitancy it being as Lawful to Baptize as Communicat by the halfes For what cannot such a pretended Power do The prohibiting of Priests to Marry was not in perfection as 't is now till Pope Gregory the Sevenths time Let them tell us where 't is said by Christ or his Apostles or any of the truly Ancient Writers of the christian Church that Pennance is a Sacrament or that Auricular Confession is necessary to Salvation or that Prayers ought to be made in an unknown Tongue or that good works are strictly meritorious or where can they find the many Impieties and absurdities of their Mass in those early times of Antiquity And since they are fond of asking us this Question we might ask them many more about the many Fopperies and Innovations in their Faith and Devotion and many they are and large is the inventory almost as many as are the Christian Truths in direct opposition to them or prevarication from them But they seem to confess the newness of their Religion when they arrogantly set up a Power in their Church to frame new Articles of Faith and many things only Opinions and Notions at first have grown up by degrees to Fundamental Truths and having once slipt into errour they are bound to maintain it for the Reputation and Autâ—ority of Holy Church And who knows how many of this Nature are upon the Romish forge ready to be put into their Creed and where must we end not till it be believed that consecrated Feathers and Holy Water can convey Divine Grace to us and drive away wicked Spirits and the Weathercocks of our Churches be thought Pâ—illars of it Would the Champions of Rome speak out they would tells us as their Eckius did the Duke of Bavaria That the Doctrine of Luther might be overthrown by the Fathers though not by the Scriptures 't is a plain confession that we have the truest Antiquity on our side and in the beginning it was not so But we add that we have the Fathers also on our side for otherwise what mean their Expurgat orian Indices of the Fathers and other Ancient Writters but that they very well know that these are old Enemies to Pope Pins's new Creed and the Truth in them confounds their errour Such an account as this about the Original and Progress of their new Additions to the old Faith was convenient to be given not because the Nature of the thing did necessarily require it for it had been sufficient only to have prov'd that these Romish Additions to the Christian Faith are contrary to the Word of GOD and no where to be found in any of the Divine Writings the only Infallible Rule of Faith and that they have no power of minting new Articles Fundamental to Salvation but because the Disciples of Rome so frequently ask us the Question and
Power or Design it 's no wonder it did prevail in a sly and silent manner interest having put out their eyes this Kingdom came not with observation and the approaches of the Enemy in the night of Ignorance viz. the darkness that could be felt of the ninth tenth and eleventh century when all good Learning and Manners too were fast asleep the time when many of the new devices of Rome were hammering out and the noise not heard were not discovered till they had taken possession and then by vertue of Power and great Names defended their Title And their own Writers confess that many of the great Guardians of Faith the Popes of Rome were very Vicious and Illiterate persons whose Vice and Ignorance kept them nodding while the little Theives the Notions and Speculations of men of Wit and Interest set open the Churches doors for the greater Errours to come crouding in Our Saviour confirms the truth of this when he compares his Church to a Field which had been sown by him and his Apostles with very good seed Wheat or some other Grain but while men sleept when Christians were grown wicked and careless ignorant or factious comes the Enemy and scatters the Tares and a new harvest of Weeds Heretical Doctrines Superstitious Practices Foppish and Phantastick Mat. 13. 24 25. Rites over-ran and choakt the purer Grain And the Apostle tells his Disciples that men of dangerous principles abusing the grace of God speaking evil of Dignities and despising Dominions and denying Christ that bought them had creept in unawares being well disguis'd with fine Names and pretences Jude 4. while good men were careless and sleept And when most begin to broach nâ—w Errours and spread their inventions for mighty Truths they do it with all the skill and artifice that so bad a design can possibly require Errour and Innovation necessarily calling for the utmost cunning and slyness to its aid and assistance Religion therefore may easily suffer a considerable change yet good men know not how neither the time nor authors of it It being therefore only absolutely necessary for us to know that whensoever and howsoever these errours in the Church first sprung up that they were contrary to the Primitive Faith of Christ and his Apostles and therefore were to be amended and weeded up notwithstanding the common question where was our harvest of Wheat before the Weeders our Reformers came for the Church of England finding old Christianity strangely over-grown with the new Doctrines and Creeds of Rome contrary to the Offices of CHRIST the designe of his undertaking for Mankind and the true spirit of his Religion it became a duty as much as they lov'd their Souls and would be true and loyal unto CHRIST to shake off these new and sinful Impositions and restore true and primitive Christianity Had our differences with Rome consisted only in things less fit and proper used by them in their religious Offices or in Rituals or Gestures not so decent they might have had some pretence to roar against us for breaking off Communion with her but when they plow up the very Foundation as one of her Pagan Captains did the Walls of Jerusalems Temple and lay all waste before them their new additions eating out the very Heart of old Religion to thunder out damnation against us because we renounce her Communion in this is to add uncharitableness and other gross Vices to their former sin as though they could not preserve Christianity but by defacing of it more Our Prince being constituted by GOD a nursing Father of the Church and our Bishops in their Episcopal power being co-ordinate with him of Rome or any other in the Christian World ought under the penalty of Damnation and did accordingly reform the Romish corruptions which had tainted the Vitals of Christianity an indispensable duty it was to preserve the Primitive Faith like a chast Virgin and not to suffer it to be 2 Cor. 11. 2. longer prostituted to the Designs and Passions of men by a solemn Vow and our Souls were at stake we had engag'd to preserve it pure undefiled therefore with all just and proper wayes and methods we were bound earnestly to contend for it In duty therefore to our Lord and Masters Command at such a time we began our Reformation but wish that it had been promoted and compleated many years before though the same Question would have been as fitly asked then or any other time except they think that errours must be immortal and the gates of Heaven shall not prevail against them The goodness and wisdom of our Reformation would be readily acknowledg'd and imitated did not Fame and Ambition Power and Secular Interest infect the Eye and change the natural shape and colour of things and 't is a sign the cause of Rome wants strength when such a trifling only popular Objection against our Reformation is made so powerful to preserve their Disciples in their Communion and amuse our own And we need say no more against it but this and 't is no Roman uncharitableness and rigour That if Rome notwithstanding all the clear evidence against her new and upstart Opinions shall obstinately defend them and contemn a wise and pious Reformation let her suffer the just punishment of her wilful errours He that will prefer an old Disease before a new Cure let him be for ever sick For we have healed Babylon and she was not healed FINIS A DISCOURSE ABOUT TRADITION Shewing what is meant by it AND WHAT TRADITION Is to be Received AND WHAT TRADITION Is to be Rejected The third EDITION EDINBURGH Printed by J. Reid 1686. A DISCOURSE ABOUT TRADITION AN Obligation being laid upon us at our Baptism to believe and to do the whole will of GOD revealed unto us by Christ Jesus it concerns every one that would be saved to enquire where that whole intire Will of God is to be found where he may so certainly meet with it and be so informed about it that he may rest satisfied he hath it all And there would be no difficulty in this matter had not the worldly interest of some men raised Controversies about it and made that intricate and perplexed which in it self is easie and plain For the Rehearsal of the Apostles Creed at Baptism and of that alone as a Summary of the Faith whose sincere profession intitles us to the Grace there conferred warrants the Doctrine of the Church of England in its VI Article that the Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an Article of Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation But this strickes off so many of the Doctrines of the present Roman Church which are not to be found in the Scripture nor have any countenance there that they are forced to say the Faith once delivered to the
the holy Scriptures into the hands of the Pagans were look'd upon by Christians as men that were content to part with their Religion For which there could be no reason but that they thought Christian Religion to be therein contained and to be betrayed by those who delivered them to be burnt By which I have proved more then I intended in this part of my Discourse that in the holy Scriptures the whole Will of God concerning our Salvation is contained Which is the true Question between us and the Church of Romeâ— Not whither the Scripture be delivered to us as the Word of GOD or no in this our People ought to tell them we are all agreed but whither they have been delivered to us as the whole Will of GOD. And from that Argument now mentioned and many more we conclude that Universal Tradition having directed us unto these Books and no other they direct us sufficiently without any other Doctrines unto GOD and to our everlasting rest And if they urge you farther and say that the very Credit of the Scripture depends upon Tradition tell them that it is a Speech not to be endured if they mean thereby that it gives the Scripture its authority and if they mean less we are agreed as hath been already said for it is to say that Man gives authority to GOD's Word Whereas in truth the holy Scriptures are not therefore of Divine Authority because the Church hath delivered them so to be but the Church hath delivered them so to be because it knew them to be of such authority And if the Church should have conceived or taught otherwise of these Writings then as of the undoubted Oracles of GOD she would have erred damnably in such a Tradition I shall sum up what hath been said in this second particular in a few words Christ and his Apostles at first taught the Church by word of mouth but afterward that which they preach'd was by the commandment of GOD commited to writing and delivered unto the Church to be the ground of our Faith Which is no more then Irenaeus hath said in express words L. 3. C. 1. speaking of them by whom the Gospel came unto all Nations Which they then preached but afterward by the Will of GOD delivered unto us in the Scriptures to be in time to come the Foundation and Pillar of our Faith III. And farther we likewise acknowledge that the sum and substance of the Christian Religion contained in the Scriptures hath been delivered down to us even from the Apostles dayes in other wayes or forms besides the Scriptures For instance in the Baptismal Vow in the Creed in the Prayers and Hymns of the Church Which we may call Traditions if we please but they bring down to us no new Doctrine but only deliver in an abridgment the same Christianity which we find in the Scriptures Upon this there is no need that I should enlarge but I proceed farther to affirm IV. That we reverently receive also the unanimous Tradition or Doctrine of the Church in all Ages which determines the meaning of the holy Scripture and makes it more clear and unquestionable in any point of Faith wherein we can find it hath declared its sense For we look upon this Tradition as nothing else but the Scripture unfolded not a new thing which is not in the Scripture but the Scripture explained and made more evident And thus some part of the Nicene Creed may be called a Tradition as it hath expresly delivered unto us the sense of the Church of GOD concerning that great Article of our Faith That JESUS CHRIST is the Son of GOD. Which they teach us was alwayes thus understood the Son of GOD begotten of his Father before all worlds and of the same substance with the Father But this Tradition supposes the Scripture for its ground and delivers nothing but what the Fathers assembled at Nice believed to be contained there and was first fetch'd from thence For we find in Theodoret L. 1. C. 6. that the famous Emperour Constantine admonished those Fathers in all their Questions and Debates to consult only with these heavenly inspired Writings Because the Evangelical and Apostolical Books and the Oracles of the old Prophets do evidently instruct us what to thiâ—k in Divine matters This is so clear a Testimony that in those dayes they made this compleat Rule of their Faith whereby they ended Controversies which was the reason that in several other Synods we find they were wont to lay the Bible before them and that there is nothing in the Nicene Creed but what is to be found in the Bible that Cardinal Bellarmine hath nothing to reply to it but this Constantine was indeed a great Emperour but no great Doctor Which is rather a Scoff than an Answer and casts a scorn not only upon him but upon the great Council who as the same Theodoret witnesseth assented unto that speech of Constantine So it there follows in these words That most of the Synod were obedient to what he had discoursed and embraced both mutual Concord and sound Doctrine And accordingly St. Hilary a little after extols his Son Constantius for this that he adhered to the Scriptures and blames him only for not attending to the true Catholick sense of them His words are these in his little Book which he delivered to Constantius I truly admire thee O Lord Constantius the Emperour who desirest a Faith according to what is writen They pretended to no other in those dayes but as he speaks a little after look'd upon him that refused this as Antichrist It was only required that they should receive their Faith out of God's Books not merely according to the words of them but according to their true meaning because many spake Scripture without Scripture and pretended to Faith without Faith as his words are and herein Catholick and constant Tradition was to guide them For whatsoever was contrary to what the whole Church had received and held from the beginning could not in reason be thought to be the meaning of that Scripture which was alledged to prove it And on the other side the Church pretended to no more then to be a Witness of the received sense of the Scriptures which were the bottom upon which they built this Faith Thus I observe Hegesippus saith in Euseb his History L. 4. C. 22. that when he was at Rome he met with a great many Bishops and that he received the very same Doctrine from them all And then a little after tells us what that was and whence they derived it saying That in every succession of Bishops and iâ— every City so they held as the Law preached and as the Prophets and as the Lord. That is according to the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament I shall conclude this particular with a pregnant passage which I remember in a famous Divine of our Church Dr. Jacksons in his Treatise of the Catholick Church Chap. 22. who writes
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
were their Prayers which were offered up in vertue of their Sacrifice And therefore Isa 56. 7. Mat. 21. 13. 1 King 8. this is a peculiar name for the Temple that it was the House of Prayer Here GOD was more immediately present to hear those Prayers which were offered to him according to Solomons Prayer at the Dedication of the Temple It is true the devout Jews did pray to God where ever they were though at a great distance from the Temple whither in the land of Canaan or out of it but then there are two things which shew that relation their prayers had to the Temple Worship 1. That their stated hours of prayer were the hours of Sacrifice which plainly signified that they offered up their Prayers in conjunction with those Sacrifices which were at that time offered in the Temple and therefore that they prayed only to that GOD to whom they sacrified for we must consider that the constant morning and evening Sacrifices were not particular sacrifices but were offered for the whole Congregation of Israel and therefore every man had a share in them Hence the time of offering the Sacrifice is called the hour of Prayer Thus Peter and John went up into the temple at the hour of Prayer being the ninth hour that is the time of the Evening Sacrifice Hence are such expressions as that of the Psalmist Acts. 3. 1. Let my Prayer be set before thee as Incense and the lifting up of my hands as the Evening Sacrifice Nay it is most probable that when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed and the people carried captive into Babylon and the daily Sacrifice ceased yet the devout people observed the hour of Sacrifice for the prayers Thus Daniel prayed three times a day which most likely were Evening and Morning and Noon Where Evening and Morning no doubt signifie the time of the Evening and Morning Dan. 6. 10. Psal 55. 17. Sacrifice and we are told that the Angel Gabriel came to Daniel while he was praying and touched him about the time of the Evening oblation But 2ly besides Dan. 9. 21. this when they offered up their Prayers to GOD in other parts of the Nation or in other Countries they prayed towards Jerusalem and the Temple of God as we now lift up our eyes to Heaven where God dwells Thus Solomon in his Prayer of Dedication does not only beg of God to hear those Prayers which were made towards it as the words must signifie in several places In general he prays Hearken thou to the Prayer of thy servant and of the people Israel when they shall pray 1 King 8. 30. towards this place The word in the Hebrew may signifie both in and towards this place and includes both as appears from the following instances which refer both to Prayers made in the Temple and to those prayers which were made towards the Temple by persons who were at a distance Thus in what ever part of the Nation they wanted rain which might be at a great distance from Jerusalem they were to pray towards this place ver 35. The same was to be done in case of Famine and Pestilence c. or if they were besiged in any of their Cities when they could not go to the Temple to pray Nay What Prayer or supplication soever shall be made by any man or by all thy people Israel which shall know every man the plague of his vers 37. ver 39. own heart and spread forth his hands towards this house then hear thou in Heaven thy dwelling place and forgive Thus when they went out to battle they were to pray towards the City of Jerusalem and towards the Temple vers 44. And when they were carried captive into their enemies land they were to pray to God toward the land which God had given them towards the Holy City and towards the Temple And accordingly it was the constant practice vers 48. of Daniel when he was in Babylon to pray three times a day to God with his windows open in his chamber toward Dan. 6. 10. Jerusalem So that though the Temple were not the only place where they might lawfully pray to God yet all their Prayers were to be directed to the Temple and receive their vertue and acceptation from their relation to the Temple and the Temple-worship This was a standing rule for the whole Jewish Nation that whenever they prayed they offered up their prayers in the Temple or towards it and this is generally observed by them to this day For the reason why they generally now turn themselves toward the East when they pray is not out of any respect to the rising of the Sun but because they live in Western Countries and so by turning to the East they look towards Jerusalem and the place where the Temple stood And this is as plain an evidence that all Buxtorfii Synag Jud. p. 222. their prayers as well as Sacrifices were to be offered onely to that GOD who dwelt in the Temple And therefore as they are commanded to pray to God and this is made the peculiar attribute of God that he heareth Psalm 65. 2. Josh 23. 7. prayers and therefore unto him shall all flesh come so they are expresly commanded not to make mention of the name of the Heathen gods that is not to pray to them the prayers of the Heathens consisting of a frequent repetition of the names of their gods as we see in the priests of Baal who cried from morning till evening saying O Baal hear us 1 Kin. 18. 26 Thus the Jews were commanded to bring all their Vows first Fruits Tythes and offerings to the Temple which is a plain sign to whom they were offered The Seventh-day-Sabbath was a sign that they worship'd that God who created the world in six days and rested on the seventh and delivered them from their Egyptian Bondage and gave them rest in that good Land both which reasons are assigned by Moses and therefore God command them by the prophet Ezekiel Nallow my sabbaths Ezek. 20. 20 and they shall be a sign between me and you that ye may know that I am the Lord your God They had but three solemn Festivals every year and they were all in remembrance of the great Works of God and all the Males were to go up to Jerusalem to keep these Feasts and therefore alâ— these were the Feasts of the Lord Jehovab And as they were to pray only to God so they were onely to swear by his Name which is another part of Religious Worship and therefore to swear by the Lord of Hosts is called Deut. 10. 21 Isa 12. 1â— the Language of Canaan So that all the parts of the Jewish Worship were appropriated to the Lord Jehovah he was the only object of their dread and fear and religious Adorations And when we consider that God had chosen them to be a peculiar people to himself that the
Land was a Holy Land Gods peculiar Inheritance which he gave by promise to their Fathers and the Temple was his House where he dwelt among them it cannot be expected that any other Gods might be worship'd by such a people in such a Land and in such a house as God had appropriated to himself 3. It is very considerable that we have no approved example under the Law of any worship pay'd to Saints or Angels or any other Beeing but God alone We have too many sad examples of the Idolatry of the Jews both in worshipping the Molten Calf which Aaron made and Jeroboams Calves and Baalim's and other Heathen gods but had it been allowed by their Law to have pay'd any inferiour degree of Religious Worship to Saints and Angels which is now asserted by the Church of Rome to be a matter of such great benefit and advantage to mankind it is a very strange that we should not have one example of it throughout the Scripture nor any authentick Records among the Jewish Writers All the Psalms of David are directed to God alone and yet we cannot think but such a devout man would have bestowed some Hymns upon his Patron and tutelar Saints had he worship'd any such as well as the Papâ—sts do now This the Church of Rome sees and acknowledges and thinksshe answers too when she gives us the reason why it could not be so under the Law because those Old Testament-Saints were not then admitted into Heaven to the immediate vision and fruition of God Heaven-gates were not opened till the resurrection and Ascension of our Saviour and therefore those blessed Spirits were not in a condition to be our Intercessors and Mediators till they were received into Heaven but now Saints and Martyrs ascend directly into Heaven and reign with Christ in Glorie and it seems share with him in his peculiar Worship and Glorie too Now 1. Whither this be so or not the Scriptures assign no such reason for it and therfore it is likely there might be other reasons and I think I have made it very plain that there was We are not inquiring for what reasons the Jewish Church did not worship Saints and Angels but whither they did worship them or not and it appears that they never did so that we have neither precept nor example for this during all the time of the Jewish Church which is all we intend to prove by this argument 2. But yet it is evident that this is not a good reason why the Jews did not worship Angels under the Law For certainly Angels were as much in Heaven then as they are now whatever Saints were They are represented in the Old Testament as the constant Attendants and Râ—tinue of God and the great Ministers of his Providence and therefore they were as capable of Divine Worship in the time of the Law as they are now nay I think a little more For the Law it self was given by the Ministry of Angels and their appearances were more frequent and familiar and the world seemed to be more under the Government of Angels then then it is now since Christ is made the Head of the Church and exalted above all principalities and powers And therefore sometimes the Advocates of the Church of Rome make some little offers to prove the worship of Angels in those days to this purpose they alledge that form of benediction which Jacob used in blessing the Sons of Josheph The Gen. 44. 16. Angel which redemed me from all evil bless the Lads But 1. This is not a direct prayer to the Angel but onely his committing of them to the care and patronage of that Angel with a prayer to God for that purpose And if he by experience had found that God had appointed his Angel to defend and protect him it was but reasonable to pray to God that the same Angel might protect his posterity 2. But yet according to the sense of the Antient Fathers this was no created Angel and Spirit but the Son and Word of God the Angel of the presence who is so often in Scripture stiled Jehovah a name which can belong to no created Spirit And it is no hard matter to make it highly probable that this is that Angel who redeemed Jacob out of all his troubles But it is strange if Angels were worshipped under the Old Testament we should have no clearer and plainer evidence of it then such a single Text which was never expounded either by any Jewish or Christian Writers to this sense till of late dayes and here the Priests of the Church of Rome are to be put in mind of their Oath to expound Scripture according to the unanimous consent of the Ancient Fathers SECT III. The Testimonies of the Gospel considered whither Chrâ—â—â— and his Apostles have made any alteration in the object â—f our Worship LEt us now proceed in the second place to consider Sect. 3. the writings of the New Testament and examine what they teach us concerning the object of our Worship And that Christ and his Apostles have made no change in the object of our worship will appear from these considerations 1. That they could not do it Had they ever attempted to set up the worship of any other Beeings besides the One Supreme God the Lord Jehovah the Jews were expresly commanded by their Law not to believe them nor hearken to them whatever signs and wonders and miracles they had wrought If there arise among you a Prophet or a dreamer of dreams and giveth thee a Deut. 13. 1 2 3 4 5. sign or wonder and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee saying let us go after other Gods which thou hast not known and let us serve them Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of the Prophet or that dreamer of dreams for the Lord your GOD proveth you to know whither you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your Soul Ye shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his Commandments and obey his voice and you shall serve him and cleave unto him And that Prophet or dreamer of dreams shall be put to death c. in which Law there are some things very matterial to be obsered in this present dispuâ—e 1. When they are forbidden to hearken to any Prophet who seduces them to the worship of any other Gods this must be extended to all those instances of Idolatrous worship which are forbid by the Law of Moses whatever is opposed to the worship of one Supreme and Soveraign Beeing the Lord Jehovah And therefore whither these Prophets seduced them from the worship of the Lord Jehovah to the worship of other Gods or perswaded them to worship other Gods besides the Lord Jehovah whither they were any of those Gods which were at that time worship'd by other Nations or any other Gods whom the ignorance and superstition of the people should create in after
an Image made like to corruptible man and to birds and four footed beasts creeping things And thus changed the the truth of God into a lie But this was not the only fault but they also gave his incommunicable worship to Creatures and worshipped and served the Creature more then the Creator who is blessed for ever Amen Which words do vers 25. plainly suppose that they did worship the Creator of all things but besides the Creator for so para may signifie they worshipped the creature also which proves that the worship of the Supreme God will not excuse those from Idolatry who worship any thing else besides him For the opposition lies between the Creator and the creature be it good or a bad creature it matters not as to Religious Worship which must be given to neither Or if we render the words as our Translators do more then the Creator for para is often used comparatively yet so it supposes that they did worship the Creator when they are said to worship the Creature more that cannot signifie a higher degree of worship but more frequent addresses and thus the Church of Rome worships the Virgin Mary more then the Creator for they say ten prayers if they be prayers to the Virgin Mary for one to God ten Ave Maries for one Pater noster The same Apostle determines this matter in as plain words as can be For though there can be that are called 1 Cor. 8. 5 6 Gods whither in Heaven or Earth as there be Gods many and Lords many but to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him Where in opposition to the Pagan Idolatry who worship'd a great many Gods not as Supreme Independent Deities for they acknowledged but one Supreme God who made all the other Gods but either as sharers in the Government of the World or Mediators and Intercessors for them with the Supreme GOD the Apostle plainly asserts That to us Christians there is but one GOD the maker of all Things and one LORD JESUS CHRIST our great Mediator and Advocate with GOD the Father that is that we must worship none else And that none of the distinctions which are used by the Church of Rome to justifie that Worship which they pay to Saints and Angels can have any place here is evident from this consideration For either these distinctions were known or they were not known when the Apostle wrote this and in both cases silence is an argument against them If they were known he rejects them and determines against them for he affirms absolutely without the salvo of any distinctions that we have but one GOD and one Mediator that is that we must worship no more If they were not known as it is likely they were not because the Apostles takes no notice of them it is a plain argument that these distinctions are of no use unless they will say that St. Paul who was guided by an Infallible Spirit was ignorant of some very useful and material notions about the object of Worship If the Apostle did not know these distinctions it is evident they are of a late date and therefore can have no authority against an Apostolical determination If he did not know them he could have no regard to them and therefore made no allowance for such exceptions Nay the same Apostle does not only give us such general rules as necessarily exclude the worship of Saints and Angels but does expresly condemn it and warns the Christians against it He fortels of the Apostasie of the latter days wherein some shall depart from the Faith 1 Tim. 4. 1. giving heed to seduâ—ing Spirits and the doctrine of Devils didaskaliais daimonion the doctrine of Daemons the doctrine of worshipping Daemons or some new inferiour Deity Saints or Angels or whatever they are as Mediators and Intercessors between GOD and men This is the true notion of the doctrine of Daemons amongst See Mr. Joseph Medes Apostasie of the latter times the Heathens and the Apostle tells us the time shall come when some Christians for it is evident he speaks here of the Apostasie of Christians shall fall into the same Idolatry which is an exact prophecy of what we now see done in the Church of Rome who have the same notion of their Saints and Angels and pay the same worship to them which the Heathens formerly did to their Daemons or inferiour Gods 3. And as a farther confirmation of this I observe that the Gospel of our Savour forbids Idolatry without giving us any new notion of Idolatry and therefore it has made no alteration at all in this Doctrine of the worship of one God which Moses so expresly commanded the Jews to observe For the Gospel was preached to the Jews as well as to the Gentiles nay the Jews had the first most undoubted right to it as being the posterity of Abraham to whom the promise of the Messias was made and therefore as the Law was at first given them by Moses so it did still oblidge them in all such cases wherein the Gospel did not in express terms make a change alteration of the Law and therefore since there was no such alteration made and yet the Law against Idolatry renewed and confirmed by the authority of the Gospel what could the Jews understand else by Idolatry but what was accounted Idolatry by the Law of Moses that is the worship of any other Beeing besides the Supreme GOD the Lord Jehovah And since it is evident that there are not two Gospels one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles all Christians whither Jews or Gentiles must be under the obligation of the same Law to worship only one God The notion of Idolatry must alter as the object of Religious Worship does If we must worship one God and none besides him then it is Idolatry to worship any other Beeing but the Supreme God for Idolatry consists in giving Religious worship to such Beeings as we ought not to worship and by the Law of Moses they were to worship none but God and therefore the worship of any other Beeing was Idolatry But if the object of our worship be enlarged and the Gospel has made it lawful to Worship Saints and Angels then we must seek out some other notion of Idolatry that it consists in worshipping wicked Spirits or in giving Supreme and Soveraign worship to inferiour Deities which the Church of Rome thinks impossible in the nature of the thing for any man to do who knows them to be inferiour Spirits But if Idolatry be the same under the New Testament that it was under the Old the object of our worship must be the same too and we have reason to believe that it is the same when we are commanded to keep our selves from Idols and to flie from Idolatry but are no where in the New
this was not done why we are not directed to pray to Saints and Angels and Images c. but the argument lies in this that there can be no alteration made in the object of worship without an express Law and therefore there is no alteration made because there is no such Law in the Gospel The Jews were expresly commanded to worship no other Beeing but the Lord Jehovah as I have already proved which Law appropriates all the acts of Religious worship to one God and therefore all those who were under the obligation of this Law as to be sure all natural Jews were could not without the guilt of Idolatry give any Religious worship to any other Beeing till this Law were expresly repeated and express leave given to worship some other Divine Beeings besides the Supreme God so that at least our Saviour himself while he was on Earth and subject to the Law and his Apostles and all believing Jews were oblidged by this Law to worship none but God unless we can shew where Christ by his Legislative Authority or his Apostles by Commission from him have expresly repealed this Law nay indeed unless we can shew that Christ himself repealed this Law and taught the worship of Saints and Angels Mat. 28. 20 the Apostles themselves could have no authority to do it for their Commission was only to teach what Christ had commanded them which though it does not extend to matters of order and discipline and the external circumstances of worship yet it does as to all essentials of Faith and worship and I think the right object of Worship is the most essential thing in Religious Worship From hence it appears that at least all the Jewish Christians in the Apostles dayes and all succeeding Ages to this day cannot worship Saints and Angels without Idolatry because the Law which was given to them and never yet repealed commands them to worship none but God and if Gentile Converts were received into the Jewish Christian Church and Christ has but one Church of Jews and Gentiles they must also be oblidged by all those Laws which were then and are still obligatory to all believing Jews and therefore Gentile as well as Jewish Christians are still bound to worship none but God Now I think I need not prove that an express Law can be repealed onely by an express Law That Law which commands us to worship God and him only must continue in full force till GOD do as expresly declare that he allows us to pay some degree of Religious Worship to other Beeings besides himself When a Law-giver has declared his will and pleasure by a Law it is not fit that Subjects should be allowed to guess at his mind and dispute away an express Law by some surmises and consequences how probable soever they may appear for at this rate a Law signifies nothing if we may guess at the will of our Law-giver without and against an express Law And yet none of the Advocates of the Church of Rome though they are not usually guilty of too much modesty ever had the confidence to pretend an express Law for the worship of Saints and Angels and Images c. and though they sometimes alledge Scripture to prove this by yet they do not pretend that they are direct proofs but only attempt to prove some other Doctrines from Scripture from which they think they may prove by some probable consequences that which the Scripture no where plainly teaches nay the contrary to which is expresly taught in the Scripture And if this may be allow'd I know no law of God so plain and express but a witty man may find wayes to escape the obligation of it This is a consideration of great moment and therefore I shall discourse more particularly of it The Law of Moses expresly commands us to worship GOD and him only Our Saviour Christ owns and confirms the authority of this Law in the Gospel the Church of Rome notwithstanding this Law gives Religious Worship to Creatures the question then is how she avoids the force of this Law since it is no where expresly repealed and she does not pretend that it is Now the Patrons of Creature-worship thinks to justifie themselves from the breach of this Law these three ways 1. By consequences drawn as they pretend from other Scripture-Doctrines 2. By distinctions And 3. By authority Let us then examine whither all this have any force against an express Law which was never expresly repealed 1. By consequences drawn as they pretend from other Scripture-Doctrines and I shall discourse this with a particular reference to the Invocation of Saints For when they would prove the lawfulness of praying to Saints they alledge no direct proof of this from Scriptureâ— but because they must make a shew of saying something from Scripture when they are to deal with such Hereticks as will be satisfied with no less authority they endeavour to prove something else from Scripture from whence they think by an easie consequence they can prove the lawfulness of praying to Saints Thus they very easily prove that we may and ought to pray for one another and to desire each others prayers while we are on Earth and from hence they presently conclude that we may as lawfully pray to Saints in Heaven to pray for us as beg and desire their prayers while they are one Earth And to confirm this they endeavour to prove that some extraordinary Saints whose merits are very great do directly ascend up into Heaven unto the immediate presence of God and a participation of his Glory and hence they conclude that they have authority and power to help us and to intercede for us and that they are so far advanced above us in this mortal state that they deserve some kind of Religious Honour and Worship from us as being Dii per participationem Gods by participation that is by partaking in the Divine Nature and Glory by their advancement to Heaven And if after all this they can prove that the Saints in Heaven do pray and intercede for us on Earth they think the demonstration is complete and perfect that therefore * Bonum atque utile esse suppliciter Sanctos invocare ad beneficia impetranda a Deo per filium ej us Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum qui solus noster Redemptor Salvator est ad eorum orationes opem auxlium que confugere Conc. Trin. 16. 25. de Invocat It is good and profitable as the Council of Trent words it huâ—bly to invock the Saints after the manner of Suplicants and to â—â—y to their prayers and help and aid to obtain blessings of God by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord who is our only not Intercessor and Advocate but Redeemer and Saviour Now how they prove all this is not my business at present to enquire but my inquiry is whither such arguments as these be sufficient to oppose against the authority of an express Law and if
would inquire into the lawfulness of such things as appertain to Divine Worship we must apply our selves to the Holy Scripture being in matters of that nature to determine of Right and Wrong Lawful and Unlawful according to the Directions Commands and Prohibitions of it If we would be satisfied about their Expedience we must consider the Nature Ends and Use of what we inquire about This therefore is a proper method for the Resolution of the foregoing Question But because the Apostle in his Discourse upon this Subject 1. Corinthians 14. doth argue from the ends and use of the several Offices belonging to Divine Worship and because the like Order may give some light and force to what follows I shall first of all I. Treat of the Ends for which Divine Worship and the several Offices of it were instituted II. Consider whither those Ends may be attained when the Worship is performed in a Tongue not understood III. Whither the worship so performed as to leave those ends unattainable will be accepted by GOD IV. I shall consider the Apostle's Discourse upon this Argument and whither it can be reasonably concluded from thence That Divine Worship so administred as not to be understood of the people is unlawful I. In the first of these the Masters of Controversie in the Romish Church do proceed with great tenderness and no little obscurity For would we know what the Worship is they would have in an Unknown Tongue they answer it is the publick only they defend For as for private saith one It is lawful for P. Sancta not in Epist P. Molinaei c. 17. n. 6. T. G. First reply to Dr. Stelingfleet sect 3. every one to offer his lesser Prayers to GOD in what Tongue soever he pleaseth And saith another All Catholicks are â—aught to say their private Prayers in their Mother Tongue As if it were possible to assign such a vast difference betwixt them when the Dispositions Reasons and Ends required and intended are the same that what is lawful expedient and necessary in the one is unlawful inexpedient and unnecessary in the other Or as if the saying private Prayers in Latin was never heard of practiseâ— or encouraged in their church Again Would we understand to what purposes the Divine Offices do serve and whither the Edification Instruction and consolation of the people be not some of those Ends. Bellarmin answers De verbo l. 2. c 16. Sect obj quart 1. That the principal end of Divine Offices is not the instruction or consolation of the People but a worship due to GOD from the Church As if there were no regard to be had to the special ends of those Offices such as the Instruction and Consolation of the people Or as if GOD could be honoured by that Worship where those ends are not regarded 2. The Rhemists add That Prayers are not made to teach make learned or increase knowledge Annot. 1. cor 14. P. 63. though by occasion they sometimes instruct but their especial use is to offer our Hearts desires and Wants to God c. As if there were no Offices in God's Worship appointed for Instruction and increase of Knowledge and which are performed in an Unknown Tongue amongst them as well as Prayer Or as if their Adversaries did either deny it to be the special use of Prayer To offer our hearts c. to God Or did affirm that the special use of it is To teach make learned and increase knowledge as they with others Censur proposit Erasmi prop. 5. Poncet dis cord de L' Auvis ch 1. do falsly suggest and would fain have believed But to set this in a better light and that we may understand what are the Ends and Uses for which Divine Worship was appointed and after what manner they are to be respected It is to be observed 1. That Divine Worship in its first notion respects God as its Object and so the end of it in general is the giving Honour to him by sutable Thoughts Words and Actions 2. That he hath appointed several wayes and Offices by which he will be so honoured and in which as the Honour doth terminate in him so there redounds from thence benefit to the church 3. That the Benefits redound to the church according to the nature of those Offices and the special Ends they were designed unto As the Word of God is for our instruction and comforâ— c. The Lord's Supper for the increase of Faith in God and love to him through Jesus Christ The praising of God is to raise our Affections and to make us more sensible of his goodness and to quicken us in our duty The special use of Prayer that I may use the Words forecited Rhem. Annot. is to offer up our Hearts Wants and Desires to God and that by conversing with him Part. 4. c. 2. Sect 7. 8. we may be the more ardently excited to the love and adoration of him as the Trent Catechism doth express it 4. That those Offices are to be performed so as may effectually answer those Ends and as we may receive the benefits they were appointed for From whence it follows 5. That if the Offices of Divine Worship are to be performed by Words those Words and that Tongue in which they are administred must be such as will not obstruct but promote and in their nature are qualified to attain those Ends. And if those Ends cannot be aâ—â—ained without the Tongue in which the service is performed be understood It makes that means as necessary in its kind as the End and it is as necessary that the Tongue used for those Ends in Divine Worship be understood as that those Ends should be respected or that there should be a Tongue used at all For it is not God but Man that is immediately respected in the Words since there is no more need of Words to GOD then of Words that are vulgarly understood and so it is not for him but Man that this Tongue or that or indeed that any Tongue at all is used And if it be requisite that there be a a Tongue and Words used in publick Worship and which all persons present are supposed to joyn in and receive benefit by then it is as necessary for the same reason to use Words significant and understood as to De Doct. Christ l. 4. c. 19. use any Words at all For saith S. Austin what doth the soundness of speech profit if not followed with the Understanding of the â—earer seing there is no reason at all for our speaking if what we speak is not understood by them for whom that they might understand we spoke at all From what hath been said we may be able to vindicate such Arguments of the Protestants Divine service in a known and vulgar Tongue as were taken from the Ends of worship against the replyes made to them by their adversaries of the Romish Church As 1. The Protestants argue in general that
Vials full of Odours which are the Prayers of Saints By the prayers of Saints they mean of those Saints that arâ— living upon the Earth and by the Four Beasts and Twenty Four Elders the Saints that are in Heaven and from thence draw their Argument that Saints in Heaven do offer up the Prayers of Holy Men living upon the Earth But now if they are mistaken in the â—ense of this Text and by the Four Beasts and Twenty four Elders are not mean'd the Memberâ— of the Church triumphant but the Bishops and Elders of the Church Miliâ—ant Whose Office it is to represent the Prayers and Praises of the Church to God then this cannot afford them the least shew of a reason for their Invocation Dr. Hamonâ— and many other Learned Expositors are of opinion that either this whole Text is nothing but a representation of the Church below offering up prayers by their Pastors who are the Mouths of the Congregation to God through the Lamb and it 's said veâ—se 10. That they shall Reâ—gn upon the Earth or else a representation of the whole Church of Christ boâ—h in Heaven and Earth joyning together in their Doxâ—logies and Praises to God for the Victâ—ries of the Lamb and the Redemption of the World by his blood and for this sense the next veâ—sâ— seems to give it where they are said to Sing a new Song saying Thou art worthy to take the Book and for thou wast sâ—ain and redeemed us to God by thy Blood out of every Kindred and Tongue and People and Nation Another place to be explained which they sometimes mention as on their side is Revel â— 10. Where the Souls of the Martyrs under the Altar are said to cry How long Oh Lord Holy and true dost thou not judge and avenge our Blood on them that dwell on the Earth Now say they if the Souls of Martyrs pray for Vengance upon their Persecutors and Murderers much more may we suppose them to pray for Mercy and Deliverances for their Fellow-Members and Sufferers To this may be replied That these words cannot signify a formal Prayer of the Martyrs to God for Revenge on their Persecutors they who after their Lord's example Prayed God to forgive their Murderers when they were on Earth cannot be supposed now they are in a more perfect State to Pray for Vengeance upon them but the words are only an Emblem and representation of the certainty of Dr. Ham. God's judgments and Vengeance overtaking them by the Souls of them that were stain and cry under the Altar is mean'd their blood and the Sin of Murthering them and as we are wont to say Murther is a crying Sin and as it 's said that Abel's blood cryed for Vengance so the Sin of shedding their blood cryed ' that is would certainly awake and provoke the justice of God to take Vengeance on them for it This is well explained Esdr 2. 15. by a passage in the book of Esdras Behold the Innocent and Righteous blood cryeth unto me and the Souls of the just complain continually and therefore saith the Lord I will surely Avenge them c. But Let their inference be granted that the Souls of Martyrs in the future State do Pray for their Fellow Sufferes that are left behind it does not follow that their Fellow-Sufferers Pray to them or that they offer up their Prayers made to them unto God Lastly they cite Gen. 48. 16. When Jacob blessing the two Sons of Joseph thus prayes The Angel that redeemed me from all Evil bless the Lads this will require no long answer God being pleased often to make use of the Ministry of Angels in sending succour and relief to good Men Jacob Prayed not unto the Angel but to God that he would appoint the same bessed Angel that administred unto him in all his streights to be the instrument of his good providence to those two Sons of Joseph whom he had now made his own and caused them to be called after his name Or else If the Patriarch must be thought here to have Prayed to the Angel we must suppose with Athanasius and others of the Fathers that Angel to be Christ the Son of God And the same answer is to be given to Revel 8 4. Where it 's said That the smoke of the Incense which came with the Prayers of the Saints ascended up before God out of the Angels hand that is Christ's the Angel of the Covenant and therefore this Angel that offered up the Prayers of the Saints is called verse 3. Another Angel intimating that it was a special Angel one different both in Nature and Office from the other seven mentioned verse 2. and described there as Ministring Spirits And I saw the seven Angels which stood before God c. verse 2. and then â— 3. And another Angel came c. IV. That there is no proof for it from the Fathers of the first three hundred years and more THe Trent Fathers and the Catechism put out by Concili Trident. sess 25. Catech. Rom. par 3. c. 2. their Authority having declared invocation of Saints to be a custom received and continued in the Church ever since the Apostles time the Romish Authors have not been wanting to turn every Stone to search every Author to produce and strain every sentence and expression that looks that way to the height in order to the making it good but how short their proofs fall of it will be made evident by these following particulars 1. Those that have taken the most pains to seek for Testimonies have not been able to produce any tolerable one out of the Genuin Writings of the Fathers within the first three hundred years after Christ they cite indeed the Hierarchy of Dionisius Areopagita Origeâ—s comments on the second Chapter of Job and the twenty first of Numbers the works of St. Ephroem and Athanasius's of the most Holy Mother of God but these have been sufficiently proved by many of our Learned Men and acknowledged by some of no obscure fame amongst them to be spurious Mons Dal. Coc. Censur Patr. in D. Areâ—p Rivet in Crit Sac. Bellar. de Scrip. Eccl. and falsly father'd on them and then for their proofs out of Irenaeus Eusebius and St. Ambrose it 's easy to shew that the first is grosly misunderstood the second corrupted and third retracted by that Father Irenoeus indeed is an Ancient Father and of sufficient Authority but his words are little to their Irenoeus Adver Haer. l. 15. c. 10. purpose they are these Sicut Eva seducta est ut effugeret Deum sic Maria suasa est obedire Deo ut Virginis Evoe Virgo Maria fieret Advocata Wherein the blessed Virgin Mary is termed the Advocate of Eve Now to make this a pat proof for their Invocation they must put this sense upon it that the blessed Virgin being a Glorified Saint in Heaven did at the request and desires of Eve living upon Earth represent her
the Son and the Holy Ghost partake alike with him of the Divine nature and consequently have a right to the same Adoration yet forasmuch as God the Father is the First Person and the Father who Communicates that Divine nature to them both forasmuch as John 2. 29. John 6. 27. John 5. 26. God the Father hath that Essence in himself and what he is is from none but the Son and the Holy Ghost have it by Communication from the Father and what they are they are from him this Title may bear particular and primary respect to him Accordingly Eph. 1. 3. we find the Apostles in a particular manner directing their Prayers to God the Father Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who hath blessed us Ver. 17. I cease not to make mention of you in my Prayers that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of Glory for this cause I bow my Knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus that he would grant you But 2. The word Father in this Prayer is to be taken Essentially and not Personally and so excludes not the other two Persons of the most Holy and Undivided Trinity but only those that are of a different nature from them Now if the whole three Persons are one in Essence then when ever we Pray to and do Honour to God the Father we must at the same time Worship John 10. 20. the other two though not so directly who are one with him Thus our Saviour speaks I and the Father are one yea the whole Thre Persons are so 1 John 5. 7. as St. John tells us expresly There are three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one We read that 't was the John 5. 23. will of God That all Men should Honour the Son as they do the Father and that we should Honour the Holy Ghost as well as either because we are equally Baptized Matt. 28. 19. into his name Go ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost now if the Son and the Holy Ghost are one in Essence with the Father and to be Honoured with the same Honour then although in this Title the Father be only expresly named and invock'd the other two persons can't but be implyed and comprehended in it 3. We may consider that this Doctrine of the Trinity being in a great measure a stranger to the Old Testament and the Apostles when our Saviour gave them this Prayer not sufficiently instructed in it our Saviour might teach them to call upon God in suchh an expression which though for the present they might understand only of God the Father yet afterwards when they should come more fully to understand and beleive the Trinity might fairly be extended to take in the other two persons Son and Holy Ghost 4. Since it is by vertue of our Spiritual relation to God by Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost that in a more special and particular manner he is Our Father when ever we call upon God as a Father and Our Father it implies that we address to him in the Name and Mediation of Christ and by the assistance of the Holy Ghost the Apostle tells believers that they had received the Spirit of Adoption wherby they cried Abba Father St. Chrysostom's notion on the Text is that the Jews Rom. 8. 15. during the time of the Old Testament being under a Servile Dispensation did seldom or never presume to call upon God by that familiar appellation of a Father but the Holy Ghost moving believers after a miraculous and extraordinary way in the first dayes of Christianity to invocke God by that name as our Saviour had directed his Disciples before might well be called the Spiâ—it of Adoption as thereby declaring them to be his Adopted Sons Another evident proof are those words of the Apostle 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God and and one Mediator between God and Man the Man Christ Jesus The natural importance of the words seems to be this that as there is but one God only and no more to whom we ought to Pray so there is but one Mediatour only and no more by whom we have access with boldness to the Thron of Grace one Mediatour Emphatically in the same sense as there is one God and you may as well make to your selves more Gods as more Mediators But to weaken the strength of this evidence the Romanists distinguish betwixt a Mediator of Redemption and a Mediator of Intercession and tell us that the Text is only to be understood of the former which indeed is but one but not of the latter which may be more then one even as many as there are Angels and Saints in Heaven but how little this distinction does serve their turn may appear by considering 1. That there is a vast difference betwixt an Intercessor and a Mediator of Intercession that Saints in Heaven out of that Charity that all the Members of Christ have for one another do in general interceed for the good of that Body of which they are a part was owned and granted before but this makes them not Mediators of Intercession to which office it belongs to receive the Prayers of others and to present them to God and in order hereunto they must hear the Prayers of others and receive information concerning their particular States and Conditions which they are not capable of 2. That this Text is especially to be understood of that part of Christs Mediatory Office that consists in interceeding for us the Apostle seems to oppose these words to the Heathen Form of Praying which was to many Gods by many Doemons who were reputed Agents or Mediatours between their chief Gods and them now all that the Heathens attributed to their Doemons was Intercession only and the Apostle shews that Christ being made a Mediatour every way effectual for that end â—â—â—re could be no necessity of any Mediatours of Intercession besides him so that the Apostle here replyes two things to the Heathens multiplicity of Mediatours 1. That God had appointed but one the God-Man Christ Jesus therefore he sayes ver 7. that he was ordained a Teacher of the Gentiles in Faith and Verity for establishing the Christian Faith and Truth in this particular especially of one God and one Mediatour in contradiction to the plurality of Gods and Mediatours amongst the Gentiles answerable to this are those words of the Apostle in another place Though there be many that are called Gods as there be Gods many and Lords many but to us there is but one 1 Cor. 8. 5. God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ here there is a manifest and direct opposition betwixt the Heathen way of Praying and the Christian the Heathens had many Gods and many Lords Mediatours the Christians but one God and
God Outward Acts of worship are declarative of the inward respect and veneration of the Soul to God as words are of the inward thoughts and apprehensions of the mind and as when I use such words which acording to common custom signify such a Proposition I must be concluded to mean and intend that Proposition so when I use such outward Acts of Worship which by Custom or Institution signify the Honour due to God to any other I must be thought to ascribe the Honour that 's due to God to that other The Coriâ—â—â—ians although they knew that an Idol was nothing in the World yet because they observed the Feasts that were dedicated to the Honour of the Idol Eating and Drinking in the Idols Temple are said by the Apostle to Drink the 1 Cor. 20. 21. Cup of Devils and to be partakers of the Devils Tables and to have Fellowship with Devils that is by doing those actions that in those places were used to signify the Worship of the Heathen Gods although they intended no Religion but Civility and Complement in the compliance they are said to Worship those Heathen Gods who were not Gods but Devils The Israelites that halted betwixt God and Baal although they could not but have higher apprehensions of God then Baal Yet by bowing the Knee to Baal and Kissing his Mouth by using those outward 1 Kings 19. 18. Acts of Worship wherewith the Heathens Worship'd him are said to be guilty of Idolatry In sume was a mental reservation of keeping the Heart to God and intending the highest degrees of Honour and Worship to him sufficient to clear Men from Idolatry whilst they perform outward Acts Instituted and customarily observed for Religious worship Exod. 32. 8 to any besides God the Israelites could not be guilty of it when they Sacrified to the Golden-Calf they had made nor the Wiser sort of Heathens who whilst they knew the vulgar Gods to be no Gods but Cheats and Devils did out of fear of punishment comply with the vulgar practice of burning Incense to them and the Primitive Fathers were very much mistaken who judged not only those Christians who at the Emperors Command sacrificed to Idols against their Consciences guilty of Idolatry but even those who though no threats could move them to do it in Libellatici person did yet either purchase Certificates that they had done it when they did it not or procure some others their Heathen Friends and servants to do it for them implicitly to be guilty of it I shall name but one Scripture more Col. 2. 18. Let no Man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary Humility and Worshipping of Angels and not holding the head Where we see the Apostles expresly condemns the Worship of Angels as forsaking of Christ and not â—olding the head and if the Worship of Angels it follows with greater force of reason the Worship of Saints departed What this Worship was Theodoret upon the place informs us where he says that the Jews that is Jewish Christians Having received the Law by the Ministration of Angels and holding that the God of all was Invisible and in accessible taught that Men ought to obtain the favour of God by the Means and Intercession of Angels and the same Father tells us that they had Oratories or Chappels of St. Michael This St. Paul calls â—ot holding the head because they set up more Mediators besides Christ who was the only one appointed by God and they that joyn others with him do forsake him accordingly the Council of Loadicea condemned it as Idolatrous the words of the Canon are these That christians Council Laâ—d can 35. ought not to forsake the Church of God and Invocate Angels because they that do so forsake our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God and give themselves to Idolatry St. Paul and the Canon both speak so direct and home against the Romanists that Baronius it seems was hard put to it to answer them when he 's forc'd to beg Theodoret's Pardon and tells him with his good leave that he understood neither the one nor the other that it was the Religious Worship of false and Heathenish Gods not that of good Angels that was forbid and condemned by both of them and that those Oratories of St. Michael were set up by Catholicks and not by Hereticks it being then the practice of the Church to Invocate Angels And now though we might safely venture Theodoret's Judgment and Credit against Baronius's yet we have no need of his Authority to find out the true meaning of the Text whoever considers that the Apostle condemns the Worship of Angels in general and duly weighs the series of his Discourse will easily apprehend that it is not levelled against the Heathens who had not yet embraced Christianity but adher'd to the Worship of their false Gods but a sort of Judaizing Christians who retaining still a mighty Veneration for Angels as the supposed givers of the Law endeavoured to introduce the Worship of them into the Church of Christ Let no Man beguile you of your reward in Worshipping of Angels not holding the head the Apostles Argument to disâ—wade them from that Worship is that by doing so they forsook Christ which could not have been an Argument to the Heathens who had never yet believed on him VI. That the Fathers of the first and purest Ages till after three hundred are all express and positive in their Writings against it HOw fully the sacred Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament do condemn the Invocation of Saints you have seen already now that the Fathers of the purest Ages understood the Scriptures in the same sense as Protestants do as to this particular and are also very clear in their writings against it will appear from these following Considerations 1. They generally denied the Doctrine on which this of Saint-Invocation is founded viz. that Saints departed do now reign in Heaven and enjoy the Beatifick Vision 'T is by this blessed priviledge especially of seing God that the Romanists ground their belief that the perfected Spirits of just Men in Heaven come to see all things in him to know the Petitions and to be acquaintwith the requests of their humble Supplicants but now the Primitive Fathers have peremptorly affirmed that the Saints departed are not yet admitted to the sight of God but are only kept in certain hidden receptacles in the full enjoyment of Peace and rest till the general Resurrection this they have not only asserted in so many words and endeavoured to Iren. l. 5. c. 31. prove from our Saviours Soul being in Paradise which they will not have to be the highest Heaven but thinking them in a condition not yet fully and compleatly happy instead of Invocating them Chrysos Tom. 6. p. 998. did Pray for their farther Bliss Consummation So that denying the foundation they can't be supposed to grant the Doctrine built upon it No fewer then Eighteen
dâ—aught which none surely will say of the Body of CHRIST And afterwards he adds by way of explication it is not the matter of the bread but the word which is spoken over it which profiteâ—h him that worthily eateth the Lord and this he sayes he had spoken concerning the typical and Symbolical body So that the matter of bread remaine hâ—m the Sacrament and this Origen calls the typical and symbolical body of CHRIST and it is not the natural body of Christ which is there eatâ—en for the food eaten in the Sacrament as to that of it which is material goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught This testimony is so very plain in the cause that Sextus Senensis suspects â—his place of Origen was depraved by the Heâ—eticks Cardinal Pâ—rron is contented to allow it to be Origens but rejects his testimony because he was accused of Heresie by some of the Fathers and sayes he talks like a Heretick in this place So that with much ado this testimony is yielded to us The same Father in his * cap. 10. Homilies upon Leviticâ—s spâ—â—ks â—hus There is also in the New Testament a letter which kills him who doth not spiritually understand these things which are said for if we take according to the Letter that which is said EXCEPT YE EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOUD this Letter kills And this is also a killing Testimony and not to be answered but in Cardinal Perron's way by saying he talks like a Heretick St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle * Ep. 63. to Cecilius against those who gave the Communion in Water only without Wine mingled with it and his main argument against them is this that the bloud of Christ with which we are redeemed and quickened cannot seem to be in the cup when there is no Wine in the cup by which the Bloud of Christ is represented And afterwards he sayes that contrary to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine water was in some places offered or given in the Lords cup which sayes he alone cannot express or represent the bloud of Christ. And lastly he tels us that by water the people is understood by Wine the bloud of Christ is shewn or represented but when in the cup water is mingled with wine the people is united to Christ. So that according to this Argument Wine in the Sacramental cup is no otherwise chang'd into the bloud of Christ then the Water mixed with it is changed into the People which are said to be united to Christ. I omit many others and pass to St. Austin in the fourth Age after Christ And I the rather insist upon his Testimony because of his eminent esteem and authority in the Latin Church and he also calls the Elements of the Sacrament the figure and sign of Christs body and bloud In his book against Adimantus the Manichee we have this expression * Aug Tom. 6. p. 187. Edit basil 1569 our Lord did not doubt to say this is my body when he gave the sign of his body And in his explication of the third Psalm speaking of Judas whom our Lord admitted to his last supper in which sayes he ‡ enarrat in Psal Tom. 8. p. 16. he commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his body Language which would now be censur'd for Heresie in the Church of Rome Indeed he was never accus'd of Heresie as cardinal Perron sayes Origen was but he talks as like one as Origen himself And in his comment on the 98 Psalm speaking of the offence which the Disciples took at that saying of our Saviour except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud c. He brings in our Saviour speaking thus to them †Id. tom 7. p. 1105. ye must understand spiritually what I have said unto you ye are not to eat his body which ye see and to drink that bloud which shall he shed by those that shall crucify me I have commended a certain Sacrament to you which being spiritually understood will give you life What more opposite to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation then that the Disciples were not to eat that Body of Christ which they saw nor to drink that bloud which was shed upon the Cross but that all this was to be understood spiritually and according to the nature of a Sacrament For that body he tells us is not here but in heaven in his Comment upon these words me ye have not alwayes * Id. Tract 50. in Johan He speaks sayes he of the presence of his body ye shall have me according to my providence according to Majesty and invisible grace but according to the flesh which the word assumed according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary ye shall not have me therefore because he conversed with his Disciples fourty dayes he is ascended up into Heaven and is not here In his 23. Epistle †Id. Tom. 2. p. 93. if the Sacraments sayes he had not some resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all but from this resemblance they take for the most part the name of the things which they represent Therefore as the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some manner or sense Christs body and the Sacrament of his bloud is the bloud of Christ so the Sacrament of faith meaning Baptism is faith Upon which words of St. Austin there is this remarkable Gloss in their own Cannon Law †De consecr dist 2. Hoc est the heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly whence it is said that after a manner but not according to the truth of the thing but the mystery of the thing signified So that the meaning is it is called the body of Christ that is it signifies the body of Christ And if this be St. Austin's meaning I am sure no Protestant can speake more plainly against Transubstantiation And in the ancient Canon of the Mass before it was chang'd in complyance with this new Doctrine it is expresly call'd a sacrament a sign an Image and a figure of Christ's body To which I will add that remarkable passage of St. Austin cited by * De consecrat dist 2. sect Vtrum Gratian that as we receive the similitude of his death in baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his flesh and bloud that so neither may truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor Pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking the bloud of one that was slain I will mention but one Testimony more of this Father but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have utter'd It is in his Treatise * Lib. 3. Tom. 3. p. 53. de Doctrina christiaua where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this
for one If says he the speech be a precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or crime or commanding us to do good it is not fiugurate but if it seem to command any heynous wickedness or crime or to forbid that which is profitable and beneficial to others it is figurative For example Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you This seems to command a heinous wickedness and crime therefore it is a figure commanding us to communicate of the passion of our Lord and with delight and advantage to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us So that according to St. Austin's best skill in interpreting Scripture the literal eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking his bloud would have been a great impiety and therefore the expression is to be understood figuratively not as Cardinal Perron would have it onely in opposition to the eating of his flesh and bloud in the gross appearance of flesh and bloud but to the real eating of his natural body and bloud under any appearance whatsoever For St. Austin doth not say this is a Figurative speech wherein we are commanded really to feed upon the natural body and bloud of Christ under the species of bread and wine as the Cardinal would understand him for then the speech would be literal and not figurative But he sayes this is a figurative speech wherein we are commanded Spiritually to feed upon the remembrance of his Passion To these I will add but three or four Testimonies more in the two following Ages The first shall be of Theodoret who speaking of that * Gen. 49. 11. Prophecy of Jacob concerning our Saviour he washed his garments in Wine and his clothes in the bloud of grapes hath these words †Dialog 1. as we call the mysticall fruit of the Vine that is the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration the bloud of the Lord so he viz. Jacob calls the bloud of the Vine viz of Christ the bloud of the grape but the bloud of Christ is not literally and properly but only figuratively the bloud of the grape in the same sense as he is said to be the true Vine and therefore the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration is in like manner not literally and properly but figuratively the bloud of Christ And he explains this afterwards saying that our Saviour chaâ—â—ed the names and gave to his Body the name of the Symbol or sign and to the symbol or sign the name of his Body thus when he had called himself the Viâ—e he called the symbol his bloud so that in the same sense that he called himself the Vine he call'd the Wine which is the symbol of his bloud his bloud For sayes he he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of the things which are seen but by the change of names to believe the change which is made by grace for he who called that which by nature is a body wheat and bread and again likewise call'd himself the Vine he honour'd the symbols with the name of his body and bloud not Changing nature but adding grace to nature Whence you see he sayes expresly that when he called the Symbols or Elements of the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine his body and bloud he made no change in the nature of the things only added grace to nature that is by the Divine grace and blessing he raised them to a spiritual and supernatural vertue and efficacy The secound is of the same Theodoret in his second Dialogue between a Catholick under the name of Orthodoxus and an Heretick under the name of Eranistes who maintaining that the Humanity of Christ was changed into the substance of the Divinity which was the Heresie of Eutyches he illustrates the matter by this similitude As sayes he the symbols of the Lords body and bloud are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after the Invocation are changed and become another thing so the body of our Lord after his ascension is changed into the divine substance But what sayes the Catholick Orthodoxus to this why he talks just like one of Cardinal Perron's Hereticks Thou art sayes he caught in thy own net because the mystical symbols after consecration doe not pass out of their own nature For they remain in their former substance figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before He does not only deny the outward figure and appearance of the symbols to be chang'd but the nature and substance of them even in the proper and strictest sense of the word substance and it was necessary so to do otherwise he had not given a pertinent answer to the similitude urg'd against him The next is one of their own Popes Gelasius who brings the same Instance against the Eutychans * biblioth Patr. Toâ— 4. surely sayes heâ— the Sacrament which we receive of the body and bloud of our Lord are a divine thing so that by them we are made partakers of a divine nature and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and Wine and certainly the image and resemblance of Christ's body and bloud are celebrated in the action of the mysteries that is in the Sacrament To make this Instance of any force against the Eutychians who held that the body of Christ upon his ascension ceas'd and was chang'd into the substance of his Divinity it was necessary to deny that there was any substantial change in the Sacrament of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ So that here is an infallible authority one of their own Popes expresly against Transubstantiation The last Testimony I shall produce is of Facundus an African Bishop who lived in the 6th Century Upon occasion of justifying an expression of one who had said that Christ also received the adoption of Sons reasons thus * Facund p. 144 edit Paris 1676. Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of adoption both when he was circumcised and baptized And the Sacrament of Adoption may be called adoption as the Sacrament of his body and bloud which is in the consecrated bread and cap is by us called his body and bloud not that the bread sayes he is properly his body and the cup his bloud but because they contain in them the mysteries of his body and bloud hence also our Lord himself called the blessed bread and cup which he gave to his Disciples his body and bloud can any man after this believe that it was then and had ever been the universal and received Doctrine of the Christian Church that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are substantially changed into the proper and natural body and bloud of Christ By these plain Testimonies which I have produced and I might have brought a great many more to the same purpose it is I think evident beyond all
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
Discourse refers to such Conferences yet what is this to that part of it that treats of Publick Worship Or indeed what is it to the purpose at all when there were mostly the same Offices used in one as the other and the same End prescribed to the use of them in both Those that do thus distinguish have not ventured to tell us where the Apostle doth treat of the one and where of the other And it is evident that he applies his Argument of Edification to the whole and then proceeds from one Office to another from Prophesying to Praying and Singing if not also to the Lords Supper Now where the End is common to all without distinction the means conducing to that End are in all alike to be observed And if in those lesser Assemblies when they expounded prayed or sung they were to use a tongue known to the Assembly because without so doing the Ends of their so assembling would have been defeated then certainly it was if not more yet at least as necessary that the same order be observed when the whole Church came together into one place Quest What was the Service used in those Assemblies and what was forbidden to be celebrated in an Vnknown Tongue Some of the Church of Rome will understand it only of preaching and those that do grant it Bellarm. ibid. Sect. Veraigitur Sect. ad hant igitur Rhemists annot in 1. Cor. 14. 26. p. 460. to respect Prayers yet will have it understood of such Prayers as were inspired But what though the Prayers were inspired when they were to be uttered in a Tongue known to the Church and were not to be used if they were not for the Edification of the Church as they were not if not understood And is not the Reason as full against Prayers not inspired when they are not understood The Question is not about Prayers inspired or not inspired but known and unknown according to which all the Offices of the Church are to be tryed as to their lawfulness and expedience But let the Prayers be as they will yet say they The Apostle treats of them occasionally Sanders orat p 64. 66. only Supposing this so to be yet that is not to the purpose for the Question is not whither the Apostle treats so expresly of Prayer as of prophesying as whither the prohibition of an Unknown Tongue and the Argument taken from the End of Divine Offices lie not as expresly against praying as prophesying in that way And whither the words If I pray in an Vnknown Tongue my Spirit prayeth but my understanding remaineth unfruitful c. v. 14. 16. are not as plain as he that speaketh or prophesyeth in an Vnknown Tongue speaketh not unto Men c. If the prohibition be the same and the reason of the prohibition be the same in both then it is not the being expresly or occasionally handled that can make so vast a difference as that the former shall be lawful and the latter unlawful Quest 4. How far is the Apostle's prohibition to be extended This will be determined partly from what hath been before said and partly from the current of the Apostle's Discourse who as he layes down that general Let all things be done to Edifying so upon that principle he prohibits the use of an Unknown Tongue as inconsistent with it Verse 14. If I pray in an Vnknown Tongue my Spirit prayeth but my understanding remaineth unfruitful Where he doth not speak of a better and worse and prefer that which is understood before that which is not as they would have it but he speaks of a good and bad and so doth absolutely condemn an Unknown Tongue for the unprofitableness of it For saith he My Spirit prayeth not Bellarm. Sect in posteriore Rhemists â—â—not p. 460. S. Chrysost Hâ—mil 35. Theophylact. Salmeron in loc Hieron in loc the Affection but the Spirit in the gift of an Unknown Tongue as many of the Ancients and some of themselves expound it But my understanding remaineth unfruitful to my self that is If I do not understand it and to others if they do not understand me as the Apostle doth explain it Verse 16. So that from the whole we may with good Reason conclude that the administration of Divine Service in an Unknown tongue is as unlawful as express Scripture can make it And that after all their attempts to decline pervert and overthrow it the fourteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians remains in full force against the Opinion and Practice of the Church of Rome and is a sufficient Reason on their part to keep the Scripture in an Unknown tongue as long as their service is contrary to the Scripture celebrated constantly in it SECT III. I shall enquire Whither the celebration of Divine Service in a Tongue not understood of the people hath been the ancient Rite of every Church 1. I shall consider whither it hath been an ancient Rite II. Whither from the time of its having been a Rite it hath been the Rite and Custome of every Church Both of these are affirmed by the Council of Trent Qu. I. Whither it hath been an ancient Rite Ancient is a Term of an uncertain date and seems to have been chosen by the Council upon Mature deliberation lest peradventure if it had been determined it might have been so late as to be of no authority in it self or so early as for want of truth it might have given a foul shock to its own Authority But however because nothing can be ancienter then what is first let us consider how Service was administred in Apostolical times and so downwards as much before the Council as any thing can be reasonably said to be Ancient by it I have already accounted for the Apostle's sense in this matter which Cassander calls after St. Chrysostome in loc an Apostolical Command for De â—â—â—ic pii viri p. 865. Service in a Tongue understood of the people And if we take a step lower and so proceed we shall find an uncontrollable Evidence for it both as to the Judgement and Practice of the Church In the first place setting aside the pretended Liturgies of St. James and St. Clement which are however plainly for it as is acknowledged Salmeron in 1. Cor. 14. Sect. His igitur Apolog sub fin is Justine Martyr that flourished about 150 years after Christ who relates That after the Bishop had concluded his Prayer and giving of Thanks all the people did assent to it with an Amen Which they could not have done as the Apostle and Fathers affirm unless they understood what was prayed for To this purpose doth Clemens Alexandrinus also write who lived toward the close of the second Century Origen Who lived about the middle of the third Contra cels l. â— p. 402. cantabr Century saith The Greek Christians in their Prayers used the Grecian and the Romans used the Roman words and each prayes and praises God in
his own Tongue And the Lord of all Tongues doth hear those that pray to him in all Tongues c. St. Cyprian at the same time doth say That the Mind in Prayer doth think of nothing In orat Dom. n. 22. else but what is prayed for And therefore the Priest before Prayer doth prepare the Minds of the Brethren by saying Lift up your Hearts that when the people doth answer We lift them up unto the Lord they may be admonished that they ought to think of nothing but the Lord. For not the sound of the Voice but the Mind must pray to the Lord. Dionysius Alexandrinus that lived in the same Age Apud Euseb Eccles Hist l. â— c. 8. in a Letter to Xystus Bishop of Rome doth write of a person that having been baptised by Hereticks upon the hearing the Questions and Answers at the Baptism of the Orthodox questioned his own Baptism But saith he we would not rebaptize him because he had for a good while held Communion with us in the Eucharist and had been present at our giving of Thanks and answered Amen St. Basil Who flourished about the year 370. Tom. 2. Reg. brev reg 27â— putting the Question How the Spirit prayes and the Mind is without Fruit Answers It is mean'd of those that pray in a Tongue unknown to them that hear For when the Prayers are unknown to them that are present the mind is without Fruit to him that prayes c. And as to the Practice of the Church in the publick Service he declares That the People Tom 1. in Ps 28 had the Psalms Prophets and Evangelical Commands And when the Tongue sings the Mind doth search out the sense of the things that are spoken And he relates how the Christians used to spend the Night in Prayers Confessions and Psalms one beginning and the rest following Tom. 2. Epist 63. Cler. Neâ—caes Tom. 1. â—exameri Hoâ— 4. sub â—n And that the noise of those that joyned in the Prayers was like that of the Waves breaking against the Shoar With him we have S. Ambrâ—se agreeing that lived much about the same time who faith It is evident that the Mind is ignorant where the In 1 Cor. 14. â— Nâ—â— siora vere Tongue is not understood as some Latines that are wont to sing in Greek being delighted with the sound of the Words without understanding what they say And again the unskilful hearing what he doth not understand knows not the conclusion of Ibid Quis supplet locum the Prayer and doth not answer Amen that is it is true that the Blessing may be confirmed For by those is the confirmation of the Prayer fulfilled that do ansâ—â—â— Amen c. And he doth shew what an honour is given to God what a reverence is derived upon Ibid. Sia 〈◊〉 prophetâ—â—â— our Religion and how far it excells the Pagan that he that hears understands and that nothing is in the dark And he saith This is a symphony when there Tom. 3. Com. l. 7. in Lâ—c. 1â— p. 169. Par. 1614. In 2 cor c. â— Homil 1â— Et 〈◊〉 is in the Church a concord of diverse Ages and Vertues that the Psalm is answered and Amen said c. Toward the latter end of the same Century lived S. Chrysostome who saith That the people are much concerned in the Prayers that they are common to them and the Priest that in the Sacrament as the Priest prayes for the people so the people for the Priest And that those Words and with thy Spirit signifie no thing else And what wonder is it That in the Prayers the people do talk with the Priest And elsewhere he saith That the Apostle shews that the people receive no little damage when In 1 Cor. 14. Hom. 35. they cannot say Amen To conclude Bellarmin saith that in the Liturgy which bears this Fathers name the parts sung L. 2. c. 16. Sect. idem etiam v. Chrysost Tom. 4. Par. 1621. by the Priest Deacon and People are most plainly distinguished To him let us add S. Jerom his cotemporary who declares that at the Funeral of Paula in Jerusaelem the multitude did attend and sung their Psalms in Hebrew Greek Latin and Syriack according Tom. 1. Epitap Paulae ad Euslochium Epist Paulae ad Marcellam to the Nations they were of And we are farther told That at Bethlem there resorted Gauls Britains Armenians Indians c. And there were almost as many Choirs of Singers as of Countries of a different Tongue but of one and the same Religion And the same Fathers tells us That at Rome the Tom. 10. prooem 2. ad Galat. people sounded sorth Amen like to the noise of Thunder Next let us consult Augustine of the same time who saith That no body is edified by Tom. 3. in Genes l. 12. c. 8. Lib. de Magi. stro c. 1. 7. De catechis rud C. 9. what he doth not understand And That the reason why the Priest lifts up his Voice in the Church when he prayeth is not that God but the people may hear and understand and joyn with him And that whereas the Bishops and Ministers of the Church were sometimes guilty of using barbarous and absurâ— Words they that should correct it that the people may most plainly understand and say Amen And elsewhere as has been quoted before exhorts that they be not as Parrots and Pies that say they In psalm 18. know not what Thus far our Authorities do proceed with little interruption For Bellarm doth grant That not c. 16. Sect. sed neque only in the times of the Apostles all the people were wont to answer in Divine Offices but that the same was a long time after observed both in the Eastern and Westren Church as is evident from S. Chrysostome S Jerom c. Now having derived the Tittle thus far above 400 years we need not be much solicitous for what was introduced afterwards but yet for a farther confirmation I shall add some Testimonies of a latter date Such is that known Edict of the Emperour Justinian who dyed Anno 565 in which Novel 123. See this vindicated in Bishop Jewes reply to Hardings answ p. 128. it is thus enacted We command all Bishops and Priests to celebrate the holy Oblation and the Prayers in sacred Baptism not in a low but such a Voice as may be heard by the people that thereby their heart may be raised up with greater Devotion and Honour be given to God for so the Holy Apostle teacheth in the first to the Corinthians For if thou only bless with the Spirit c. To this I shall add that of Isidore Hispalensis that lived in the end of the fifth Century who saith De Eccles off l. 1. c. 10. That it behoveth that when it is sung in the Church that all do sing and when prayers are offered that all do pray and when there is reading