us God forbid they should We believe and preach That our Ministers are men and mere creatures so that no man can take the kneeling which is before them who give imposition of hands for an adoration addressed to them all the profession of our Churches and nature of the things themselves directly contradicting it In like manner the Church of England believeth and teacheth publickly That the Eucharist is bread in substance and that to adore it were grievously to offend God So that the kneeling which is in their communion cannot be taken for an adoration of ought else but Jesus Christ who is in heaven and not of bread which is upon the earth Did the Church of Rome believe and likewise teach that the Eucharist were bread in substance and not a subject fit to be adored we think that then we might bow the knee in her Communion without wounding our consciences But while she teacheth that which she now believeth while she exacteth of us this kneeling as a true adoration of the Sacrament who is so blind as not to see that we cannot obey her without making our selves according to the judgement of our own consciences guilty of adoreing a meer creature since we believe the Sacrament so to be CHAP. XIII That he who believeth the Eucharist to be bread in substance cannot give it the reverence which is practised in the Church of Rome withoul evident falshood hypocrisie and perfidiousnesse Object FOr to say Though the intention of the Church of Rome be that we should addresse this kneeling and adoration whereof that is the mark to the Sacrament there present That we may neverthelesse use it otherwise and addresse it to J. Christ sitting in heaven at the right hand of His Father lifting up our hearts raising our affections and thoughts to Him and by this means kneel with our Adversaries without adoring as they do that which we believe to be but a creature Answ This is a false and dangerous excuse of the flesh which might it take place would open a large and dangerous gate to impietie and hypocrisie and ruine the foundations of all religion And for the better understanding of it I must begin with it a little higher God being the Creatour and Redeemer of whole man that is to say both of his soul and of his bodie would have him which is but reasonable serve Him entirely using both the one and the other of these two parts to that end Glorifie God in your body and in your spirit both which are Gods saith the Apostle 1 Cor. vi 20. And as in offices which concern our neighbours he commandeth us sincerity willing us to love them inwardly and to edifie and help them outwardly so doth He command that in piety which regardeth Himself we should joyntly make use of our hearts and bodies And as He abominates that man who loving his neighbour in his heart should abuse him with his tongue or hurt him with his hand or contrariwise should give him an almes with his hand and hate him in his heart So will He not approve of that man who pretends to reverence Him in the secret of his soul and yet with his tongue blasphemeth His name nor him who blessing Him with his mouth shall curse Him with his heart 'T will stand one man in no stead to plead for himself That his soul did his duty but the bodie failed of his nor another to excuse the defaults of the soul by the service of the body So that in effect these excuses will be but a meer mockery The union of the mind and the body being so neare that when the mind is disposed as it should the body cannot but perform its devoir and he that abusing God or his neighbour with his tongue would have us believe that notwithstanding all that he loveth them sincerely in his heart is a bold lyar deserving to be punished not onely for his blasphemy or wrong but likewise for his impudence According to these undoubted Maximes we are bound not onely to receive in our hearts the truths which God hath revealed in Religion but likewise outwardly to professe them And we are all bound not onely not to disbelieve with our hearts the errours and impieties which are contrary to the truth of God but likewise not to confesse them outwardly in any kind For if it be enough to retain in the heart the knowledge and love of truth and it be permitted to deny it outwardly sometimes S. Peter had not fell in denying his Master for no man can doubt but that his heart within knew well enough what his tongue disavowed without And so to denie our Lord before men would be no sinne and confession with the mouth would be of no use which all are things evidently false For that action of S. Peter is grievously blamed in the Gospel and his tears if we had no other proof shew us sufficiently that he thought he did extremely offend God And our Lord Matth. x. 33. protesteth expressely that He will denie him before His Father in heaven that is to say that at the great day of judgement He will not own him for His nor put him in the number of His blessed children who will deny him before men And lastly S. Paul Rom. x. 9 10. teacheth us That with the heart men believe unto righteousnesse and with the tongue they make confession unto salvation and to be saved he doth not onely require That you should believe the Lord in your heart but likewise that you should confesse him with your mouth The same reasons do necessarily induce us to believe That it is not enough to banish from our hearts the belief of impietie and such errours as are contrary to the foundations of true Religion unlesse we also banish the confession of them from our mouthes For to confesse an errour which overthroweth the fundamentalls of Religion is clearly to deny our Râ—ligion Since then we are forbidden under pain of an eternall curse to confesse with our mouth the errours which we detest with our hearts T is cleare that if we believe the adoration of the Host of the Church of Rome to be an errour contrary to the foundations of piety as we do indeed That we cannot confesse it without violating the commandment of J. Christ and pulling upon our souls eternall ruine and damnation For where is the Christian who firmly believing that the Sacrament is a creature and being asked if he should give it the adoration of latria will not dread to answer Yes and whose conscience will not feel a thousand remorses if any passion cause his tongue to say so And how can we say that the Sacrament is to be adored or confesse it more clearly then by prostrating our selves before the Host of the Church of Rome and giving it in the presence of men the same outward veneration which is the mark and substance of that which we give to Him Object But you 'l perhaps deny That with
who did not likewise hold the conclusion viz. that the soul is mortall With what face dare you venture to assert it since Tertullian and many other Authors of very great esteem were of that opinion and S. Augustine did rather approve it then condemn it since I say they did openly believe the first of these positions and expresly deny the second So S. Hilary according to the true consequences of that opinion which he held concerning the impassible nature of Christs body seems to me to have been obliged to denie the truth and realitie of our redemption And yet who dare impute so grievous an impietie to such a Saint I should never have done should I resolve to set down here all the examples that may be alledged to this purpose These two suffice to shew that whoever maintains an ill opinion is not therefore to be held guilty of the consequences of it Sâ—ppose then it were true as it is not That from the belief of the Lutherans concerning the Eucharist it would follow That we must adore the Sacrament Since they own not this consequence nay on the contrary strongly reject it It would be an extreme injustice to ascribe it to them And as it would have been a want of charity in the primitive Christians to have avoided the Communion of Tertullian or S. Hilary upon protence that from their opinions touching the originall of the soul of man and the nature of the body of Christ there followed many propositions which are impious and contrary to our faith since they rejected and abhorred them so would it be in my mind a great oversight now to separate from the Lutherans upon this pretended consequence from their opinion concerning the holy Sacrament if it could be deduced thence as it cannot Since they themselves protest that they will not acknowledge it But as for them of Rome 't is quite otherwise For the adoration of the Eucharist is a consequence of their doctrine concerning this point both de jure and de facto that is it plainly follows from it and they expresly professe and practise it 1. De jure it follows from it For if the subject which we call the Sacrament of the Eucharist be in its substance not bread as we believe but the body of Christ as they hold 't is evident that men both may and ought to adore it seeing that the body of Christ is a subject adorable And then it follows from it 2. De facto they practise it For who knows not that there is not any one Article in all the Romane religion which is professed more publickly pressed more severely exercised more devoutly then this of adoring the Host Since then they hold this article both de jure according to the plain consequences of their belief in the point of the Eucharist and de facto in their confessions and practises and That the Lutherans on the contrary hold them not neither in one manner nor the other neither in thesi nor hypothesi 'T is cleare That our bearing with the latter without separating from them for the diversitie that is between them and us about the point of the Eucharist doth no way inferre that we should do as much with the former CHAP. X. That the dignitie and excellency of the Eucharist doth not hinder it from being a grievous and deadly offense to adore it if it be bread in substance as we believe Object BUt you 'l say That you esteem it a rude comparison to liken the adoration which the Church of Rome gives the Eucharist to the services that the profane Pagans or debauched Israelites gave to mere creatures For they adored idols whereas the Eucharist is a divine Sacrament So that it seems an abuse of the Scripture to scare us with those threats and curses that it denounceth against such kind of people seeing the object which they served was so different from that which Rome will have us to adore We confesse we perform this action but 't is to one of the Institutions of our Master and for you to equall that and compare it with an idol 'T is very unbeseeming Answ Thanks be to God we have a clean other opinion of the Eucharist We hold it as it is indeed a very holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord to be one of the most precious instruments of his grace which being lawfully and rightly celebrated communicateth to us all the treasures of heaven the flesh and bloud of Christ the pardon of our sinnes the peace of our consciences the sanctification of our souls and the right to a blessed immortalitie Farre be it from us to give it the profane and infamous name of an idol We will not say that it is simply and onely bread and if any of us do chance to speak so in saying that 't is bread he means in regard of the substance of the thing not in regard of its vertue or dignity in regard of which we believe that it is quite another thing from bread We should take the word in the same sense that Gregory Nyssen doth on the like subject who speaking of the water in Baptisme Orat. in Bapt. Christ p. 803. tom 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith That it is nothing else but water he means in its nature For in the grace 't is another thing beside water and both the Scriptures teach it to be so and all Christians believe it and this holy Doctour particularly witnesseth it in divers places Id. ibid. p. 801. c. 4. orat Catech. c. 33. We therefore do willingly give to the Sacrament all those advantages and respects that justly belong to it and not to any idol But if this be a creature as we believe it to be the excellence and dignitie thereof as great as you set it forth will not at all excuse their crime who adore it For the Lord forbids us to adore not base or vain things onely as onions and the Cats of the Egyptians and the idols of the Pagans which have not any subsistence in nature or any where else except in their false imaginations but he forbids us generally and absolutely to adore any creature what ever it be whether it creep upon the ground or shine in heaven whether it swim in the water or flie in the aire animate or inanimate visible or invisible corporeall or spiritual profane or sacred comprehending under the same condemnation all those who worship any creature what ever it be as guilty of the same crime and subject to the same punishment And de facto the thing is very evident for this adoration which we give to God being an acknowledgement of his Soveraignty a duty like to the love which a woman oweth to her lawfull husband Who doth not perceive that it is a manifest crime to give it to any other but to him that the differences of the subjects to which men give it are no way considerable in this particular seeing though they
me anathema For my part I give heed to â—â—y Jesus who said If any say unto you here is Christ or there believe him not And to this purpose is that which the Egyptian Anchorets c. 69. are reported oft to have said If a true Angel appear to thee be not very ready to entertain him but humble thy self saying I am not worthy to see an Angel while I live in sinne So that though we had some reason to think Christ were present yet 't were good to refrain and not adore him when we are not in all points assured that it is He because this were evidently to profane the act of adoration which must by no means be given to any rashly and at adventure Now our adversaries find nothing in all this matter which doth not shew clearly that the Eucharist is really not the Lord of the world but bread And therefore there is farre lesse reason that the adoration which they give to the Host should be excused by that opinion which they pretend to have of it II. But then secondly Though the opinion of the Romane Church concerning the Eucharist should as we have proved it doth not justifie or at least excuse that adoration which they give it yet 't is cleare That to alledge that opinion of theirs here as an excuse were nothing to the purpose For the question is not concerning the Romanists who professe that they believe that the Eucharist is really and personally the Sonne of God but concerning us who are so farre from believing it that we have not the least suspicion of it being God be thanked fully perswaded that the Sacrament is truly bread And why should we not believe it so since our senses witnesse our reason sheweth the Scriptures teach that it is bread which are the three fountains of all our knowledge and we cannot be sure of any thing but from one of them Having therefore this belief of the Eucharist how can we adore it without rendring our selves guilty of violating all those precepts wherein God hath forbidden us to adore the creatures and incurring all those deaths and curses which he hath denounced against the breach of such precepts I meddle not with other mens consciences nor will I take upon me to judge their actions Almighty God will do that one day And I think I have said enough to shew them that 'T is their duty in the mean while to consider it seriously I speak of my self Since my soul is perswaded that the Eucharist is a creature I cannot adore it without offending the laws of God and overthrowing the foundations of my own salvation And though my perswasion were false yet since I believe it and that upon so many and so certain divine and humane assurances Though the Sacrament were as it is not really the Lord of glory yet 't is cleare That if I shall adore it believing as aforesaid such my service will be false and unlawfull addressed not to God who is the sole true and lawfull object but to a creature which my imagination shall through mistake have substituted in His place Hereupon the Ancient Church hath constantly accused the Arians of adoring the creature and continually called the service which they gave to Christ idolatry and adoration of the creature and with very good reason For though the Lord Jesus is the true God eternall the Creatour of the world and Redeemer of the Church and of the same substance with the Father and though the adoration which is given to Him by them who believe Him to be such be a lawfull worship not condemned but approved and expressely commanded in the Scripture yet they who by a detestable errour hold Him to be but a mere creature and think that the Father made Him of nothing either before or after the Creation of the world as well as the heaven and the earth if they give Him the same adoration which is due to the Father they do evidently bestow on a creature that which belongs to the Creatour onely For they addresse this service not to the true Jesus coeternall and coessentiall with the Father but to a phantasme of a creature forged in their own brain hereby rendring themselves guilty of a crime so often condemned and detested by the Lord in the Scriptures Seeing then that the truth of the word of God and the Authority of the Ancient Church forbids us to adore that which we believe to be but a creature under peril of incurring the curses denounced by the laws of God against those who rob Him of His glory and give it to another We must conclude that neither the opinion of the Church of Rome nor any other consideration can exempt us from the anathemaes of Heaven if we adore as our Adversaries do the Sacrament of the Eucharist firmly believing it to be bread in substance and not as they pretend our B. Saviour really and personally CHAP. XII The errour of those who think they may give to the Host of the Church of Rome that reverence which she commands without adoring Object BUt perhaps some will grant That we cannot lawfully adore the Eucharist while we are of this mind but will say That we may give that worship to the Sacrament which the Church of Rome commands without adoring it For they 'l say Since you acknowledge that the Eucharist is a Sacrament instituted by our Lord can you not kneel at receiving it and addresse your adoration and service not to the Sacrament which you esteem to be a creature but to J. Christ the authour of it whom you believe to be the Creatour of the Universe as he is indeed If one of you should be be baptized at years of discretion think you that he might not receive that Sacrament on his knees without being blamed for adoring the water Nay would it not be his duty to put himself into this respectfull posture rather then any other to shew the reverence which he bears to our Lord and to the seal of the new Covenant and adoption And when your Pastors are consecrated by imposition of hands do they not receive it on their knees Yet none thinks that they do therefore adore those who lay hands on them or the signe which is used to that end And then why do you make such scruple of bowing your knees and bending your bodies in receiving the Eucharist a Sacrament no lesse precious then Baptisme instituted by the same Lord and for the same end one to regenerate us the other to nourish us one to help us into the Church the other to help us to persevere Why are you afraid in this particular rather then in any other of the crime and the punishment that attends adoration of the Eucharist Answ But though this objection have some lustre in it and dazleth many persons perswading them to accommodate themselves outwardly to the Church of Rome retaining in their heart the same opinion which we hold concerning the Eucharist yet nothing can
to practise it and punish them as the worst Malefactours As for men who knoweth not that their tribunals are for the most part set up to maintain faithfulnesse and honestie in words and other declarative signes of our intentions If one after he have given his promise to a Maid That he will take her for his spouse should refusing to marry her be brought before a Justice and there be so impudent as to plead that he meant onely to take her for his concubine who questioneth but that such a man would be taken not onely for a treacherous person and a perjured but likewise for a mocker and that he should be punished notwithstanding his excuse And the subject who shall leave his Soveraignes colours and shall do homage to his enemy and wear his marks and badges shall he be quitted for saying That his heart was loyall all this while and that he did these things with another intention Shall he not neverthelesse be held for a Rebell and which is more for a mocker and a man that hath a heart and a heart as the Scriptures speak and one whom errour and passion hath transported into the contrary partie against his Liege-Lord And if he fall into the hands of the Princes Officers will these ridiculous excuses possibly preserve him from infamy and that punishment which shamelesse and rebellious subjects deserve or will he not rather fare the worse for them Now if the justice of man in stead of accepting this kind of excuses is offended and incensed by those who have the boldnesse to alledge them how can we hope that the justice of God which is infinitely more pure and more holy shall take such for payment when question is made concerning Truth and His Service I cannot believe that there is any man so brutish as to imagine that after he hath expresly pronounced That we must adore a creature he shall be absolved for saying that by the word Creature he meaneth the Creatour There is no man that hath common sense but seeth that this would be a pure illusion and that so dull and grosse as I cannot think any man should ever dream of making use of it Those very men who are partly of our perswasion and yet think That a man may with a good conscience prostrate himself before the Host of the Romane Church will yet make scruple of pronouncing with their mouthes that they must adore it Now the nature and reason of words and of actions and ceremonies is the same as we have proved Both the one and the other are signes and symboles instituted to signifie our thoughts Since then all Christians agree that in Confessions and declarations of Faith which we make either by the mouth or writing 't is not permitted them to use words in any sense but that wherein they are taken in common use we must conclude That it is not lawfull for us to abuse the ceremonies and actions of one Religion to a sense contrary to what they signifie in the ordinary practise of men Whence it followeth That even as by the confession of those who are our Adversaries in this point he will sinne grievously that believing the Host of the Romane Church to be a creature shall say with his mouth That he must render to it the adoration of latria in what sense soever he pretend to take these words so is it a very sottish fault for any to prostrate themselves before the Host having the same belief as we have the same intention in so doing Since by so doing they pronounce as much or more expresly then if they had said it with their mouth That they must adore the Host The action which they perform signifying the same thing clearly and expresly in the common use of men CHAP. XV. An answer to the example of Naaman the Syrian objected by some Object ANd whereas they object the famous example of Naaman the Syrian who after he was converted to the knowledge of the LORD was wont to bow himself in the temple of the Idol and when the King his Master went to perform his devotions he accompanied him and bowed himself that the King might lean upon him at his devotions Answ In answer I shall not mention the many interpretations of this passage that seem to draw the words 2 Kings v. 18. to another sense then what is now presented Suppose which is yet contended for that Naaman desired leave of the Lord to enter into Rimmons temple and bow himself there That the King might use him to lean on Suppose that Elisha did on Gods part grant him thus much so That this his bowing was no way contrary to his piety to God or charitie to his neighbour all this granted will conclude nothing against what hath hitherto been spoken For Naaman doth not simply entreat the Lord to let him prostrate himself in the Temple of Rimmon in no kind That had been to entreat a thing clearly and expresly forbidden which the Prophet would never have granted But he requests leave to yeild the King that service which he had done formerly viz. to wait upon Him and let Him lean upon him as 't is the custome of Princes and great Personages in state to lean upon their servants or Favourites and That if his Master should require that service of him in the Idol-temple he might give it him without offending God This action if well considered differs excessively from that we now speak of For we treat of such actions as have reference absolutely and simply to the service of that object which men pretend to adore whereas this is terminated directly and immediately in the service of an earthly King and Master Those actions of the Romanists signifie nothing in common use but the adoration and divinitie of the objects to which they are publickly consecrated this on the contrary signifies principally and directly Onely that Naaman acknowledged the King to whom he gave his service to be his Leige-Lord and Master And therefore as much difference as there is between the adoration of a creature and the service of a Master so much there is there between this action of Naaman and those which the Romanists pretend to be permitted them God no where forbids a servant to obey his Master to lend him a hand to move or a shoulder to lean on or to kneel that a man may be the more commodious and serviceable to him therein Nay on the contrary He commands us in his H. Word to keep all the degrees and offices of civil societie inviolably and bids servants particularly beware of abating ought of what obedience is due to their earthly Masters under pretence of giving some to their heavenly But as for adoration of the creature He very rigorously forbids it Whence it appears that though one may lawfully use words and actions that testifie the first kind of submission yet it follows not that he may exercise such as signifie the second I confesse that Naaman's doing