Jerusalem and to the several Beds whereon He lay and Ships wherein he wafted from Region to Region because his attingency in and with them was voluntary with the Cross coactive Nay they ought upon the same ground to adore Judas his lips the Officers hands that apprehended and bound Christ the Scourges whereby He was whipt for they were instruments of his passion as well as the Cross If they adore all other Crosses for their resemblance of the original Cross so they ought to adore all Mangers all Launces all Nails Thorns Spittles c. for these have the same resemblance to our Saviours Manger and to those Nails Thorns c. which were the instruments of his Passion They attribute more Honour unto Christs Cross than to his Resurrection by these words We adore thy Cross and commemorate thy Resurrection Crucem tuam adoramus resurrectionem tuam recolimus They ascribe then it seems Adoration to the Cross which is only proper unto the Divine Nature and to the Cross likewise that is to the Wood they attribute the redemption of the world and the reconcilation of mankind unto God the Father vide Bellarmin lib. 2. c. 23. sect Ac primum They also attribute forgiveness of Sins and increase of Righteousness to the Cross they repose their hopes and confidence in the dead Wood of the Cross and beg remission of Sins from it as may be seen in their Hymns extant in the Roman Breviary corrected and revised by the authority of the Council of Trent and set forth by several Popes as may be seen in several Editions of it especially in that Printed at Paris anno 1662 whence I draw this that follows O Crux ave spes unica In hoc Paschali gaudio Auge piis Justitiam Reisque dona veniam That is in English thus Hail O Cross our only hope In this our Paschal joy Increase the Righteousness of the pious And give pardon to the guilty Nothing doubtless can be more prodigious unless it be what follows O Crux splendidior cunctis astris Mundo celebris hominibus multum amabilis Sanctior universis Quae sola fuisse digna portare talentum mundi Dulce Lignum dulces clavos dulcia ferens pondera Salva praesentem catervam In tuis hodie laudibus congregatam Alleluja Alleluja That is in English thus O Cross more bright than all the Stars Famous through the world very lovely to mankind More holy than all other things Which wast alone worthy to carry the Ransom of the world Dear Wood that carriest the dear Nails and the dear Burden Save the present Assembly which is to day gathered together for thy Praise Alleluja Alleluja Great Complements upon my word for a liveless piece of Wood for that they mean the material Cross and not the Passion of our Saviour their words do abundantly declare We see here they repose their hope and considence in the Wood they beg increase of Grace from it and ascribe to it a Power to forgive Sins which Attribute appertaineth to the Godhead only The Humanity of Christ separated from his Divinity is not to be adored with divine Worship as St. Augustin teacheth Homil 38. de Verbis Domini Therefore much less his Cross or any other representative Image of his The Holy Ghost is present in the Sacrament of Baptism yet it is not to be adored with the same Worship due to the Holy Ghost Therefore that Wood whereon Christ suffered and other Blocks or Stumps of Trees resembling it are not to be adored with the same veneration due unto Christ Many consequences that may be inserr'd from the Worship of the Cross and of Images are so prodigiously absurd impious blasphemous and so numerous that if I endeavoured exactly to enumerate and prosecute them I should never come unto an end Therefore I leave them to the upholders of these abuses whence they are emergent and also these upholders to trust to their Images like to like for they that make them Psal 115.8 are like unto them and so is every one that trusteth in them CHAP. VI. Of Prayers in an unknown Tongue THe Sixth and last Motive or Cause of my Declension from the Church of Rome is its lack of Charity in robbing Christians not only of the superabundant effects of our Lords Supper by dismembring it but also of that other effectual Remedy which Christ left unto them as means whereby they might attain unto Salvation viz. the benefit of Publick Service or Common Prayers by hindring them to make use thereof in the vulgar tongue intended by God and Nature for all peoples edification This Common Service Prayers Liturgy or Mass which in effect are all one the Conventicle of Trent in the 22th Sess and 8th chap. denies plainly to be expedient to use in the vulgar Tongue or Idiom So Stapleton the Jesuit in his English Book written against Bishop Jewel Artic. 3. p. 75. says inconsiderately that Devotion is rather hindred by using it in a known Idiom than promoted Bellarmine in the second Book de Verbo Dei chap. 15. endeavours to prove that anciently Common Prayers were universally practised in the Latin tongue by all Nations and consequently now ought to be so This self-ended and fabulous Natration of Bellarmines I beg his leave for saying it is far from truth and as contrary to Christs Ordinance to the Apostolick Practice and the general Custom of the primitive Church as Fire and Water black and white cold and heat are one to another Which first I prove by the Testimonies of Scripture 2. By the undeniable Authorities of the holy Fathers 3. By the usual Practice of all other Christian Nations 4. I shall endeavour to prove that the Church of Rome hath borrowed this practice from such Authors as it is a shame for her to imitate The Testimonies of Scripture produced to this effect 1. What Christ commanded that ought religiously to be observed in his Church but Christ by the mouth of his Apostle St. Paul commanded Common Prayers to be used in the vulgar Idiom understood by the hearers 1 Cor. 14.9 So likewise you except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood how shall it be known what is spoken for ye shall speak unto the air v. 14. For if I pray in an unknown tongue my Spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitful v. 16. Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at they giving of thanks seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest And v. 19. Yea I had rather speak five words with my understanding in the Church that by my voice I might teach others also then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue 2. Whatever is done in the Church that ought to redound to the edification thereof 1 Cor. 14 v. 26. How is it then Brethren when ye come together every one of you hath a Psalm hath a Doctrine hath a Tongue hath Revelation hath an Interpretation
let all things be done unto edifying But an unknown tongue edifies none Ibid. v. 6. Now Brethren if I come to you speaking with tongues what shall I profit you except I shall speak to you either by revelation or knowledge or by prophesying or Doctrine v. 9. as above cited 3. If the Minister prayeth in an unknown tongue he is a Barbarian to the people and also the people to him 1 Cor. 14. v. 11. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice I shall be unto him that speaketh a Barbarian and he that speaketh a Barbarian unto me 4. All things ought to be done in the Church with decency and due order 1 Cor. 14. v. 40. Let all things be done decently and in order But the use of Prayers in an unknown tongue is directly against this Rule because when the Minister so prayeth the hearers understand not what he says nor consequently pray nor say Amen to any effect nay the Minister only who understandeth the Divine Service prayeth and so the Prayers which ought to be publick by this means are become private which is as opposite to the Decency and right Order of the Church as Whoremongering to the seventh Commandment 5. As the Prophets Christ the Apostles and their true Successors have solemnly ministred the Rites and publick Office of the Church even so now and perpetually they ought as far as is possible in the same form manner and method without alteration to be ministred But they ministred them in the vulgar Language according to the capacity of their Hearers as St. Paul abundantly witnesseth in the aforegoing 1 Cor. 14. And besides many of the Papists themselves own that Prayers understood are far better and more available as Lyranus on the first Epistle to the Corinthians 14. and Cardinal Cajetan in Comment on the same chap. Therefore the practice of praying in a known tongue being better and more effectual for edifying the people ought still to be retained in the Church whereas she is always to ediâ—ie and not destroy Though the whole stream of all the holy Fathers cannot more convincingly prove the certainty of this truth than St. Paul hath done already yet for the further satisfaction of the Reader I will produce a few Testimonies to the same purpose so pregnant as not to be avoided Basil the Great in Epist 63 has these following words By the dawning of the day says he the Congregation of the Faithful altogether with one voice Illucescente jam die pariter unâ— ore ac corde omnes fideles Confessionis Psalmum Deo offerunt ac suis quisque verbis resipiscentiam profitetur Quae consuetudines omnibus Dei Ecclesis consentientes sunt and one mind offereth a Psalm of Thanksgiving unto the Lord and every one in his own proper speech acknowledgeth his amendment of life Which practices are consented unto in all the Churches of God. How could this custom of using Common Prayers with one voice or language in Basil the Great 's time in all Christian Churches be plausible amongst the faithful if their Liturgies as Bellarmine feigns had been customarily used in Latin For it cannot be properly said that they offered unâ voce Thanksgiving unto the Lord if they practised diversity of Languages Saint Augustine affirms the same l. 2. in Gen. c. 8. in these words None can be edified by hearing that which he understands not Nemo inquit aedificatur audiendo quod non intelligit And on Psalm 99. he says again Blessed be they who understand the magnificient Praise of the Lord Beatus populus qui intelligit jubilationem curramus ad hanc Beatitudinem intelligamus jubilationem non eam sine intellectu sundamus let us hasten to this Blessedness let us understand it let us not pour it out unless we understand it Hence follows that few in the Church of Rome can attain unto this blessedness of understanding the Lords Praise because it cannot be compassed without perfect knowledge of the Latine tongue which cannot be acquired without a tedious progress in the study of it which progress is morally impossble for the Commonalty who make up the greatest number in that Communion Yet they are uncharitably and that contrary to S. Augustines Admonition excluded from this Blessedness by a new Commandment and Article of Faith lately sabricated in the Conventicle of Trent to their utter destruction For what profit can they receive that hear a sound and are strangers to the meaning of it it were as good that they were absent as present and therefore Solomon calls this doting kind of serving God Sacrificium stultorum a Sacrifice of Fools and so really it is For they that hear it are no further benefited thereby than they have capacity to apprehend it as Azorius learnedly affirms in these words Devotion springs from understanding Affectus consequitur intellectum ubi autem earum rerum quae petuntur aut dicuntur nullus habetur intellectus ibi exiguus assurgit affectus consequenter valdè exiguus fructus when there is no understanding of things that are sought or said there is but little Devotion and consequently very little benefit reapt by the hearer Indeed according to this grave Doctors opinion it were as advantagious to them that are not Latinists to have a speechless Priest so say Mass mentally as one that hath the freedom of speaking to say it loudly for he that cannot speak and hath no speech and he that hath none to be understood is all alike unto the ignorant in regard of profiting them which is a thing rarely well confirmed by St. Augustine in the 4th Book of his Christian Doctrine the 10th chap. exciting the people with a great deal of vehemency to refrain from the perverse custom of praying in an unknown Language which in no way says he tends to edification There is no cause says he why a man should speak at all if they for whose sake he speaks understand him not Quid prodest locutionum integritas quam non sequitur intellectus audientis Cum loquendi nulla causa si quod loquimur non intelligunt propter quos ut intelligant loquimur For God hears the Priests thoughts when he speaks not as well as when he speaks he hears the Prayers of the Heart and sees the Word of the Mind and a speechless Priest can do all the Ceremonies and make the Signs and he that speaks aloud to them that understand him not does no more So the Author of the Exposition upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians by some thought to be St. Ambrose chap. 14. says If ye be convened to edifie the Church Si ad Ecclesiam aedificandam convenitis ea dici debent quae intelligunt auditores things ought to be spoken which the hearers understand Which Doctrine is plainly seconded by Cassiodore upon Psal 46. in these words We ought not only says he to sing Non solum inquit cantantes sed
she hath authority to impose things on my Belief that thwart my Senses and contradict common Principles of Reason This monstrous and lately framed figment of human invention I mean the Doctrin of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the time it began to be owned publickly for an Opinion and the very Council in which it was said to be passed into a publick Doctrin and by what arts it was promoted and by what persons it was introduced For all the World knows that by their own Parties by (a) In 4. lib Sentent d. 11. q. 3. Scotus by (b) ibid. q. 6. Ocham (c) Leâ—t 40. in can missae Biel Fisher Bishop (d) Cap. cont captivit Babyl of Rochester and divers others whom (e) De Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 23. sect 2. dicit Bellarmine calls most acute and learned men It was declared that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible that in the Scriptures there is no place so express as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of Transubstantiation and therefore at least it is to be suspected of Novelty But further we know that it was but a disputable Question in the ninth and tenth Ages after Christ that it was not pretended to be an Article of Faith till the Lateran Council in the time of Innocent III. 1215 Years after Christ that since that pretended (f) Venere quidem tunc multa in confultationem nec decerni tamen aperte quic quam potuit Platina in vita Innocent III. determination divers of the chiefest Teachers of their own side have no more been satisfied of the ground of it than they were before but still have publickly affirmed that the Article is not expressed in Scripture (g) apud Suar. tom 3. disp 46. sect 3. loc com lib. 3. fund 2. particularly Johannes de Bassolis Cardinal Cajetan and Melchior Canus besides those above reckoned And therefore if it was not expressed in Scripture it will be clear that they made their Article out of their own heads for they could not declare it to be there if it was not and if it be there but obscurely then it ought to be taught accordingly and at most it could be but a probable Doctrine and not certain as an Article of Faith. But that we may put it past Argument and Probability it is certain That as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly so it was not taught at all as a Catholick Doctrine or as an Article of Faith by the Primitive Ages of the Church Now in order to make this appear we have the Confessions of many Authors very much esteemed by the Church of Rome whose authorities have been most exactly collected and examined by the learned Bishop Taylor to whom I own my self much indebted for my Conversion For the further manifestation of the incontroulable truth of this point we need no other proof but the confession and acknowledgment of the great Doctors of the Church of Rome Scotus says That before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was no Article of Faith as Bellarmine confesses Lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23 Sect. unum tamen Sum. l. 8. c. 20. and Henriquez affirms that Scotus says It was not antient insomuch that Bellarmine accuses him of Ignorance saying He talked at that rate because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory VII nor that consent of Fathers which to little purpose he had heaped together Rem Transubstantionis Patres nè attigisse quidem said some of the English Jesuites in Prison The Fathers have not so much as touched or medled with the matter of Transubstantiation Discurs modest p. 13. And in Peter Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith or Catholick Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no And after he had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confessed He could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no. His words are these L. 4. Senten dist 11 lit a. If it be enquired what kind of Conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or another kind I am not able to define it only I know that it is not formal because the same Accidents remain the same Colour and Tast To some it seems to be substantial saying that the Substance is changed that it is done essentially to which the former authority seems to consent But to this Sentence others oppose these things if the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted into the Body and Bloud of Christ which before was not the Body then every day some substance is made the Body and Bloud of Christ which was not his Body before And to day something is Christs Body which yesterday was not and every day Christs Body is increased and is made of such matter of which it was not made in the conception These are his words which I have remarked not only for Arguments sake though it be unanswerable but to give a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine was new not the Doctrine of the Church And this was written about (a) Ad Annum 1160. fifty years before it was said to be decreed in the Lateran (b) Ad Annum 1215. Council And therefore it made haste in so short a time to pass from a disputable Question to an Article of Faith. But even after the Council (c) Secund. Buchol An. Dom. 1271. sed secund Volaterranum 1335. in 4. lib. Sen. tent dist 11. q. 1. sect propter tertium Durandus as good a Catholick and as famous a Doctor as any was in the Church of Rome publickly maintained that even after Consecration the very matter of Bread remained and although he says that by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held yet it is not only possible it should be so but it implies no contradiction that it be Christs Body and yet the matter of Bread remain And if this might be admitted it would salve many difficulties which arise from saying that the substance of Bread does not remain But here his Reason was overcome by Authority and he durst not affirm that which alone he was able to give as he thought a reasonable account of But by this it appears that the Opinion then was but in the forge and by all their understanding they could never accord it but still the Questions were uncertain and the Opinion was not determined at Lateran as it is now held at Rome It is also plain that it is a stranger to antiquity De Transubstantiatione â—anis in Corpus Christi rara est in antiquis Scriptoribus mentio De Heraes l. 8. verbo Indulgentia said Alphonsus à Castro There is seldom mention made in the ancient Writers of Transubstantiating the Bread into Christs Body I know the modesly and interest of