originem Dominicae Traditionis revertatur◠Cypr. Epist 63. Pamilianae editionis and in administring it to the People do not do that which Jesus Christ our Lord God the Teacher and Author of this Sacrifice did and taught I judged it to be agreeable to good Conscience and necessary to write to you about this matter that if any one be yet possessed with this Error he may by seeing the Light of Truth return to the root and original of our Lords Tradition And thus having establisht his foundation namely that nothing ought to be done contrary to the Institution of Christ in the first part of his Epistle he proves the necessity of using Wine in the Consecration of the Sacrament but in the later part he comes to consider the great inconvenience and mischief to the people that ensued from their being deprived of the Cup. And that which he chiefly takes notice of was a great decay and failure of Christian Courage occasioned as St. Cyprian supposes by this depravation of the Sacrament For in times of Persecution some learned from the Aquarians to abstain from drinking the Consecrated Wine least the smell of it should discover that they have been at the Christian Meetings in the Mornings St. Cyprians Words are these Caeterum omnis Religionis et ve ritatis Disciplina subvertitur nisi id quod spiritualiter praecipitur fideliter observetur nisi si sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis ve retur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi sic ergoincipit in persecutionibus a passione Christi fraternitas retardari dum in oblationibus discit de sanguine ejus et cruore confundi Cyp. Ep. 63. ubi supra But the discipline and good order of all Religion and Truth is overthrown unless what was spiritually commanded be faithfully observed But perhaps the case is that some persons in the Morning Sacrifices or Sacraments are afraid least by the savor of Wine they should smell of Christs Blood and so by this means our Christian Brethren in times of Persecution begin to be slack or backward in suffering for Christ while at the Celebration of the Sacrament they learn to be ashamed of Christs Blood. And a little after the same Author says Quomodo autem possumus propter Christem sanguinem fundere qui sanguinem Christi erubescimus bibere How can we being asham'd to drink the Blood of Christ spill our Blood for Christs sake Besides in another Epistle the same S. Cyp. writing to Cornelius the Bishop of Rome concerning the restoring of certain delinquent Brethren who in times of Persecution had fallen into Idolatry but by Repentance deserved to be reconciled to the Church urges the necessity of their being admitted into Communion because that since new Troubles and Persecutions were coming on it would be necessary to arm and fortifie all Believers with the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and he insists particularly upon the necessiy of giving them the Sacramental Cup. His expressions are these that follow For after what a strange manner do we teach and excite them to lose their Blood in confessing the Name of Christ Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confessione Nominis Christi sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Sanguinem Christi denegamus aut quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idoneos facimus si eos priùs ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure Communicationit non admittimus Cyp. Ep 54. Edit Pamel if we deny the Blood of Christ to them that are ready to undergo such a warfare And how do we make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not admit them first by the right of Communion to drink our Lords Cup in the Church It is observable that S. Cyprian here pleads for the peoples receiving the Cup from the right of Communion that is from the right which accrewed to every one by his being made a member of the visible Church By this passage and the rest before cited it appears abundantly what the Judgment of this holy Martyr was that he thought all Christians obliged to receive the consecrated Wine and that the omission of it was a transgression of our Lords Commandment and the destruction of several Christian virtues especially of that courage and resolution wherewith all Believers ought openly to profess the Name of Christ I might produce many more ancient Witnesses of great credit to make good what is here by me affirmed but I shall content my self for brevitys sake with two others whose Authority doubtless ought to be past all exception with the Roman Catholicks because they were Popes or Bishops of Rome for anciently the Title of Pope was given to any eminent Bishop The first of these is Leo the first of that name that was Bishop in Rome but before I produce his Testimony it is necessary to observe that although his words are levelled against the Manichees who superstitiously abhorred Wine and therefore avoided receiving the Sacramental Cup yet Leo's words do abundantly shew what his Judgment was concerning that necessity which as he thought did lye indispensibly upon all Communicants to partake of the mystical Blood of Christ Consequently says he when they venture to be present at our mysteries Cumque ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum Communione se temperant ut interdum tutius lateant ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt Sanguinem autem Redemptionis nostrae haurire omninò declinant quod ideò vestram scire volumus sanctitatem ut nobis hujusmodi homines his manifestentur indiciis quorum fuerit deprehensa sacrilegia simulatio notati proditi à Sanctorum societate Sacerdotali Authoritate pellantur Serm. 4. in Quadrages they after such manner do comport themselves in partaking of the Sacraments that sometimes they very safely pass undiscerned with an unprepared mouth they receive the Body but altogether avoid the drinking of the Blood of our Redemption which I would have you holy Brethren therefore to take no tice of that by these indications such men as these may be discovered to us and that they whose sacrilegious dissimulation is sound out by being observed and detected may be driven from the society of the Saints by the Power of the Church Hence it is manifest to any man of reason that St. Leo lookt upon this practice of the Manichees as a most wicked and sacrilegious thing and he decrees no less a penalty for it than Excommunication Now it cannot be their inward and invisible superstition that he would have notice taken of but it must be their external comportment in avoiding the consecrated Wine Moreover if receiving the Cup had been an indifferent thing and esteemed so in Leo's age then the omission or declining of it would have been no distinctive mark to discover the Manichees from the Orthodox or regular Communicants For both might have done the same thing and so
that the giving of the Cup to the people is an indifferent thing and may be done or omitted as the Rulers of the Church shall judge convenient Some of them proceed farther and pretend that receiving the Bread alone was less or more the practice of all ages since the beginning of Christianity Many conjectures and surmises have been invented by Bellarmin and others in order to make this seem likely and yet all in vain For many learned men of the Roman Catholick party are ashamed of this pretence and ingenuously confess that there never was any such practice approved amongst the Ancients Alphonsus à Castro asserting the lawfulness of the peoples communicating in both kinds hath these words saith he For I have learned from the Writings of many holy men Nam olim per multa saecula sic apud omnes Catholicos usurpatum esse ex multorum sanctorum scriptis didicimus Alphons titul Eucharist Haeres 13. that anciently for many ages it was the custom for all Catholiques to communicate so Lindanus a great maintainer of Popery affirms that both kinds were generally received in the Eucharist even till the year 1260. Panopliae lib. 4. c. 56. in these words I now omit other things says he which make for this purpose to wit Omitto nunc alia quae huc faciunt quod in aetatem usque Divi Thomae 1. ann Domini 1260. utriusque speciei Communio ferè ubique fuerir Laicis administrata sed non ubique periculis fortè effusi Sanguinis Domini scandalis unà cum populis negligentia pietatis detrimento increbescentibus paulatim utriusque speciei Communio in unam degeneravit that till the age of St. Thomas that is till the year of our Lord 1260. the Communion in both kinds was almost every where administred to the Laity but not every where perhaps dangers and scandals arising from spilling the Blood of Christ together with the peoples negligence and the decay of Piety becoming every day greater the Communion of both kinds gradually degenerated into one Albaspinaeus the late learned Bishop of Orleans in France undertakes to confute several of Bellarmins Conjectures about the pretended Antiquity of the Half Communion especially his fancy that the Lay-communion a thing sometimes mentioned by the ancient Writers was a custom of the peoples receiving only in one kind and upon this occasion Albaspinaeus hath these words following But if we grant that which by all means we ought to acknowledge to wit Atqui si detur quod concedi omninò necesse est quo tempore Concilia Patres de Communione Laicâ mentionem fecerunt Laicos sub utraque specie communicâsse sequitur non esse sub una specie Communionem lib. 1. Observat cap. 4. that in those times when the Councils and Fathers made mention of the Lay-Communion the people did partake of both kinds it follows that this i.e. Lay-Communion is not participating of the Sacrament under one kind There are two remarkable places in Cardinal Bona lib. 2 c. 18. de Rebus Liturgicis to prove that the Communion in one kind was not practised till the year 1200. and that all the precedent ages had the contrary practice and gave both kinds to the people publickly He pretends besides but indeed without any considerable ground that the Half Communion was privately practised in those ages These are his sayings It is certain says he that all persons in all places Certum est quippe omnes passim Clericos Laicos viros mulieres sub utraque specie sacra mysteria antiquitùs sumpsisse cum solemni eorum Celebrationi aderant offerebant de Oblatis participabant Clergy and people men and women did anciently receive the holy mysteries in both kinds when they were present at the publick Celebration when they offered and did partake of the Offerings And a little after For always and every where Semper enim ubique ab Ecclesiae primordiis usque ad saeculum duodecimum sub specii Panis Vini communicârent fideles caepitque paulatim ejus saeculi initio usus calicis obsolescere from the infancy of the Church till the 12th age the faithful received the Communion under both kinds of Bread and Wine and the custom of the Cup in the beginning of that age began by little and little to be disused Thus we see by the Testimonies already produced that detaining the Cup from the people was no ancient practice but began about 460 years ago These Authors here cited being Papists are a sufficient proof of this and many more of the same Perswasion might be brought to confirm the same which at present I omit that I may shun tediousness But the thing which upon examination I found my self obliged principally to consider was not only what had been the ancient practice in this matter but also what the reason ground was which moved the holy Fathers and the primitive Church generally as well Laity as Clergy to believe themselves most strictly bound to receive both kinds For that they had such a Belief the Authorities which I shall hereafter alledge will convincingly demonstrate and the reason and ground of this their Perswasion was the Command and Institution of Christ He had ordered in the Gospel that all should drink of the Cup and they with great Piety and Reverence to his Command accounted themselves all obliged to do what he enjoyned them This certainly is nothing but what ought to be done And I heartily wish the Church of Rome had retained the like veneration and pious regard for the Command of Christ I should then have found no cause to blame her in this particular Now because I have here in effect asserted that the Command of Christ concerning the Sacrament was that which had influence upon the Christians of the eldest ages I shall in the first place produce the Precept and then subjoin immediately the Sense of Antiquity to it which will manifest that they thought the obligation arising from the Divine Precept did extend to all Believers without any discrimination and if this be effectually performed I suppose it will be unnecessary to advertise the Reader that the same apprehensions concerning the necessity of receiving in both kinds ought to take place at all times and in all Christian Societies The consequence of which is that the Roman Church is a notorious transgressor of Divine Law in this respect and that the pretended indifferency of giving the Cup to the people or withholding of it is a false supposition Our Saviour when he first appointed this Sacrament delivered a Command Matt. 26.27 that all should drink of the Cup and after his Resurrection he reinforced all the Precepts which he had given to his Disciples and consequently this amongst the rest Matth. 28.19 20. saying Go teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you We see hence how express our Saviours words are that all Nations should be taught to observe whatever he commanded his Disciples who would think if he saw it not before his eyes that any Society of Christians that will needs be called the Catholick Church should avowedly trample under foot this manifest Command of God They are so far from teaching all Nations to observe what Christ commanded his Disciples that they professedly teach the quite contrary Our Saviour said Drink ye all of it No says the Church of Rome all shall not drink of it but a few shall that is consecrating Priests One would imagine that these Texts of holy Scripture above mentioned should make a deep impression upon all men that pretend to have any regard for the Laws of God and they did so till 1200 years after Christ when the practice of detaining the Cup from the people began first to be introduced by a corrupt custom and was long afterwards established by Pope Martin V. in the Council of Constance So new and late is this Point of Popery that it was not conciliarly decreed till about 272 years ago And yet nothing is more usual with the Roman Catholicks than to brag of the Antiquity of their Religion I shall have an opportunity hereafter of considering this late Decree of Pope Martin when I come to produce the ancient Canon of Pope Gelasius made near 1200 years ago expresly repugnant and contary to this late Decree of Martin For Gelasius declares receiving in one kind to be sacrilegious At present I shall proceed to alledge the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers to shew that they understood our Saviours words Drink ye all of this agreeably to the Sense of the Reformed Church of England that is so as to account all Christians without exception obliged to partake of the Cup. But by the way I cannot but observe that Paschasius Corbeiensis a man of great credit in the Church of Rome for his Invention of Christs corporeal Presence in the Host about the year 830. did expound the words above mentioned contrary to the Sense of the present Church of Rome and in favour of the Protestants His expressions are these It is Christ that breaks this Bread Christus est qui frangit hunc Panem per manus Ministrorum tribuit credentibus Similiter calicem porrigit eis dicens accipite bibite ex hoc omnes tam Ministri quam reliqui Credentes Paschas be Coena Domini cap. 14. and by the hands of the Ministers delivers it to the Believers Likewise he gives them the Cup saying take and drink ye all of this both the Ministers and other Believes Here we see Paschasius makes the Command to extend to all without any difference and it is a wonder to me why the Roman Catholicks do follow this man so zealously in his Invention of the corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharistical Bread and will not admit of his Interpretation of this Command of Christ that all Believers should drink of the Cup. But there are much more ancient and authentick Authors who understood our Saviours words according to the Sense of the Reformed Church of England whose Testimonies hereafter follow and that in reference of proving that the Members thereof do not expound Scripture according to their own private Judgment as it is falsely imputed to them by the wretched Author of Pax Vobis Mr. Manby and others who as I plainly find never understood any thing of the Doctrine of this Church concerning the Interpretation of Scripture The first ancient Writer whose Authority I intend to make use of is S. Justin Martyr one that lived not long after the Apostolick age and lost his Life for the Profession of the Christian Faith. He in his second Apology gives an account to the Emperor of the method and manner of Divine Service amongst the Christians and coming to give an account of the Lords Supper he does it thus They that are called Deacons among us do distribute to every one present Qai apud nos vocantur Diaconi distribuunt unicuique priesentium ut participent de Pane Vino Aquâ benedictis Justin Apol 2. that they may partake of the consecrated Bread and Wine and Water It is remarkable that he says the Deacons gave both kinds to every one present and a little after he tells us they did so because our Saviour in the Gospel commanded them to do so For says he the Apostles in the Books written by them Nam Apostoli in Commentariis à se scriptis quae Evangelia vocantur ita sibi praecepisse Jesum tradiderunt Justin Apol. 2. ubi supra which are called the Gospels have taught us that Jesus commanded them to do so Bellarmin pretends that this last expression of S. Justin concerning the Command of Christ hath only relation to the Gonsecration not to the Administration of the Sacrament But any man by reading the place will sind the Cardinals words to be groundless For the Command of Christ is offered by S. Justin as the reason of the whole procedure in celebrating the Sacrament and not as particularly respecting the Consecration of the Elements The second anâ—ient Author whose Testimony I shall produce as an uncontroulable Evidence in this behall is St. Cyprian who flourished principally about the Yeat 250. and not many Years after was put to death for his Religion This Holy Martyr in his Epistle to Caecilius reprehends the Aquarians that were Hereticks so called because in the Consecration and Administration of this Holy Sacrament of our Lords Supper they made no use of Wine but used Water in stead of it Now Sr. Gyprian reproves these Aquarians upon two accounts First in that they offered to Consecrate without Wine and secondly in that they gave no Wine to the People and in both respects he taxes them with a very great tranfgression of the command and appointment of our Saviour The former miscarriage and irrogularity of the Aquarians doth not concern the Roman Catholicks because they use Wine when they Consecrate But in the second point they are like the Aquarians and therefore do fall under the same censure with them Let us hear what St. Cyprian says concerning this whole affair He begins the Epistle by telling Caecilius That although many Reverend Bishops did exactly observe our Lords Tradition for so calls he the Command or Institution of Christ yet says he because some out of Ignorance or simplicity in consecrating the Cup of our Lord Tamen quoniam quidam vel ignoranter vel simpliciter in Calice Dominico sanctificando plebi ministrando non faciunt quod Jesus Christas Dominus Deus noster hujus Sacrificii Auctor Doctor fecit docuit religiosum pariter ac necessarium duxi de hoc ad vos literas facere at siquis in isto errore adhuc teneatur veritatis luce perspectâ ad radicem
that pleases may consult the whole and judge whether I do any wrong I am sure I intend to deliver nothing but what is truth After a Preface containing the reasons of their proceedings it is said The holy General Council of Constance defines Concilium sacrum generale Constantiense definit quod licet Christus post Caenam instituerit suis Discipulis administraverit sub utraque Panis Vini specie venerabile hoc Sacramentum tamen hoc non obstante c. Acta Conc. Constant edit Labb that altho' Christ did institute this venerable Sacrament after Supper and administer it under both kinds of Bread and Wine to his Disciples yet hoc non obstante notwithstanding this it is first decreed that the Sacrament should not be celebrated after Supper And then some things being brought in by way of Preamble to put a blind upon the matter It is also decreed that the custom of giving only one kind to the people tho' contrary to Christs Institution and the Practice of the primitive Church should thenceforth be accounted Law. In the latter part of the Canon there is a clause directly opposite to the Decree of Gelasius above mentioned For whereas that ancient Pope had declared that receiving in one kind could not be without Sacriledge the Canon of Constance contradicts him after this manner Therefore to say the observation of this custom or Law Quapropter dicere quod hanc consuetudinem vel legem observare sit sacrilegum censeri debet erroneum is sacrilegious ought to be judged erroneous Then it seems the Decree of Gelasius ought to be judged erroneus For that Decree affirms the custom or law about receiving in one kind to be sacrilegious as has heretofore been abundantly shewn Thus having found the Practice and Doctrine of the present Church of Rome contrary and repugnant to the Word of God and to the Judgment of ancient Authors of which some were Popes publickly enacting the direct opposite to what was lately decreed at Constance I could not but conclude that I was in no right way And therefore took up a resolution to adjoin my self to the Protestant Church where I saw the Command of Christ carefully observed and the Sacrament in both kinds given to the people according to his Institution CHAP. V. Of Image-Worship THe fifth Motive of my Conversion is the Use or rather the Abuse of Images There is none that pretends to the least knowledge of Antiquity but knows that the Worship of Graven Images is far from being either a Christian Apostolick Primitive or Catholick Practice and yet the Papists give to graven Images the Worship due to God to Christ and his Saints tho they pretend otherwise We need not enquire what actions they suppose fit to be used in their Image-Worship For these appear in their publick Processions their Incensings and Pilgrimages their Prayers and Vows made unto them Certainly the Worship of a graven Image is plainly and frequently forbidden in the Old Testament as you may read in the Commandments uttered with Gods own Mouth with Thundring and Lightning on Mount Sinai viz. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image nor the likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth thou shalt not how down to them nor worship them Which Thunder from Heaven the Guides of the Romish Church discerning to threaten vehemently their dreadful Idolatry which daily they commit thought fit in wisdom to conceal the knowledge of the second Commandment from the people by excluding it from the Decalogue and dividing the tenth into two And notwithstanding their Image-Worship is so infinite a Scandal to the Jews and Turks and a Reproach to Christianity it self among all strangers that live with them and observe their Rites and that it cannot in the least be pretended to be lawful but with the laborious artifices of many Airy and Metaphysical Distinctions which the people who most need them do least understand yet they use these and many other miserable shifts and silly evasions whereby they labour to darken the Light of the true Catholick Doctrine in this point as has been manifested by many of great capacity to the full in their Comments on Deut. 4.15 16. and other places of Scripture where you may see that the adoring of the very true God himself in or by an Image cometh within the compass of Idolatry which the Word of God condemneth and therefore that this whole Doctrine and Practice is contrary to the Law of God I need not tell you Let us hear what the primitive Christians held concerning Images first in their Councils secondly in the Writings of the primitive Fathers First then as to their Councils For keeping of Pictures out of the Churches the Canon of the Eliberine Council held in Spain about the time of Constantine the Great gives this direction It is our Will that Pictures ought not to be in the Church lest that which is worshiped or adored should be painted on the Walls Which words have so troubled the Wits of the late Church of Rome that Melchior Canus scrupleth not only to accuse the Council of Impudency but also of Impiety for making such a Law. In a Council of several Bishops in the year of our Lord 730. under Leo the Emperor titled Iconomachus Images were solemnly condemned And in another Council held at Constantinople ann 755. or thereabouts under the Reign of Constantine Copronymus with great solemnity they were also condemned Notwithstanding the several Decrees of these Councils enacted against the Idolatrous Worship of Images the second Council of Nice advanced Image-Worship And that indeed was very likely to be the product of a Council assembled by that most wicked Empress Irene who was bred and educated in Heathenism and probably continued a Heathen in her heart all the days of her life if we may judge of her Religion by her actions Certainly no person that had any sense of Christianity would ever do the things that she did Now by the Authority and Interest of this impious Woman and by the procurement of Pope Adrian I. this Decree for Image-worship was obtained But this Decree altho' it was not by many degrees so gross as what was afterwards invented by the Schoolmen of the Popish Communion yet was rejected as repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church of God by the Princes and Bishops of England about the year 792. and afterwards by Charles the Great and the Bishops of Italy France and Germany which by his appointment were gathered together in the Council of Frankford in the year 794. Thus much I thought needful to be alledged against the Worship of Images from the Authority of Councils some of which have better pretences to be accounted General than either the second of Nice or that of Trent can pretend to But then in the second place if we consider the Testimonies of the Fathers we shall find them plain
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
intelligentes psallere debemus nemo enim quidquam facit sapienter quod non intelligit but also to know and understand the sense meaning of our singing for none can do any thing rationally except he knoweth the meaning of it And likewise by Jacobus Faber Stapul in his Comment on 1 Cor. 14. who affirms rebuking the people for their Lewdness touch-this particular That a great part of the world now a days prayeth Maxima pars hominum cum nunc orat nescio si Spiritu scio tamen quod non mente orat nam linguâ orat quam non intelligit but whether their Prayers proceed from the Spirit of God I know not but I know they pray not from the heart nor to any effect because they pray in an unknown tongue If the aforegoing incontroulable Authorities of these holy Fathers be not sufficient to confute Bellarmines groundless Surmise and imaginary Comment by saying that in the former ages of the primitive Church Common Prayers were generally practised in Latin amongst the Faithful and Professors of Christianity for his and his Sticklers Disgrace and Shame I add Thomas Aquinas on 1 Cor. 14. Lyra ibid. and Cassander Liturg. cap. 28. who siding with St. Paul do frequently tell us that Divine Service or publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue do not edifie and consequently were forbidden as I have shewn evidently already To this effect I might produce the torrent of the holy Fathers who flourished in the succeeding ages of the Church but that I am willing to shun prolixity And so I go on to the proof of the third part of my Assertion which is That the Practical Custom of all Christian Nations anciently was to pray in their own native Languages and it is to this very day Here Origen in his 8th Book against Celsus may come in as an impartial Witness testifying that the Grecians in their Prayers use Greek and the Romans the Roman Language and so every Nation according to his Idiom prayeth to God and praiseth him as they were able And Lyra seconds him thus on 1 Cor. c. 14. affirming that in the primitive Church Blessings our Lords Prayer and all other things were done in the vulgar tongue nay not only Common Prayers but the whole Bible was anciently by many Translations made fit for the peoples use as St. Hierom. Epist ad Sophr. affirms that himself translated the Bible into the Dalmatian tongue And Vlphilas Sozom lib. 6. Hist c. 37. a Bishop among the Goths translated it into the Gotick tongue And that it was translated into all other Languages we are told by St. Chrysost Homil. 1. in 8. S. Joannis By S. August l. 2. c. 5. de Doctrinâ Christianâ And Theodoret Serm. 5. de Graecar Affect Curat Besides all these authentick Testimonies of the aforementioned renowned Doctors who indifferently acquaint all Christians that in the primitive Church the Priest and the People joined together in their Prayers and understood each other and prayed in their mother-tongue I will produce for a further and more palpable conviction of this Foppery the words of the Civil and Canon Law. Justinian the Emperour made a Law in these words Our Will and Command is that all the Bishops and Priests do celebrate the Sacrament of Oblation and the Prayers thereunto added in the holy Baptism with a loud and clear voice which may be understood by the faithful that thereby the minds of the Hearers may be raised up with greater Devotion to set forth the Praise of the Lord God for so the Apostle teacheth 1 Cor. 14. And Innocent III. is most express herein in the great General Council of Lateran as themselves esteem held anno 1215. Can. 9. where he hath these words Because saith he in many places within the same City and Diocess the people of divers Tongues are mixt together having under one and the same Faith divers Ceremonies and Rites We strictly charge and command that the Bishops of such Cities and Diocesses provide men fit who may celebrate the Divine Office according to the diversity of their Languages c. If you will inquire why are they not as stedfast followers of Pope Innocent in this point as in that of Transubstantiation I can give you no other reason but that I am afraid they will be called Libertines by their ill-wishers for making use of the Laws of God and Man as they please to the advancement of their Self-ended Errors and for impudently rejecting what is contrary thereunto Now if the usual Custom of the Prophets Christs Institution and exemplary manner of preaching and teaching to say Prayers in an understood Language if the Words of the Apostle the Practice of the primitive Church the Sayings of the holy Fathers and Concessions of impartial men of their own Communion if the Consent of all other Christian Nations and the Piety of our Forefathers if right Reason and the nature of publick Service it self if the Needs of the Ignorant and Condition of the holy Prayers if the Laws of Princes and the Laws of the Church which require all our Prayers to be said according to the Understanding of our Auditors if all these cannot prevail with the Church of Rome to do so much good to the poor ignorant peoples Souls as to consent they should understand what in particular they ask of God assuredly there is great pertinacy of Opinion and very little Charity to those procious Souls for whom Christ suffer'd and for whom they must give a strict account And the Papists themselves own that at this very instant of time the Egyptians Moscovians Sclavonians Armenians Ethiopians Moravians Bohemians Hungarians the Jacobites Abassines and all other Christian Nations have in and throughout the whole Universe their Liturgies in their own native Languages And Eckius affirms that the same practice and no other is observed in the Indies in Asia in Africa or any other part of the world amongst Christians And that being so it is strange that the Protestants should not have the same priviledge without any peremptory Censure from the See of Rome of being Hereticks and damned for doing nothing else but what other Christians do As to the proof of the fourth part of this Assertion This prophane custom of Prayers in an unknown Language which the Church of Rome so closely sticks unto is derived 1. From the Osseni Hereticks as Epiphanius affirms Haeres 19. 2. From the Heracleonites of whom St. Augustine gives an account saying That they taught to pray with obscure words supposing that words in a barbarous and unknown tongue might be more powerful 3. If we may give credit to famous Historians both ancient and modern From the Jews who in their Synagogues not only formerly but at this very day read Hebrew which the people rarely understand And besides from the Turks who in their Mosques read Arabick of which the people know nothing The very consideration of these leading Patterns which the Church of Rome does so pertinatiously imitate herein have been so prevailing with me as to forsake her Communion and to embrace that of the Reformed Church wherein surer Guides unto Eternity can be demonstrated And now having given an account of the Motives of my Change I have one only Request to make to the candid Protestants that they would not treat a new Convert as the Christians did St. Paul on his first Change Act. 9.26 by being afraid of me and not believing me to be a sincere Proselyte for as I never persecuted any of them in my life but rather did them all good offices that lay in my power so I hope it will be some motive to them to believe my Conversion real when it is done at a time when they themselves are not without fears and apprehensions of Disadvantage FINIS ADVERTISEMENT BEcause that I the Writer of the foregoing Book am in some degree a stranger to the English Tongue I desire the Reader ingeniously to pardon my unskilfulness in it and not to be disgusted if he meet with some improprieties in the Language for although by the advice and direction of my Friends many improper expressions were corrected yet I suppose that some Errors of that nature do still remain ERRATA PAge 3. line 22. read Armenians p. 4. in the margin r. Andradius lib. 3. Orthodoxarum Explicationum Resp ad Axiom 6. alii apud Casalium lib. 1. c. 12. prim part de quadripert justit p. 6. l. 20. r. taken p. 7. l. 25. and afterwards r. Cataphas ib. l. 30. r. de Conciliorum Authoritate p. 8. l. 4. r. Nation ib. in the Latin citation r. Ecclesia p. 15. l. 18. r. Faith and Duties ib. l. 28. r. nine parts in ten p. 16. l. 33. r. Romish Religion p. 17. l. 1. r. to the rights ib. l. 2. r. liberties p. 30. l. 5. r. yet it ceases not ib. l. 18. r. for itu p. 31. l. 28. r. he does p. 33 in the latin citation of Lindanus r. id est anno Domini p 35. in the latin citation of Card. Bona r. sub specie ib. r. communicarunt p. 41. l. 8. r. necessity p. 42. l. 13. of the latin citation r. sacrilega p. 43. l. 31. r. impartial ib. l. ult r. corporis p. 44. l. 11. r. parting of one p. 45. l. 25. r. reconcilable ib. l. 32. r. Lindanus who agreeing p. 47. l. 7. r. erroneous p. 51. l. 14. r. therefore p. 54. l. 13. r. Haeres p. 57. l. 3. r. Bell. lib. 2. c. 23. de Reliquiis sanctis Books Printed for and Sold by William Norman and Eliphal Dobson BIbles and Common Prayers in all volumes Book of Homilies Boltons Statutes Boltons Justice of Peace Book of Rates Plurality of Worlds Prayers and Meditations Gawens Logicks Mortons Devotions Dr. Lakes Officium Eucharisticum Dr. Burnets Life of the Earl of Rochester Tillotson against Transubstantiation Bishop of Corks Sermons Silvius de Febribus Mullineux's Sciothericum Telescopicum Discourse against Purgatory Discourse against Auricular Confession The Interest of Ireland