Part 12 (2/2)

_Sect._ 14. There is yet another piece brought against us, but we will abide the proof of it, as of the rest. n.o.bis saith,(640) _Saravia, satis est, modestis et piis Christianis satisfacere, qui ita recesserunt a superst.i.tionibus et idololatriae Romanae ecclesiae, ut probatos ab orthodoxis patribus mores, non rejiciant._ So have some thought to escape by this postern, that they use the ceremonies, not for conformity with Papists, but for conformity with the ancient fathers. _Ans._ 1. When Rainold speaketh of the abolis.h.i.+ng of popish ceremonies,(641) he answereth this subtlety: ”But if you say, therefore, that we be against the ancient fathers in religion, because we pluck down that which they did set up, take heed lest your speech do touch the Holy Ghost, who saith that Hezekiah (in breaking down the brazen serpent) did keep G.o.d's commandments which he commanded Moses,” 2 Kings xviii. 6; and yet withal saith, ”That he brake in pieces the serpent of bra.s.s which Moses had made,” 2 Kings xviii. 4. 2. There are some of the ceremonies which the fathers used not, as the surplice (which we have seen before(642)) and kneeling in the act of receiving the eucharist (as we shall see afterwards(643)). 3. Yielding by concession, not by confession, that all the ceremonies about which there is controversy now among us, were of old used by the fathers; yet that which these Formalists say, is (as Parker showeth(644)) even as if a servant should be covered before his master, not as covering is a late sign of pre-eminence, but as it was of old, a sign of subjection; or as if one should preach that the prelates are _tyranni_ to their brethren, _fures_ to the church, _sophistae_ to the truth, and excuse himself thus: I use these words, as of old they signified a ruler, a servant, a student of wisdom. All men know that words and actions must be interpreted, used and received, according to their modern use, and not as they have been of old.

CHAPTER IV.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE IDOLS AMONG THE FORMALISTS THEMSELVES; AND THAT KNEELING IN THE LORD'S SUPPER BEFORE THE BREAD AND WINE, IN THE ACT OF RECEIVING THEM, IS FORMALLY IDOLATRY.

_Sect._ 1. My fourth argument against the lawfulness of the ceremonies followeth, by which I am to evince that they are not only idolatrous _reductive_, because monuments of by-past, and _partic.i.p.ative_, because badges of present idolatry, but that likewise they make Formalists themselves to be formally, and in respect of their own using of them, idolaters, consideration not had of the by-past or present abusing of them by others. This I will make good: first, of all the ceremonies in general; then, of kneeling in particular. And I wish our opposites here look to themselves, for this argument proveth to them the box of Pandora, and containeth that which undoeth them, though this much be not seen before the opening.

First, then, the ceremonies are idols to Formalists. It had been good to have remembered that which Ainsworth noteth,(645) that idolothites and monuments of idolatry should be destroyed, lest themselves at length become idols. The idolothious ceremonies, we see now, are become idols to those who have retained them. The ground which the Bishop of Winchester taketh for his sermon _of the wors.h.i.+pping of imaginations_,-to wit, that the devil, seeing that idolatrous images would be put down, bent his whole device, in place of them, to erect and set up divers imaginations, to be adored and magnified instead of the former,-is, in some things, abused and misapplied by him. But well may I apply it to the point in hand; for that the ceremonies are the imaginations which are magnified, adored, and idolised, instead of the idolatrous images which were put down, thus we instruct and qualify:

_Sect._ 2. First, They are so erected and extolled, that they are more looked to than the weighty matters of the law of G.o.d: all good discipline must be neglected before they be not holden up. A covetous man is an idolater, for this respect among others, as Davenant noteth,(646) because he neglects the service which he oweth to G.o.d, and is wholly taken up with the gathering of money. And I suppose every one will think that those traditions, Mark vii. 8, 9, which the Pharisees kept and held, with the laying aside of the commandments of G.o.d, might well be called idols. Shall we not then call the ceremonies idols, which are observed with the neglecting of G.o.d's commandments, and which are advanced above many substantial points of religion? Idolatry, blasphemy, profanation of the Sabbath, perjury, adultery, &c., are overlooked, and not corrected nor reproved, nay, not so much as discountenanced in those who favour and follow the ceremonies; and if in the fellows and favourites, much more in the fathers. What if order be taken with some of those abominations in certain abject poor bodies? _Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas._ What will not an episcopal conformist pa.s.s away with, if there be no more had against him than the breaking of G.o.d's commandments by open and gross wickedness? But O what narrow notice is taken of non-conformity! How mercilessly is it menaced! How cruelly corrected! Well, the ceremonies are more made of than the substance. And this is so evident, that Dr Burges himself lamenteth the pressure of conformity,(647) and denieth not that which is objected to him, namely, that more grievous penalties are inflicted upon the refusal of the ceremonies than upon adultery and drunkenness.

_Sect._ 3. Secondly, Did not Eli make idols of his sons, 1 Sam. ii. 29, when he spared them and bare with them, though with the prejudice of G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p? And may not we call the ceremonies idols, which are not only spared and borne with, to the prejudice of G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p, but are likewise so erected, that the most faithful labourers in G.o.d's house, for their sake, are depressed, the teachers and maintainers of G.o.d's true wors.h.i.+p cast out? For their sake, many learned and G.o.dly men are envied, contemned, hated, and nothing set by, because they pa.s.s under the name (I should say the nickname) of puritans. For their sake many dear Christians have been imprisoned, fined, banished, &c. For their sake many qualified and well-gifted men are holden out of the ministry, and a door of entrance denied to those to whom G.o.d hath granted a door of utterance. For their sake, those whose faithful and painful labours in the Lord's harvest have greatly benefited the church, have been thrust from their charges, so that they could not fulfil the ministry which they have received of the Lord, to testify of the gospel of the grace of G.o.d. The best builders, the wise master-builders, have been over-turned by them. This is objected to Joseph Hall by the Brownists; and what can he say to it? Forsooth, ”that not so much the ceremonies are stood upon as obedience. If G.o.d please to try Adam but with an apple, it is enough. What do we quarrel at the value of the fruit when we have a prohibition? Shemei is slain. What! merely for going out of the city? The act was little, the bond was great. What _is_ commanded matters not so much as _by whom._” _Ans._ 1. If obedience be the chief thing stood upon, why are not other laws and statutes urged as strictly as those which concern the ceremonies? 2. But what means he? What would he say of those Scottish Protestants imprisoned in the castle of Scherisburgh in France,(648) who, being commanded by the captain to come to the ma.s.s, answered, ”That to do anything that was against their conscience, they would not, neither for him nor yet for the king?” If he approve this answer of theirs, he must allow us to say, that we will do nothing which is against our consciences. We submit ourselves and all which we have to the king, and to inferior governors we render all due subjection which we owe to them, but no mortal man hath domination over our consciences, which are subject to one only Lawgiver, and ruled by his law. I have shown in the first part of this dispute how conscience is sought to be bound by the law of the ceremonies, and here, by the way, no less may be drawn from Hall's words, which now I examine; for he implieth in them that we are bound to obey the statutes about the ceremonies merely for their authority's sake who command us, though there be no other thing in the ceremonies themselves which can commend them to us. But I have also proved before that human laws do not bind to obedience, but only in this case, when the things which they prescribe do agree and serve to those things which G.o.d's law prescribeth; so that, as human laws, they bind not, neither have they any force to bind, but only by partic.i.p.ation with G.o.d's law. This ground hath seemed to P. Bayne(649) so necessary to be known, that he hath inserted it in his brief _Exposition of the Fundamental Points of Religion_. And besides all that which I have said for it before, I may not here pa.s.s over in silence this one thing, that Hall himself calleth it superst.i.tion to make any more sins than the ten commandments.(650) Either, then, let it be shown out of G.o.d's word that non-conformity, and the refusing of the English popish ceremonies, is a fault, or else let us not be thought bound by men's laws where G.o.d's law hath left us free. Yet we deal more liberally with our opposites, for if we prove not the unlawfulness of the ceremonies, both by G.o.d's word and sound reason, let us then be bound to use them for ordinance' sake.

3. His comparisons are far wide. They are so far from running upon four feet, that they have indeed no feet at all, whether we consider the commandments, or the breach of them, he is altogether extravagant. G.o.d might have commanded Adam to eat the apple which he forbade him to eat, and so the eating of it had been good, the not eating of it evil; whereas the will and commandment of men is not _regula regulans_, but _regula regulata_. Neither can they make good or evil, beseeming or not beseeming, what they list, but their commandments are to be examined by a higher rule. When Solomon commanded Shemei to dwell at Jerusalem, and not to go over the brook Kidron, he had good reason for that which he required; for as P. Martyr noteth,(651) he was a man of the family of the house of Saul, 2 Sam. xv. 5, and hated the kingdom and throne of David, so that _relictus liber multa fuisset molitus, vel c.u.m Israelitis, vel c.u.m Palestinis_. But what reason is there for charging us with the law of the ceremonies, except the sole will of the lawmakers? Yet, say that Solomon had no reason for this his commandment, except his own will and pleasure for trying the obedience of Shemei, who will say that princes have as great liberty and power of commanding at their pleasure in matters of religion as in civil matters? If we consider the breach of the commandments, he is still at random. Though G.o.d tried Adam but with an apple, yet divines mark in his eating of that forbidden fruit many gross and horrible sins,(652) as infidelity, idolatry, pride, ambition, self-love, theft, covetousness, contempt of G.o.d, profanation of G.o.d's name, ingrat.i.tude, impostacy, murdering of his posterity, &c. But, I pray, what exorbitant evils are found in our modest and Christian-like denial of obedience to the law of the ceremonies? When Shemei transgressed king Solomon's commandment, besides the violation of this,(653) and the disobeying of the charge wherewith Solomon (by the special direction and inspiration of G.o.d) had charged him, that his former wickedness, and that which he hath done to David, might be returned upon his head, the Divine Providence so fitly furnis.h.i.+ng another occasion and cause of his punishment. There was also a great contempt and misregard showed to the king, in that Shemei, knowing his own evil-deservings, acknowledged (as the truth was) he had received no small favour, and therefore consented to the king's word as good, and promised obedience. Yet for all that, upon such a petty and small occasion as the seeking of two runagate servants, he reckoned not to despise the king's mercy and lenity, and to set at nought his most just commandment.

What! Is nonconformity no less piacular? If any will dare to say so, he is bound to show that it is so. And thus have we pulled down the untempered mortar wherewith Hall would hide the idolising of the ceremonies.

_Sect._ 4. But Thirdly, Did not Rachel make Jacob an idol, when she ascribed to him a power of giving children? ”Am I in G.o.d's stead?” saith Jacob, Gen. x.x.x. 1, 3. How much more reason have we to say that the ceremonies are idols, are set up in G.o.d's stead, since an operative virtue is placed in them, for giving stay and strength against sin and tentation, and for working of other spiritual and supernatural effects? Thus is the sign of the cross an idol to those who conform to Papists in the use of it. M. Ant. de Dominis holdeth,(654) _Crucis signum contra daemones esse praesidium_; and that even(655) _ex opere operato, effectus mirabiles signi crucis, etiam apud infideles, aliquando enituerint_. ”Shall I say (saith Mr Hooker),(656) that the sign of the cross (as we use it) is a mean in some sort to work our preservation from reproach? Surely the mind which as yet hath not hardened itself in sin, is seldom provoked thereunto in any gross and grievous manner, but nature's secret suggestion objecteth against it ignominy as a bar, which conceit being entered into that place of man's fancy (the forehead), the gates whereof have imprinted in them that holy sign (the cross), which bringeth forthwith to mind whatsoever Christ hath wrought and we vowed against sin; it cometh hereby to pa.s.s, that Christian men never want a most effectual, though a silent teacher, to avoid whatsoever may deservedly procure shame.” What more do Papists ascribe to the sign of the cross, when they say, that by it Christ keeps his own faithful ones(657) _contra omnes tentationes et hostes_. Now if the covetous man be called an idolater, Eph. v. 5, because, though he think not his money to be G.o.d, yet he trusteth to live and prosper by it (which confidence and hope we should repose in G.o.d only, Jer. xvii. 7), as Rainold marketh,(658) then do they make the sign of the cross an idol who trust by it to be preserved from sin, shame, and reproach, and to have their minds stayed in the instant of tentation. For who hath given such a virtue to that dumb and idle sign as to work that which G.o.d only can work?

And how have these good fellows imagined, that not by knocking at their brains, as Jupiter, but by only signing their foreheads, they can procreate some menacing Minerva, or armed Pallas, to put to flight the devil himself.

_Sect._ 5. The same kind of operative virtue is ascribed to the ceremony of confirmation or bishopping; for the English service book teacheth, that by it children receive strength against sin, and against tentation. And Hooker hath told us,(659) that albeit the successors of the apostles had but only for a time such power as by prayer and imposition of hands to bestow the Holy Ghost, yet confirmation hath continued hitherto for very special benefits; and that the fathers impute everywhere unto it ”that gift or grace of the Holy Ghost, not which maketh us first Christian men, but when we are made such, a.s.sisteth us in all virtue, armeth us against tentation and sin.” Moreover, whilst he is a-showing why this ceremony of confirmation was separated from baptism, having been long joined with it, one of his reasons which he giveth for the separation is, that sometimes the parties who received baptism were infants, at which age they might well be admitted to live in the family, but to fight in the army of G.o.d, to bring forth the fruits, and to do the works of the Holy Ghost, their time of hability was not yet come; which implieth, that by the confirmation men receive this hability, else there is no sense in that which he saith. What is idolatry, if this be not, to ascribe to rites of man's devising, the power and virtue of doing that which none but He to whom all power in heaven and earth belongs can do; and howbeit Hooker would strike us dead at once, with the high-sounding name of the fathers, yet it is not unknown, that the first fathers from whom this idolatry hath descended were those ancient heretics, the Montanists. For as Chemnitius marketh out of Tertullian and Cyprian,(660) the Montanists were the first who began to ascribe any spiritual efficacy or operation to rites and ceremonies devised by men.

_Sect._ 6. Fourthly, That whereunto more respect and account is given than G.o.d alloweth to be given to it, and wherein more excellency is placed than G.o.d hath put into it, or will at all communicate to it, is an idol exalted against G.o.d; which maketh Zanchius to say,(661) _Si Luthero vel Calvino tribuas, quod non potuerant errare, idola tibi fingis._ Now, when Hooker(662) accounteth festival days, for G.o.d's extraordinary works wrought upon them, to be holier than other days, what man of sound judgment will not perceive that these days are idolised, since such an eminence and excellency is put in them, whereas G.o.d hath made no difference betwixt them and any other days? We have seen also that the ceremonies are urged as necessary,(663) but did ever G.o.d allow that things indifferent should be so highly advanced at the pleasure of men? And, moreover, I have shown(664) that wors.h.i.+p is placed in them; in which respect they must needs be idols, being thus exalted against G.o.d's word, at which we are commanded to hold us in the matter of wors.h.i.+p. Last of all, they are idolatrously advanced and dignified, in so much as holy mystical significations are given them, which are a great deal more than G.o.d's word alloweth in any rites of human inst.i.tution, as shall be shown(665) afterwards; and so it appeareth how the ceremonies, as now urged and used, are idols.

Now to kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord's supper, which I will prove to be direct and formal idolatry; and from idolatry shall it never be purged while the world standeth, though our opposites strive for it, _tanquam pro aris et focis_.

_Sect._ 7. The question about the idolatry of kneeling betwixt them and us standeth in this: Whether kneeling, at the instant of receiving the sacrament, before the consecrated bread and wine,-purposely placed in our sight in the act of kneeling as signs standing in Christ's stead, before which we, the receivers, are to exhibit outwardly religious adoration,-be formally idolatry or not? No man can pick a quarrel at the stating of the question thus; for, 1. We dispute only about kneeling at the instant of receiving the sacramental elements, as all know. 2. No man denies inward adoration in the act of receiving, for in our minds we then adore by the inward graces of faith, love, thankfulness, &c., by the holy and heavenly exercise whereof we glorify G.o.d; so that the controversy is about outward adoration. 3. No man will deny that the consecrated elements are purposely placed in our sight when we kneel, except he say, that they are in that action only accidentally present before us no otherwise than the table-cloth or the walls of the church are. 4. That the sacramental elements are in our sight (when we kneel) as signs standing in Christ's stead, it is most undeniable; for if these signs stand not in Christ's stead to us, the bread bearing _vicem corporis Christi_, and the wine _vicem sanguinis_, it followeth, that when we eat the bread and drink the wine, we are no more eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, spiritually and sacramentally, than if we were receiving any other bread and wine not consecrated. I stay not now upon this head, because our opposites acknowledge it; for Dr Burges(666) calls the sacraments the Lord's images and deputies; and the Archbishop of Spalato saith,(667) that when we take the sacrament of Christ's body, we adore _Christum sub hac figura figuratum_. 5. That kneelers, at the instant of receiving, have the consecrated bread and wine in the eyes both of their bodies and minds, as things so stated in that action, that before them they are to exhibit outward religious adoration as well as inward, it is also most plain; for otherwise they should fall down and kneel only out of incogitancy, having no such purpose in their minds, or choice in their wills, as to kneel before these sacramental signs.

_Sect._ 8. The question thus stated, Formalists deny, we affirm. Their negative is destroyed, and our affirmative confirmed by these reasons:-

First, The kneelers wors.h.i.+p Christ in or by the elements, as their own confessions declare. ”When we take the eucharist, we adore the body of Christ, _per suum signum_,” saith the Archbishop of Spalato.(668) ”We kneel by the sacrament to the thing specified,” saith the Bishop of Edinburgh.(669) The Archbishop of St Andrews(670) and Dr Burges(671) profess the adoring of Christ in the sacrament. Dr Mortoune maintaineth such an adoration in the sacrament as he calleth relative from the sign to Christ; and Paybody(672) defendeth him herein. But the replier(673) to Dr Mortoune's _Particular Defence_ inferreth well, that if the adoration be relative from the sign, it must first be carried to the sign as a means of conveyance unto Christ. Dr Burges(674) alloweth adoration, or divine wors.h.i.+p (as he calleth it), to be given to the sacrament respectively; and he allegeth a place of Theodoret,(675) to prove that such an adoration as he there taketh for divine wors.h.i.+p is done to the sacrament in relation to Christ, and that this adoration performed to the mysteries as types, is to be pa.s.sed over to the archetype, which is the body and blood of Christ.

Since, then, that kneeling about which our question is, by the confession of kneelers themselves, is divine wors.h.i.+p given by the sign to the thing signified, and done to the sacrament respectively or in relation to Christ, he that will say that it is not idolatry must acquit the Papists of idolatry also in wors.h.i.+pping before their images; for they do in like manner profess that they adore _prototypon per imaginem, ad imaginem_ or _in imagine_, and that they give no more to the image but relative or respective wors.h.i.+p. The Rhemists(676) tell us that they do no more but kneel before the creatures, at, or by them, adoring G.o.d. It availeth not here to excogitate some differences betwixt the sacramental elements and the popish images, for what difference soever be betwixt them when they are considered in their own natural being, yet as objects of adoration they differ not, because when they are considered _in esse adorabili_, we see the same kind of adoration is exhibited by Formalists before the elements which is by Papists before their images. To come nearer the point, Papists profess that they give to the outward signs in the sacrament no other adoration than the same which Formalists give to them.

Franciscus a Sancta Clara saith,(677) that divine wors.h.i.+p doth not agree to the signs _per se_, but only _per accidens_, and he allegeth for himself that the Council of Trent, can 6. _de euch_, saith not that the sacrament, but that Christ in the sacrament, is to be adored with _latria_. To the same purpose I observe that Bellarmine(678) will not take upon him to maintain any adoration of the sacrament with _latria_, holding only that Christ in the eucharist is to be thus adored, and that _symbola externa per se et proprie non sunt adoranda_. Whereupon he determineth, _status questionis non est, nisi an Christus in eucharistia sit adorandus, cultu latriae_. Now, albeit Papists understand by the outward sign of Christ's body in the eucharist nothing else but the species or accidents of the bread, yet since they attribute to the same _quod sub illis accidentibus ut vocant sit substantialiter corpus Christi vivum, c.u.m sua Deitate conjunctum_,(679) and since they give adoration or _latria_(680) to the species, though not _per se_, yet as _quid unum_ with the Body of Christ which they contain,-hereby it is evident that they wors.h.i.+p idolatrously those very accidents. And I would understand, if any of our opposites dare say that Papists commit no such idolatry as here I impute to them? Or, if they acknowledge this idolatry of Papists, how make they themselves clean? for we see that the wors.h.i.+p which Papists give to the species of the bread is only relative to Christ, and of the same kind with that which Formalists give to the bread and wine.

_Sect._ 9. Secondly, Religious kneeling before the bread which is set before us for a sign to stand in Christ's stead, and before which we adore whilst it is to us actually an image representing Christ,(681) is the very bowing down and wors.h.i.+pping forbidden in the second commandment. The eucharist is called by the fathers _imago, signum, figura, similitudo_, as Hospinian(682) instanceth out of Origen, n.a.z.ianzen, Augustine, Hilary, Tertullian, Ambrose. The Archbishop of Armagh hath also observed,(683) that the fathers expressly call the sacrament an image of Christ's body, and well might they call it so, since the sacramental elements do not only represent Christ to us, but also stand in Christ's stead, in such sort that by the worthy receiving of them we are a.s.sured that we receive Christ himself; and in eating of this bread, and drinking of this wine, we eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ spiritually, and by faith.

Neither could the consecrated elements make a sacrament if they were not such images standing in Christ's stead. But what needeth any more? Dr Burges(684) himself calleth the sacraments the Lord's images. Now, that a man who adoreth before the painted or graven image of Christ, though he profess that he intendeth his whole adoration to Christ, and that he placeth the image before him only to represent Christ, and to stir up his mind to wors.h.i.+p Christ, doth nevertheless commit idolatry, I trust none of our opposites will deny. Nay, Bishop Lindsey teacheth plainly,(685) that it is idolatry to set before the eyes of our minds or bodies any image as a mean or motive of adoration, even though the wors.h.i.+p should be abstracted from the image, and not given unto it. Well, then, will it please him to let us see that kneeling before the actual images of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, even though these images should be no otherwise considered in the act of adoration, but as active objects, motives and occasions which stir up the mind of the kneeler to wors.h.i.+p Christ (for this is the best face which himself puts upon kneeling, though falsely, as we shall see afterward), is not so great idolatry as the other. All the difference which he maketh is,(686) ”that no true wors.h.i.+p can be properly occasioned by an image, which is a doctor of lies, teaching nothing of G.o.d, but falsehood and vanities; but the blessed sacrament being inst.i.tuted by Christ, to call to our remembrance his death, &c., gives us, so oft as we receive it, a most powerful and pregnant occasion of thanksgiving and praise.” Dr Burges,(687) intermeddling with the same difference-making, will not have the sacraments, which are images of G.o.d's making and inst.i.tution, to be compared with images made by the l.u.s.t of men. Two differences, then, are given us. 1. That the sacramental elements have their inst.i.tution from G.o.d; images not so. 2. That the sacrament is an occasion of wors.h.i.+p; an image not so. The first difference makes them no help; for though the ordinance and inst.i.tution of G.o.d makes the use of sacramental images to be no will-wors.h.i.+p, yet doth it not any whit avail to show that adoration before them is no idolatry. May I not commit idolatry with images of G.o.d's inst.i.tution no less than with those invented by men, when (_coeteris paribus_) there is no other difference betwixt them, considered as objects of adoration, but that of the ordinance and inst.i.tution which they have?

What if I fall down at the hearing of a sermon, and religiously adore before the pastor, as the vicarious sign of Christ himself, who stands there, in Christ's stead, 2 Cor. v. 20, referring my adoration to Christ only, yet in or by that amba.s.sador who stands in Christ's stead? If this my adoration should be called so great idolatry as if I should fall down before a graven image, to wors.h.i.+p G.o.d in or by it (for it is, indeed, as great every way), our kneelers, I perceive, would permit me to answer for myself, that my wors.h.i.+pping of G.o.d by the minister cannot be called idolatrous, by this reason, (because the wors.h.i.+pping of G.o.d by a graven image is such, therefore also the wors.h.i.+pping of him by a living image is no other,) since images of G.o.d's inst.i.tution must not be paralleled with those of men's invention. As to the second difference, I answer, 1. Though the Bishop muttereth here that no true wors.h.i.+p can be occasioned by an image, yet belike he and his fellows will not stand to it, for many of them allow the historical use of images; and the Bishop hath not denied, though his antagonist objecteth it. Dr Mortoune(688) plainly alloweth of images for historical commemoration; and herein he is followed by Dr Burges.(689) 2. Whereas he saith that the blessed sacrament is inst.i.tuted by Christ to call to our remembrance his death, this inferreth not that it is an occasion of thanksgiving and praise in the very act of receiving, as we shall see afterward. Our question is only about kneeling in the act of receiving. 3. We confess that the sacrament is an occasion of inward wors.h.i.+p in the receiving of it; for in _eucharistia exercetur summa fides, spes, charitas, religio, caeteraeque virtutes, quibus Deum colimus et glorificamus_.(690) But the outward adoration of kneeling down upon our knees can be no more occasioned by the blessed sacrament, in the act of receiving it, than by a graven image in the act of beholding it. The point which the Bishop had to prove is, that whereas an image cannot be the occasion of outward adoration and kneeling to G.o.d before it in the act of looking upon it, the sacrament may be, and is, an occasion of kneeling, when it is set before us in the act of receiving. This neither he, nor any for him, shall ever make good.

_Sect._ 10. Thirdly, Kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament before the vicarious signs which stand in Christ's stead, and are purposely set before us in the act of adoration, that before them we may adore, wanteth nothing to make up idolatrous co-adoration or relative wors.h.i.+p. Our opposites here tell us of two things necessary to the making up of idolatry, neither of which is found in their kneeling. First, they say, except there be an intention in the wors.h.i.+pper to adore the creature which is before his eyes, his kneeling before it is no idolatry. ”What shall I say? saith Paybody.(691) What need I say in this place, but to profess, and likewise avouch, that we intend only to wors.h.i.+p the Lord our G.o.d, when we kneel in the act of receiving? We wors.h.i.+p not the bread and wine; we intend not our adoring and kneeling unto them. Give us leave to avouch our sincerity in this matter, and it will take away the respect of idolatry in G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p.” _Ans._ I showed before, that Paybody defendeth Dr Mortoune's adoration, which he calleth relative from the sign to Chris; yet let it be so, as here he pretendeth, that no adoration is intended to the sign; will this save their kneeling from idolatry? Nay, then, the three children should not have been idolaters, if they had kneeled before Nebuchadnezzar's image, intending their wors.h.i.+p to G.o.d only, and not to the image. Our opposites here take the Nicodemites by the hand. But what saith Calvin?(692) _Si isti boni sapientesque sophistae ibi tum fuissent, simplicitatem illorum trium servorum Dei irrisissent. Nam hujusmodi credo eos verbis objurga.s.sent: miseri homines, istud quidem_(_693_)_ non est adorare, quum vos in rebus nullam fidem adhibetis: nulla est idololatria nisi ubi est __ devotio, hoc est quaedam animi ad idola colenda venerandaque adjunctio atque applicatio_, &c. If Paybody had been in Calvin's place, he could not have called the Nicodemites idolaters, forasmuch as they have no intention to wors.h.i.+p the popish images when they kneel and wors.h.i.+p before them. Nay, the grossest idolaters that ever were, shall by this doctrine be no idolaters, and Paul shall be censured for teaching that the Gentiles did wors.h.i.+p devils, 1 Cor. x. 10, since they did not intend to wors.h.i.+p devils. _Idolatrae nec olim in paganismo intendebant, nec hodie in papatu intendant, daemonibus offere quid tum?

Apostolus contrarium p.r.o.nuntiat, quicquid illi intendant_, saith Pareus.(694)

_Sect._ 11. The other thing which our kneelers require to the making up of idolatry is, that the creature before which we adore be a pa.s.sive object of the adoration; whereas, say they,(695) the sacramental elements are ”no manner of way the pa.s.sive object of our adoration, but the active only of that adoration which, at the sacrament, is given to Christ; that is, such an object and sign as moves us upon the sight, or by the signification thereof, to lift up our hearts and adore the only object of our faith, the Lord Jesus; such as the holy word of G.o.d, his works, and benefits are, by meditation and consideration whereof we are moved and stirred up to adore him.” _Ans._ 1. That which he affirmeth is false, and out of one page of his own book I draw an argument which destroyeth it, thus: If the sacramental elements were only the active object of their adoration who kneel before them in the receiving, then their real presence should be but accidental to the kneelers. But the real presence of the elements, in the act of receiving, is not accidental to the kneelers; therefore, the proposition I draw from his own words: ”We can neither (saith he(696)) pray to G.o.d, nor thank him, nor praise him, but ever there must be, before the eyes of our minds, at least something of his works, word, or sacraments, if not before our external senses.” He confesseth it will be enough, that these active objects of wors.h.i.+p be before the eyes of our minds, and that their real presence, before our external senses, is not necessary but accidental to us, whose minds are by their means stirred up to wors.h.i.+p. And so it is indeed. For _esse scibile_, or _rememoratiuum_ of an active object of adoration, is that which stirreth up the mind to wors.h.i.+p, so that the real presence of such an object is but accidental to the wors.h.i.+pper. The a.s.sumption I likewise draw out of the Bishop's own words. For he saith(697) that we kneel before the elements, ”having them in our sight, or object to our senses, as ordinary signs, means, and memorials, to stir us up to wors.h.i.+p,” &c. Now if we have them in our sight and before our senses for this purpose, that they may be means, signs, and memorial

<script>