Apology for the Reformed Churches, Chapter 10
CHAP. X. That the dignitie and excellency of the Euchariſt, doth not hinder it from being a grievous and deadly offenſe to adore it, if it be bread in ſubſtance as we believe.
Object. BUt you'l ſay, That you eſteem it a rude compariſon to liken the adoration, which the Church of Rome gives the Euchariſt, to the ſervices that the profane Pagans or debauched Iſraelites gave to mere creatures. For they adored idols, whereas the Euchariſt is a divine Sacrament. So that it ſeems an abuſe of the Scripture to ſcare us with thoſe threats and curſes that it denounceth againſt ſuch kind of people; ſeeing the object which they ſerved was ſo different from that which Rome will have us to adore. We confeſſe we perform this action, but 'tis to one of the Inſtitutions of our Maſter, and for you to equall that and compare it with an idol, 'Tis very unbeſeeming.
Anſw. Thanks, be to God, we have a clean other opinion of the Euchariſt. We hold it (as it is indeed) a very holy Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord, to be one of the moſt precious inſtruments of his grace, which being lawfully and rightly celebrated, communicateth to us all the treaſures of heaven, the fleſh and bloud of Chriſt, the pardon of our ſinnes, the peace of our conſciences, the ſanctification of our ſouls, and the right to a bleſſed immortalitie. Farre be it from us to give it the profane and infamous name of an idol. We will not ſay, that it is ſimply and onelyonly bread: and if any of us do chance to ſpeak ſo, in ſaying that 'tis bread, he means in regard of the ſubſtance of the thing, not in regard of its vertue or dignity; in regard of which we believe that it is quite another thing from bread. We ſhould take the word in the ſame ſenſe that Gregory Nyſſen doth on the like ſubject, who ſpeaking of the water in Baptiſme [Orat. in Bapt. Chriſt. p. 803. tom. 2. foreign.] ſaith, That it is nothing elſe but water, he means in its nature. For in the grace, 'tis another thing beſide water, and both the Scriptures teach it to be ſo, and all Chriſtians believe it, and this holy Doctour particularly witneſſeth it in divers places. [Id. ibid. p. 801. c. 4. & orat. Catech. c. 33.] We therefore do willingly give to the Sacrament all thoſe advantages and reſpects that juſtly belong to it, and not to any idol.
But if this be a creature, as we believe it to be, the excellence and dignitie thereof (as great as you ſet it forth) will not at all excuſe their crime who adore it. For the Lord forbids us to adore, not baſe or vain things onelyonly, as onions, and the Cats of the Egyptians, and the idols of the Pagans, which have not any ſubſiſtence in nature, or any where elſe except in their falſe imaginations; but he forbids us generally and abſolutely, to adore any creature what ever it be; whether it creep upon the ground, or ſhine in heaven; whether it ſwim in the water, or flie in the aire; animate or inanimate; viſible or inviſible; corporeall or ſpiritual; profane or ſacred; comprehending under the ſame condemnation all thoſe, who worſhip any creature what ever it be, as guilty of the ſame crime, and ſubject to the ſame puniſhment.
And de facto, the thing is very evident; for this adoration which we give to God, being an acknowledgement of his Soveraignty, & a duty like to the love which a woman oweth to her lawfull husband, Who doth not perceive, that it is a manifeſt crime to give it to any other but to him, & that the differences of the ſubjects to which men give it are no way conſiderable in this particular; ſeeing (though they may differ in other things) they are all one in this, That they are not God Almighty, to whom alone we are to give that kind of homage? The dignity of Charles Cardinall of Bourbon, and the affinitie he had with the late King of France of Glorious memory (being his Nephew) did not excuſe them who gave him the name and honour of King, and did not keep their fault from being a true Rebellion, and a crime of Treaſon, againſt the Supreme Governour. And the honour which Joſeph had in the houſe of Potiphar, being his deare and beſt beloved ſervant, did not at all juſtifie the love his Miſtreſſe bore him. Who ever ſhe be that yields to another man the affection ſhe ow's to none but to her husband, renders her ſelf manifeſtly guilty of adultery. 'Tis not needfull to know who it is that ſhe loveth: 'Tis enough for her condemnation that it is not her husband. If then the thing to which you render the adoration of latria, be any thing but the Great God, Creatour of the univerſe, you are extremely blameable for it. It matters not a whit what elſe the nature or the dignity thereof be. What ever it is, its not being God (to whom alone you owe ſuch a ſervice) is enough for your condemnation and conviction of having committed Treaſon againſt the Majeſtie of your Soveraigne, of having violated the promiſe of ſacred wedlock, which he hath vouchſafed to contract with you. You are evidently a rebell, and a faithleſſe ſpouſe, and will never be able to avoid the infamy and the puniſhments due to this crime, unleſſe you waſh your fault with tears of a reall and ſad repentance.
If it were otherwiſe, a man might quit (or at leaſt excuſe) them that adored the Sun, the eye of the world, the moſt beautifull and expreſſe image of the Creatour that can be beheld in all nature, His punctual and admirable ſervant, which bears ſo clearly upon it ſelf the marks of his power and wiſdome. A man might then defend the ſervice that the Iſraelites gave to the brazen ſerpent, offering thereto incenſe; ſince it was not an Idol which they ſerved, but a precious memoriall of the bounty of God, an inſtrument of his goodneſſe, and in ſome ſenſe a Sacrament of his grace. A man might then maintain the action of the Collyridians, who adored the Bleſſed Virgin; ſince the object of their ſervice was not a Pagan Idol, but the moſt Holy and moſt excellent of all women, the Mother of our Common Lord, the pavilion wherein he vouchſafed to lodge his glory, the ſacred veſſell where he did ſo ſpread abroad his graces. A man might juſtifie the Soveraigne ſervice that the Arians gave to their Chriſt: for though they made him a creature, yet they ſuppoſed him the moſt noble and moſt excellent of all the creation, and the inſtrument that the Eternall Father made uſe of, for the creation firſt, and then the redemption of the world.
But the honour of theſe things, and the dignity they have in coming ſo neare our Lord and great Maſter, hinders not thoſe who adore them from being condemned as worſhippers of the creature. For who knows not, that God in the Scriptures, Job xxxi. 26, 27, 28. Deut. iiii. 19. & xvii. 2, 3. puts thoſe who worſhip the Sunne and Moon and Starres in the rank of the moſt noted Idolaters? and ſtrictly forbids His people to imitate them? And who knows not, that the good King Ezechiah did ſo extremely abhorre the ſervice of the brazen ſerpent, that to aboliſh the uſe of it, he was not afraid to break the ſacred monument of the great miracles of God, calling it by way of loathing, 2 Kings xxiii. 5, 11. Nehuſtan, that is, a vain and unprofitable piece of braſſe. And then for the Collyridians, the reſpect which we give to the Bleſſed Virgin, whom thoſe ſuperſtitious women took for the object of their folly, hindered not the Church then from calling it [Epiph. Haer. 79. p. 1058. & 1061. foreign.] an hereſie, or a ſect of ſuch as made idols, and to alledge againſt them all the precepts and examples which the Scripture giveth us for the adoration of the one ſole God. The dignity that the Arians attributed to their imaginary Chriſt, hindered not the moſt holy Doctours of the Primitive Church [Athanaſ. Orat. 1. contra Ari. tom. 1. p. 297. B. & 314. A. & orat. 3. p. 385. C. & orat. 4. p. 468. Cyril. in Joh. l. 9. c. 41. p. 471. A. & Theſaur. l. 2. c. 1. p. 30. C. & l. 12. c. 4. &c.] from accuſing them of Idolatry, and calling them Idolaters; becauſe as excellent as they imagined that Chriſt whom they believed on, they thought him but a creature, and by conſequence could not render to him the ſervice due to the Deitie, without manifeſtly adoring a creature.
The vanity of this pretence doth yet more plainly appear, in that the moſt excellent ſervants of God have refuſed that adoration which ſometimes hath been yielded to them. For even as Joſeph was ſeized with a juſt horrour, ſeeing the ungodly luſt of his Miſtreſſe; and oppoſed her deſigne, who would have given him that which ſhe owed onelyonly to her husband; and not being able by his grave and wiſe Remonſtrances to quench her baſe heat, he fled away from her, eſteeming it a blemiſh to him to be in ſuch unchaſt hands; ſhewing ſufficiently, that he held this attempt of hers to be a great abomination. Semblably, the faithfull ſervants of God have often very rudely thruſt away them, who would have given Them that ſervice, which is due onelyonly to their Maſter; and have taken ſuch honour in very great indignation. S. John in a tranſportation of Spirit, being twice caſt at the feet of an Angel (who diſcovered to him the ſecrets of heaven) intending to adore him, was twice taken up. That Sacred Miniſter of God would by no means conſent, that S. John ſhould render unto him that honour; Take heed, ſaith he, Revel. xix. 10. & xxii. 8, 9. that thou do it not, I am thy fellow ſervant, and of thy brethren which bear witneſſe to Jeſus, Adore God. In the ſame ſort did S. Peter the Apoſtle of our Lord take up Cornelius the Centurion, when he was at his feet, adoring him. Stand up, ſaid he, Act. x. 26. I alſo am a man. In like manner S. Paul and S. Barnabas, ſeeing that the Lycaonians would offer them thoſe ſacrifices, which they were wont to offer to their Gods, took ſuch a diſpleſure, that they rent their garments; crying out, Act. xiiii. 13, 14, 15. Sirs, Why do ye thus? We alſo are men, ſubject to the ſame paſſions with you. And we need not doubt, but that the ſunne, moon, and ſtarres, and other inanimate creatures would reject thoſe ſervices, which are given them by the Pagans, with the like indignation, were their nature capable of it. [Et ſi indignari poteſt, acerbius indignatur contra falsò honorantem quàm contra contumelioſum ſaith S. Auguſtine T. 8. fol. 216. in Pſal. 93. praef.] Could the Sun be angry, he would chafe leſſe to ſee himſelf ill uſed, then falſely honoured by mankind. And let them not here object, That Gods people have ſometime worſhipped Angels; It being cleare out of the Scripture, and acknowledged by all Chriſtians, That at ſuch times either the Angel adored was the Sonne of God, who under the Old Teſtament appeared ſometimes to the Fathers in ſhape of an Angel; or if it was a creature, That the adoration given to him by the people of God, was an honour farre below that which we give to God, and that which the Romaniſts commonly call the adoration of latria. Otherwiſe they ſhould openly have broken the firſt and principall article of the Law, which ſo ſeverely forbids giving the other ſervice (adoration) to any but to God alone.
As for thoſe paſſages of the Bible, which tell us, in the Old vulgar Latine tranſlation Pſal. xcix. (Lat. xcviii.) 5. That the Ark of the Ancient Covenant might be adored, or in effect that it was ſo. Either we muſt ſay (as our Authours do) that the People of God were wont to proſtrate themſelves before the Ark (the ſervice of God being in thoſe dayes to be made particularly towards that place where the Ark was) or That this adoration of the Ark was a kind of honour leſſe then that of latria, which is due to none but God; or we may have recourſe to the ſubtility of S. Auguſtine, who in ſeverall places underſtands by the footſtool of God, the humanity of J. Chriſt, perſonally united to the Godhead, and by conſequent truly and properly adorable; and in concluſion, we may rather admit any interpretation, then overthrow the foundation of piety and religion, by granting that the higheſt worſhip is to be given to any but the Higheſt God. For, as for that relative and mediate adoration, which ſome of the Divines of the Church of Rome talk of upon this occaſion, 'twill do us no good, and that for three reaſons.
1. Becauſe this diſtinction of abſolute and relative ſervice, mediate and immediate (as they ſpeak) is an invention of their own brain and not able to ſatisfie conſcience. For though the honour which we give to Embaſſadours, or to other repreſentations, are referred indeed to the perſons whom they repreſent; whence it comes to paſſe that a Prince is honoured in his Vicegerents, and God in his Miniſters, and in his Sacraments; yet nevertheleſſe the honour which we give to one, differs farre from that which we give to the reſt. This is evident in civil converſation. For what King would ſuffer ſubjects to give the name of King or Soveraigne to his Miniſters and Officers, under colour that they repreſent his Majeſtie, and exerciſe his Authoritie every one in their charge. The reſpect which we give them redounds indeed to their Maſter, I confeſſe it, but 'tis clean another kind of honour then that which we render Him. 'Tis iuſt ſo in the Sacraments of Religion. For example, the reverence wherewith we receive Holy Baptiſme, redoundeth doubtleſſe to the glory of J. Chriſt, who inſtituted it, and of the H. Ghoſt whoſe efficacy it repreſents. Now if a Chriſtian ſhould hereupon, pretending this, affirm, That a man might lawfully adore baptiſme with the ſame adoration that is due to J. Chriſt or to the H. Ghoſt, Would not he be ridiculous even to our Adverſaries?
But we need not further examine this diſtinction in this place. For Secondly, if you look to the bottome of it, Rome doth not make uſe of it in this diſpute, ſhe would have us render to the Euchariſt an adoration not mediate, but immediate; not relative but abſolute; and which terminateth in the ſame ſubject, which is there preſent under the ſpecies of bread and wine; thinking that it is really and perſonally the Sonne of God. So that though the uſe of this diſtinction might excuſe the ſervice given to a creature, yet it will never ſerve to juſtifie that which They would have us give to the Romane Sacrament, which they pretend is perſonally the Creato…r.
Finally, though others might with ſome reaſon uſe the diſtinction, yet 'tis cleare, That 'tis of no uſe to us, who eſteem it vain and without any foundation, who hold all them really guilty of Creature-worſhip, and heirs to all the curſes which God threatens againſt it, who (under any pretence whatſoever) render to any creature that Soveraigne kind of homage and ſervice, which is due to none but the Creatour; whether they terminate their adoration in the object it ſelf which they adore, or whether they let it paſſe to ſome other whereto it hath reference. As men hold that Woman in all reaſon guilty of adultery, who ſhall cauſe any but her lawfull husband to ſhare of her love and marriage bed; though ſhe may plead for her ſelf, That the deſigne in committing ſuch an act, or the cauſe whereby ſhe was moved, or the manner of her proceeding was this or that, The buſineſſe is no way capable of being juſtified.
Thus I hope, it appeareth cleare enough, that if the Euchariſt be truly bread (as we believe it) neither the dignitie of its uſe in religion, nor the reference that it hath to the body and bloud of Chriſt Jeſus, will ſave us, either from the crime of having adored a creature, or from the puniſhments and curſes that ſuch a deed deſerveth; if believing as we do, we ſhould dare to give that ſervice and reverence to it, which the Romane Church commandeth us.