they are made Righteous when they are justified but as the Apostle saith They are justified freely by his Grace Rom. iij. And to explain himself a little after he adds That Grace would not be Grace if it were not given freely but rendred as a due Debt In the same Epistle I find also these words It is not therefore in vain that we sing unto God His mercy shall prevent me and His mercy shall follow me Whence life eternal it self which in the end shall be enjoyed without end and therefore is rendred to precedent merits yet because those merits to which it is given are not prepared by any ability of ours but are wrought in us by Grace even Life eternal it self is called Grace for no other reason but because it is given freely not therefore because it is not given to Merits but because those very Merits to which it is given are themselves a gift These words are an Inference from what went before where St. Austin argues against Merit either before to obtain Grace or after to deserve a Reward These are his words What is the Merit of Man before Grace by which he may deservedly obtain Grace when as all our Merit is from Grace and when he crowns our Merits he crowns nothing else but his own Gifts And from hence he inferrs in the words before cited Whence I observe 1. That all that is good in us here is owing to Divine Mercy preventing us 2. That all the good we can expect hereafter must be from the same Divine Mercy following us 3. That Life eternal which is the great Reward of Vertue and Goodness is called Grace 4. That though it be said to be given to Merits it is not said to be given for the sake of those Merits 5. That those Merits to which it is given are themselves the gift of God and therefore not Merits in the strict sence of the word It is not Righteousness but Pride in the name of Righteousness that expects eternal Life as a Reward due to its deserving These are St. Austin's own words in the next page which directly contradict this Definition of the Council of Trent viz. That a man justified truly deserves Life everlasting by his good works And now if the Vindicator can make any advantage of these words of St. Austin either to himself or to his cause I shall not envy him IV. He tells us that the Council hath defin'd That by works a Man is justified and not by Faith only And to prove this he alledgeth Jam. ij 24. where it is said ye see then how that a man is justified by works and not by faith only This place of Scripture hath been so often urged and all the Arguments raised therefrom so often and so miserably baffled that I wonder with what confidence this Gentleman could bring it upon the stage again They have been often told that St. James here doth not speak of Justification before God but before Men. That as Faith only though that Faith be not alone justifies us before God so good Works do justifie the truth of that Faith and evidence the reality of our Justification thereby unto Men. Which Interpretation is well warranted by St. Paul when he saith If Abraham was justified by Works then hath he whereof to glory but not before God Rom. iv 2. I likewise profess That in the Mass is offered a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead TO persuade us to a compliance herewith the Vindicator advanceth both Scripture and Antiquity Two great Arguments if well managed Which whether they be or no I shall now Examine 1. He begins with Scripture and by way of Preface thereunto tells us That our blessed Saviour being a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedeck did at his last Supper offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins This is unhappily to stumble at the Threshold For 1. How his Consequent comes to be tack'd to his Antecedent is past my capacity to understand Our blessed Saviour was made a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck Therefore at his last Supper he did offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins What Logick there is in this I am yet to learn. 2. If he did offer himself at his last Supper to whom did he do it For we do not find that he did address himself or offer any thing to any but only to his Disciples and surely he will not say that he offered himself as a Sacrifice unto them 3. If he did offer his Body and Blood then was it not an unbloody Sacrifice as they say it was 4. If it was an unbloody Sacrifice then could it not be propitiatory For without shedding of Blood there is no Remission of Sins Heb. ix 22. But the Vindicator hath good Scripture for all this viz. Luke xxij 19. 1 Cor. xi 24. Matth. xxvi 28. In all which places the Words of Institution are recited with some variation St. Matthew saith This is my Body vers 26. St. Luke adds Which is given for you And St. Paul saith Which is broken for you His whole Argument there depends upon the Words of Institution Before therefore I meddle with his reasoning therefrom it will be convenient to consider and explain them And 1. Our Saviour saith This is not This is Transubstantiate or wonderfully converted into another substance viz the substance of my Body 2. If when he said This is he meant Transubstantiation then his Body must be Transubstantiate before he spake and if so then the Conversion doth not depend upon the Words as they affirm For This is implies a thing already done 3. When he said This is my Body it is evident that his true natural humane Body was there with them took the Bread brake it gave it eat it now if that which he took brake gave and eat was then the Body of Christ either he must have two Bodies there at that time or else the same Body was by the same Body taken broken given and eaten and yet all the while neither taken broken given nor eaten 4. When he saith This is my Body which is given for you as St. Luke or Which is broken for you as St. Paul if it be understood literally then must it be either his natural or his glorified Body if they say the former then we urge them again with the preceding Observation the latter they will not dare to say because his Body was not then Glorified 5. If these words be to be literally and strictly to be understood then the substance of Bread must be Christ's Body at that time for what can any Man living understand by This but only this Bread For what he took he blessed what he blessed he brake what he brake he gave to his Disciples what he gave to them he bad them take and eat and what he bad them take and eat of that he
the Eucharist an unbloody Sacrifice i. e. A Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving His last Reserve is St. August who l. 9. Confess c. 13. speaks of his Mother Monica desiring to be remembred at the Altar after her death because she knew that thence was dispens'd the Holy Victim by which was cancelled the Hand-writing which was contrary unto us And Serm. 32. de Verb. Apost where he speaks of a propitiatory Sacrifice and Alms offered for Souls departed and of commemorating the Dead at the Sacrifice and of a Sacrifice being offered for them That Christians did usually meet to celebrate the memorial of Holy Martyrs and others departed in the Faith of Christ and that some kind of prayers were in St. Austin's time used for the dead we deny not But these are not the things in question but whether in the Mass there be offer'd a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead To prove this he produceth these passages of St. Austin wherein he seems to call the Eucharist the holy Victim and the Sacrifice Now what St. Austin meant by these words he himself shall tell you In his Book of Faith he calls it A Sacrifice of Bread and Wine offered in Faith and Charity August ad Petr. Diac. c. 19. and A Commemoration of the Flesh of Christ which he offered for us and of the Blood which he shed for us Id. de Civ Dei l. 17. c. 17. And in another place To eat the Bread in the New Testament is the Sacrifice of Christians And again This Flesh and Blood of Christ was promised before his coming Id. contr Faustum l. 20. c. 21. by the resemblance of Sacrifices in the Passion of Christ it was truly exhibited After the Ascention of Christ it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Commemoration Id. Epist ad Bonifac 23. And again Was not Christ once sacrificed in his Body and yet he is sacrificed to the people in a sacred sign every day Id. de Civ Dei l. 10. c. 5. And again That which we call a Sacrifice is a sign or representation of the true Sacrifice Thus doth St. Austin explain himself and if thus explain'd the Vindicator can any way avail either himself or his cause by his testimony he hath free liberty so to do I believe and profess That in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is truly really and substantially the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and that there is a change or conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Blood which Conversion or Change the Holy Church calls Transubstantiation THIS Doctrine he saith is founded in the express words of Christ who said This is my Body This is my Blood. To this I answer These and the other words of Institution having been considered already and no new matter here offered I shall not need to trouble my self nor the Reader with the Repetition of what hath been already said And this being the only Scripture proof he here alledgeth I shall only referr you to what I have said of it in the foregoing Article and so wait upon the Vindicator to his Authorities The Authorities which he here produceth if they be any thing to his purpose must be acknowledged to be ancient and the Authors of good Credit Whether therefore they will serve the end which he aims at we shall now enquire His first Evidence is St. Ignatius Martyr in Ep. ad Smyrn where speaking of some Hereticks of his time he saith They do not allow of Eucharists and Oblations because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our Sins and which the Father in his mercy raised again from the dead These words are indeed thus cited by Theodoret Dial. 111. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They do not receive the Eucharists and Oblations But in the Copy of this Epistle which is to be seen in the Florentine Library and is generally thought to be the most genuine we find this passage thus worded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They recede or abstain from Eucharists and Prayer But this only by the bye the stress of his Argument lies not in this but in the reason of their recession and refusal which was Because they did not confess that the Eucharist was the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our Sins and was raised again These words at first sight to an unthinking Man may seem to conclude the point but if we consider who they were that refused the Eucharist for this reason it will much abate the force of them That they were Hereticks the Vindicator owns and what their Heresie was Ignatius will tell us They denied Christ to be a perfect Man they held that he had not a true humane but only a fantastical Body That he did not really but in appearance only suffer upon the Cross and rise again from the Dead Against these the holy Martyr in the beginning of this Epistle bends his whole discourse his whole business being to make it appear That Christ was truly born of the Virgin Mary truly baptized of John in Jordan truly suffered under Pontius Pilate and was truly raised again from the Dead Now what wonder is it that those who did believe that he never had any real Body should refuse and reject with scorn his Sacramental Body when offered to them For what Sacrament what Sign what Remembrance what Representation can there possibly be of that which in truth never had any Being The whole importance therefore of these words is only this These Hereticks would not believe the Eucharist to be the Sacramental Body of Christ because they did not believe that ever he had any real Body St. Chrysostome speaking of some such in his time who would not believe that Christ really suffered Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 83. tells us in what manner they used to convince them When they say How may we know that Christ was offered bringing forth these Mysteries we stop their mouths For if Christ died not whose Sign and Token is this Sacrifice Where he calls the Eucharist a Mystery a Sign and a Token i. e. A Representation of the Death of Christ and in this sence are we to understand the Holy Martyr Ignatius in this place His next witness is St. Hilary l. 8. de Trinit where he saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed There 's no place left for doubting of the Reality of his Flesh and Blood for now both by the Profession of Christ himself and by our Faith 't is truly Flesh and truly Blood. Is not this Truth It may indeed not be true to them who deny Christ to be God. To this I answer That the words which St. Hilary here quoteth are in John vi 55. In which whole Chapter our Saviour speaketh not
saith This is my Body and all this he himself tells us was Bread. And that it did not receive any such wonderful Conversion or Change as they believe it did by the pronouncing of those words St. Paul who may be presumed to understand the mind of his Master as well as any of them is a very good Evidence who after the Words of Consecration by which they pretend the Change is made doth over and over again call it Bread as you may read 1 Cor. xi 26 27 c. 6. When he saith Do this in remembrance of me it implies an Absence for we can no more be said to remember that which is present than to see that which is absent 7. When it is said This Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins Are these words to be understood literally too Must we believe that by the pronouncing of these words there is a substantial Change made If so then it must not be of the Wine but of the Cup and that not into the Blood of Christ but into the New Testament or New Covenant in his Blood which none of them as yet have been so bold as to affirm 8. If we consider that our Saviour celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion and said This is my Body which is broken and This is my Blood which is shed it cannot be literally true of his natural humane Body for that was then whole and unbroken and his Blood was not then shed And indeed it was impossible that the Disciples should understand these words literally because they not only plainly saw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given not his Body broken and Blood shed because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his Body whole and unpierced Having thus considered the words of Institution and made some Remarks upon them let us now see how the Vindicator argues therefrom His first Remark is That the words of Institution are spoken in the present Tense whence he thus argues That it is certain that then before the Passion on the Cross the Body was given and broken Mystically and the Chalice shed for the Remission of Sins To this I answer 1. That if the Vindicator had consulted the Romish Bible or the Mass he might there have found Tradetur instead of Traditur shall be given instead of is given and Effundetur instead of Effunditur shall be shed instead of is shed Which words were likewise long ago used by Origen and St. Chrysostom Origen in Matth. Tract 35. Chrysost in 1 Cor. 11. Sa in verb. Matth. Cajetan in Luc. 22. and the Jesuit Sa would have told him in Greek it is said Which is shed the time present for the time to come And Cardinal Cajetan would have informed him even as the Evangelists by the time present have expressed the future Effusion of Blood saying is shed St. Paul likewise saying is broken signifieth by the present time the breaking of his Body which was after to be done upon the Cross Barrad Harmon Evangeilst Tom. 4. l. 3. c 4. And Barradius the Jesuit saith The Lord useth the time present instead of the future time which then approached for the words ought to be understood of his future passion which then drew near in this sence This is my Body which shall shortly be given for you to suffer and to die So that though the words were really spoken in the present Tense yet did not that hinder either the Primitive Fathers their own Translators of the Bible the Compilers of their Mass or their own Eminent Doctors from understanding them of the time to come Nor is it to be wondered at for they well knew that it was our Saviour's way and manner of speaking As for instance before any of the Jews were come to lay hands on him he said Behold the Son of Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is betrayed or given into the hands of Sinners Matth. xxvi 45. Therefore doth my Father love me because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I lay down my Life that I may take it again John x. 17. And in another place I am no more in the World John xvij 11. And St. Paul in conformity to his Master's way and manner of speaking saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am already offered up 2 Tim. iv 6. All which considered it will not appear to be so very certain as this Gentleman thinks it is That the Body of Christ was given and broken before his Passion on the Cross But 2dly He seems to qualifie the rigour of his Assertion by telling us That all this was done Mystically To which I answer That if by Mystically he mean Sacramentally i. e. That our blessed Saviour by what he did at his last Supper intended to signify to his Disciples what he was about to do and suffer for them and the rest of Mankind the day following we shall not differ with him about it But if by Mystically he mean Really though Invisibly as undoubtedly he doth we cannot agree with him for in a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice as the Article which he here undertakes to defend calls it the thing offered ought to be visible and there ought to be a Destruction of it in the Sacrifice none of all which appears to be in this Action of our Blessed Saviour But he proceeds Which saith he being done in an unbloody manner and offered to God we call it an unbloody Sacrifice and it being for the Remission of Sins 't is likewise propitiatory To this I answer 1. The Vindicator here takes that for granted which we can by no means allow him viz. That the Body of Christ was given and broken Mystically and the Chalice shed for the Remission of Sins before his Passion on the Cross And why we cannot admit of this I have given you an Account already 2. He contradicts himself for he tells us This was done in an unbloody manner and yet he had before told us That the Chalice was shed by which I suppose he means if he have any meaning in it the Blood in the Chalice Now if Christ's Blood was shed how could it be done in an unbloody manner Or how could it be called an unbloody Sacrifice 3. He tells us It was offer'd to God but how doth that appear That our Saviour in his last Supper did indeed offer Bread and Wine to his Disciples is very plain and evident but that he offered either them or any thing else to God the Words of Institution give us no account 4. That it being for Remission of Sins it was likewise propitiatory And here he is under a great mistake for every thing that is for Remission of Sins is not a propitiatory Sacrifice The Baptism of John and his Preaching was for the Remission
one word of the Eucharist that not being instituted till two years after or thereabouts Nor doth he there speak of a Corporal eating which is done by the Mouth of the Body but of a Spiritual eating which is done by Faith. For He is there speaking to the Capernaitan Jews who followed him for the Loaves and takes occasion from their gluttonous Appetite to instruct them better to acquaint them with another kind of Food a Celestial Bread of which whosoever eateth liveth eternally and that Bread is Himself And of this it is that he saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed And lest they should understand him carnally he closeth up his Discourse with these words The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life v. 63. And that in this sence St. Hilary is here to be understood I do not doubt for in these very words he saith It is so by our Faith i. e. to them that believe and the truth of it will not be denied by any but those who deny the Divinity of Christ i. e. who deny him to be the Bread which came down from Heaven v. 50. For it was not his Flesh and Blood but his Divinity that came down from Heaven But if we should grant that St. Hilary in this discourse had an eye to the Sacrament of the Eucharist as I do believe he had yet doth he very well explain himself and give us to understand that he doth not speak of Bodily but Spiritual Meat not of Corporal but Spiritual eating not of receiving Christ by the Mouth of the Body but by the Mouth of the Soul which is Faith. For in the very same Book that is here quoted he saith Christ is in us not bodily Hilar. in Matth. Can. 30. Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 83. but by the Mystery of the Sacraments And again We receive Christ truly not substantially but under a Mystery And in another place he speaks of drinking of the Fruit of the Vine Which as St. Chrysostom saith Doth certainly produce Wine not Water And I may add nor Blood. His next Quotation is out of St. Chrysostom l. 3. de Sacerd. where that Holy Father in an Ecstacy crys out O Miracle He that sits above with his Father at the very same instant of time is here in the Hands of all he gives himself to those that are willing to receive him To this I answer That it was usual with the Ancient Fathers by vehement Expressions and Rhetorical Amplifications to ravish the Minds and inflame the Devotions of their Hearers we very well know and that it was as frequent with St. Chrysostom as any other cannot be unknown to any who have been conversant in his Writings I shall only trouble you with one Instance which the Vindicator may find in the same Book which he here quotes Christ is Crucified before our Eyes his Blood gusheth out of his side and streameth and floweth over the Holy Table and the People are therewith made red and bloody Did St. Chrysostom intend to be understood plainly and literally here Surely the Vindicator will not say so nor if he well consider will he think it fit to understand him so in the place by him alledged for if so then must he grant That the People do verily and indeed see Christ's very Body and handle and touch it with their Fingers which some of his own Doctors will be ready to tell him is not only false but a worse Heresie than ever was defended by Berengarius The Miracle therefore which St. Chrysostom here speaks of is not the fleshly or bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament but the wonderful Effects that God worketh in the Faithful in that dreadful time of the Holy Communion wherein the whole Mystery of our Redemption by the Blood of Christ is expressed But if this place of St. Chrysostom doth not so fully express the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist the Vindicator hath another which he thinks will sufficiently do it and that is in his 83. Hom. in Matth. where he saith He that wrought those things at the last Supper is the Author of what is done here We hold but the place of Ministers but he that sanctifies and changes them is Christ himself Of what change St. Chrysostom here speaks he himself doth plainly intimate for in the same Homily he immediately adds So is it also in Baptism as if he should have said As in the Sacrament of Baptism the Water is changed from common to sacramental Water so in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Bread and Wine are changed from common to sacramental Bread and Wine And that he meant only this and not any substantial Change is plain for in the same Homily he saith When he would represent the Mysteries he gave Wine And in another place he saith Chrysost Ep. ad Caesar As the Bread before it is Sanctified is called Bread when by the Intercession of the Priest divine Grace hath sanctified it it loseth the Name of Bread and becomes worthy to be called the Body of Jesus Christ although the Nature of Bread abides in it And in another place he saith If it be dangerous to employ the Holy Vessels about common uses Chrysost in Matth. Opere Imperf Hom. 11. wherein the true Body of Jesus Christ is not contained but the Mysteries of his Body how much rather the Vessels of our Bodies which God hath prepared to dwell in By all which we may plainly understand what St. Chrysostom's Thoughts were of a substantial Change or of Christ's bodily presence in the Eucharist when they were cool and calm and free from any Ecstatical Rapture His next is St. Cyril of Jerusalem in Catech. whence he quotes these Words Since therefore Christ himself thus affirms and says of the Bread This is my Body and This is my Blood who can doubt of it and say it is not his Blood No body certainly for in the same sence that Christ said it was so there is no doubt to be made but that it is so i. e. Sacramentally and in a Mystery but here is to be noted that if St. Cyril be to be understood literally he will be no good Evidence for the Vindicator for he doth not say of the Bread it is changed into his Body but it is his Body c. So that according to him the Bread must be Christ's Body and the Cup his Blood which as yet they have not had the confidence to affirm nor indeed will it consist with their notion of Transubstantiation And if it be to be understood Figuratively it will less serve his purpose for then it will import no more than what Tertullian saith Tertul. contra Marcion l. 4. Christ took Bread and made it his Body by saying This is my Body i. e. The Figure of my Body But he further enforceth his Argument saying In Cana of Galilee he once by his sole Will turned Water into Wine which
resembles Blood and doth he not deserve to be credited that he changed Wine into his Blood Yes no doubt when he tells us that he did so or when we have as clear Evidence of his changing Wine into Blood as we have of his changing Water into Wine at the Marriage Feast in Cana of Galilee In this he appeals to Sence bidding the Servants draw out now and carry it to the Governor of the Feast that he might taste it But in the other we are required to believe against all Evidence of Sence But to clear the point more fully St. Cyril himself will tell us what kind of change he here speaks of Cyril Hierosol Catech Myst 3. for saith he As Bread in the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Spirit is no more common Bread but is the Body of Christ so this Holy Ointment is no more that Ointment i. e. As the Ointment is changed so is the Bread in the Eucharist and no otherwise As the Ointment when once consecrated to an holy use is no more common Ointment i. e. Though it be Ointment still and the same in substance that it was yet it is no more the same Ointment for before it was Common now it is Consecrate So the Bread in the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Spirit is no more common Bread i. e. Though it be Bread still yet is it not common Bread but it is the Body of Christ i. e. The Sacrament of his Body His next Authority is Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catech. c. 37. whence he cites these words I do therefore now rightly believe That the Bread sanctified by the Word of God is changed into the Body of the Word Because it the Bread is suddenly changed by this Word This is my Body And this is effected by the virtue of Benediction by which the nature of those things that appear is Transelemented into it To this I answer That the Bread sanctified by the word of God is changed or Transelemented into the body of the Word If it be understood in the same sence that the Ancient Fathers used it we can readily subscribe unto it and in what sence they used it has been in part declared already Tertullian saith Tertull. contra Marcion l. 4. Christ took Bread and made it his Body by saying This is my Body i. e. A Figure of my Body And St. Austin saith Aug. ad Bonifac. Ep. 23. After a certain manner the Sacrament of Christ's Body is the Body of Christ He doth not say It really is but after a certain manner And in what manner it was said to be so he himself in another place informs us saying He made no doubt to say Aug. contr Adimant c. 12. Theophilact in 6. cap. Johan This is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body And Theophilact saith We our selves are Transelemented into the Body of Christ Which I suppose this Gentleman will not understand as if Believers were really and substantially changed into the Body of Christ But to clear this point let but Greg. Nyssen who certainly best understood his own meaning be his own Interpreter and it will plainly appear that by these Expressions he intended no more than what is expressed by these and many other Holy Fathers For in another place thus he writeth This Altar Gregor Nyssen de Sancto Baptism whereat we stand is by nature a common Stone nothing differing from other Stones whereof our Walls are built and our Pavements laid but after that it is once dedicated to the honour of God and hath received blessing it is a Holy Table and an undefiled Altar afterward not to be touched of all Men but only of the Priests and that with Reverence Likewise the Bread that first was common after that the Mystery hath hallowed it is both called and is Christ's Body likewise also the Wine Christ's Blood. And whereas before they were things of small value after the Blessing that cometh from the Holy Ghost either of them both worketh mightily The like power also maketh the Priest to be Reverend and Honourable being by means of a new Benediction divided from the common sort of the People Whence it is evident That as the Altar of stone was changed from its former state and yet remained stone still and as the Priest is changed from what he was before and yet remaineth the same Man still so and no otherwise did the Holy Father think that the Bread and Wine are changed in the Sacrament i. e. They are changed into Christ's Body and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine still In the next place he brings in St. Ambrose l. de his qui Myst initiant where speaking of the Eucharist he says Shall not the words of Christ be powerful enough to change the nature of things Yes no doubt when he pleaseth so to do you have read of the Creation of the World that God spake and the things were made he commanded and they received a Being If therefore Christ by his Word was able to make something of nothing shall he not be thought able to change one thing into another Yes certainly when he thinks fit to do it But the Question here is not What Christ as God can do but what he will or hath done Now let us see what kind of Argument this Gentleman can find in this Topick if he has any it must run thus Whatsoever Christ as God by his Omnipotent Power can do that he doth But Christ as God by his Omnipotent Power can make the Bread in the Sacramen to be his Body therefore he doth it Would it not be every whit as good an Argument Christ as God by his Omnipotent Power can make the Vindicator a Pope or a Cardinal therefore he hath done it Would not any Fresh Man smile at such an Argument and put him in mind of an old Maxim A posse ad esse non valet consequentia But to clear St. Ambrose from that foul Aspersion which the Vindicator here would insinuate and impose upon him we need but consult St. Ambrose himself for there is none of the ancient Fathers who has delivered his Opinion in this matter more plainly and expresly than he has done For in the same Book which is here cited he saith Ambr. de his qui initiant Myst c. 3. It is one thing that is done visibly and another thing that is celebrated invisibly Believe not only what thou seest with thy bodily Eyes for that is better seen which thou dost not see the thing that thou seest is corruptible the thing which thou dost not see is for ever Where he plainly distinguisheth between the Sacrament and the thing signified thereby And again Ibid. c. 2. As the Flesh of Christ which was Crucified and Buried was true Flesh so this is truly a Sacrament of that Flesh Our Lord Jesus Christ saith This is my Body Before the Blessing of the heavenly words it is named
Elementum fit Sacramentum And now let us see Catech. ad Parochos pars 2. Tit. de Sacram. n. 5. p. 113. Aug. l. 10. de civ Dei. c. 5. And Epist 2. how far they agree with us in this notion of a Sacrament The Trent Catechism which always speaks the sence of that Council gives us this definition of a Sacrament It is a visible Sign of invisible Grace instituted for our Justification which it grounds upon the Authority of St. Austin and the compliance of all the School Doctors with him therein The Doway Catechism saith * P. 49. A Sacrament is a visible sign of invisible Grace instituted by Christ our Lord for our Sanctification And their †P. 4 5. Summ of Christian Doctrine c. printed at London 1686. saith A Sacrament is a visible Sign instituted by Jesus Christ to convey his Grace into our Souls and to apply unto us the merits of his death So then it is agreed between us that these three things viz. The word of Institution a visible Sign and a promise of invisible Grace are absolutely necessary to make and constitute a Sacrament And it is acknowledged on all hands that these three are to be found in the Sacrament of Baptism and the Lords Supper The dispute therefore between us is concerning the Five additional Sacraments of the Church of Rome Of which we say That they want either the Word or the Element or both Matrimony Order and Penance have the word of God but they have no outward Element Extream Vnction and Confirmation have neither Word nor Element But this Gentleman contends That these Five as well as the other Two are founded upon the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Sence of the Scripture And here I confess the Vindicator hath taken a great deal of pains but to little purpose he hath sweat and toil'd and at last found out a great many Fathers who have called them Sacraments which is a thing that no body would have deny'd him upon his own bare word For That many things which indeed and by special property are no Sacraments may nevertheless pass under the general name of a Sacrament he must be a very great stranger to the Writings of the Fathers who will not acknowledge it We very well know that it was usual with the Fathers to call any sacred Sign or Mystery in Religion or any holy significant Rite by the name of a Sacrament And in this Sence he might reckon not only seven but seventy or more if he pleased for he may furnish himself with great variety Tertullian calls the Stick which Elisha cut down cast into the water Tertul. advers Judaeos and made the Iron swim Sacramentum Ligni the Sacrament of Wood. And the same Father calls the whole State of the Christian Faith Contr. Marcion l. 4. Aug. in Sermone de Sanctis 19. Leo de Resurrect Domini Serm. 2. Hieron ad Oceanum Inter Decreta Leonis c. 14. Aug. de peccat merit remiss l. 2. Religionis Christianae Sacramentum The Sacrament of the Christian Religion And St. Austin speaks of the Sacrament of the Cross And Leo calls the Cross of Christ both a Sacrament and an Example And St. Jerome calls the Water and Blood which issued out of the side of the blessed Jesus the Sacraments of Baptism and Martyrdom And Leo calls the vow of Virginity a Sacrament And St. Austin calls the Bread that was given unto the Novices or Beginners in the Faith called Catechumens before they were baptized a Sacrament And if he will but consult St. Hilary he may find in him these expressions Hilar. in Matth. Canon 11 12 23. The Sacrament of Prayer the Sacrament of Hunger the Sacrament of the Scriptures The Sacrament of Weeping and the Sacrament of Thirst Bern. in Sermone de Coena Domini And St. Bernard calls our Saviour's washing of the Disciples Feet the Sacrament of daily sins I suppose he will not call all these Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and if not then must he aknowledge that there are Sacraments to be found in the Fathers besides those that are properly so called The truth is the Fathers sometimes spake Metaphorically and sometimes properly sometimes they spake more loosely and sometimes more closely sometimes they spake of things as they were in themselves and by specially property such and sometime by way of allusion and as in a general sence they might be called such And if we be not careful to difference these several ways and manners of speech in the reading of them we may unawares fall into great errors and mistakes This is plain in the matter now before us All are not Sacraments properly so called which they call so we are therefore to distinguish between their expressions when they speak of a thing obitèr and by the bye and when they treat of it designedly and on set purpose And if we consider their Writings when in the latter way they treat of this subject we shall find that they mention no more Sacraments but only two St. Cyprian saith Then may they be throughly sanctified Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 1. ad Steph. Aug. de Doctrina Christiana l. 3. c. 9. and become the Children of God if they be new-born by both the Sacraments And St. Austin saith Our Lord and his Apostles have delivered unto us a few Sacraments instead of many and the same in doing most easie in signification most excellent in observation most reverend as is the Sacrament of Baptism and the Celebration of the Body and Blood of our Lord. And again the same holy Father speaking of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord saith Aug. de Symbolo ad Catechumenos Paschasius de Coena Domini Bessarion de Sacrament Eucharistiae These be the two Sacraments of the Church And Paschasius saith These be the Sacraments of Christ in the Catholick Church Baptism and the Body and Blood of our Lord. And Cardinal Bessarion saith We read that these only two Sacraments were delivered us plainly in the Gospel Here you have Both the Sacraments and the Two Sacraments and the Only Two Sacraments of the Church Whence it is plain that though the Fathers sometimes either in heat of this discourse or for a Rhetorical flourish might call those Sacraments which properly speaking were not so yet when they did designedly and on set purpose speak of them they mentioned only Two which I think may be a sufficient answer to his Authorities But he has yet another Reserve to bring up and that is That all these are founded upon the sence of the Scripture Let us see how whether this will any more avail him than the Authority of the Fathers hath done Of the pretended Sacrament of Confirmation TO establish this he produceth Acts viij 17 18. where it is said Then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost And when Simon saw that
one kind after Consecration the Body of Christ is signified And in his Book of Sacraments he hath these expressions In eating and drinking we signifie that Flesh and Blood which were offered for us Ambr. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4 5. And l. 6. 1. Thou receivest the Sacrament in a similitude It is the Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Thou drinkest the likeness of his precious Blood. And again Bread and Wine remain still the same thing they were before and yet are changed into another thing i. e. They are the same things really and in substance but another thing Sacramentally and in signification As to his last Authority taken from St. Cyril Alex. Ep. ad Coloss Though there be some Rhetorical aggravations the like whereunto may be found in other of the Fathers some of which I have given you an account of yet do I not see that any thing more is design'd by St. Cyril in this place than only to assure us of Christ's real but Spiritual presence in this Sacrament For that he never dreamt of any real and substantial change of the Elements therein is plain from his own words in another place where he saith * Cyril in Johan l. 4. c. 24. Christ gave to his believing Disciples pieces of Bread not pieces of his Body And again †Id. Ad Object Theodor. Our Sacrament doth not assert the eating of a Man i. e. Flesh and Blood that were to draw the minds of the Believers in an irreligious manner to gross cogitations I confess also That under one kind alone is received Christ whole and entire that being a true Sacrament THIS he tells us is a consequence of what is declared above and if so then must they stand and fall together If the foundation be defective the Superstructure is in danger If the Antecedent be false the Consequence can scarce be true Having therefore throughly sifted and examined the preceeding Article and found no Foundation upon which to build our Faith that there is any such real and substantial change wrought in the Elements of the sacred Eucharist after Consecration as is there pretended nor any reason to receive their monstrous and new invented Article of Transubstantiation into the Articles of our Creed we may justly reject this which he calls a consequence thereof But to shew that we have other reasons besides the inconsequence thereof to reject this Article as a Sacrilegious robbing of the People of one half of the sacred Eucharist let us consider the Institution of it and the constant practice of the Church thereupon If we consider the Institution we shall there find that our blessed Saviour in words as plain as possible did institute his Holy Supper under both kinds we may also find that as he did institute it so likewise he did administer it under both kinds we may also observe that He who said to his Disciples Take eat did also say unto them Drink ye all of this and in the close of all he leaves this word of command with them This do in remembrance of me as if he should have said what you have seen me do the same do ye And it is evident by the Apostles practice hereupon that they understood this to be the meaning of their Master And that this was not to remain a duty only during their time but in all after Ages of the Church St. Paul is very plain saying As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup 1 Cor. xi 26. ye shew forth the Lords death till he come And as for the practice of the Church thereupon it is very evident that for above a thousand years after Christ the Eucharist was always administred in both kinds So that if we have any regard either to the Institution or Example or Command of Christ or to the Practice of the Apostles or of the Church of Christ for so many Ages we have great reason to reject this Article as a great Novelty And indeed so it is for the first Foundation of it as a thing necessary to be believed and practised is laid in a Decree of the Council of Constance in the year of our Lord 1416. But the Vindicator will tell us that we are mistaken here for he pretends to find some footsteps of it in the Scriptures and for this alledgeth certain passages out of the sixth Chapter of St. John where our Saviour speaks sometimes both of Eating and Drinking and sometimes of Eating only To this I answer That our Blessed Saviour in that place doth not speak any thing of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood but only of a Spiritual feeding upon him by Faith. For when he held that conference with the Capernaitan Jews this Sacrament was not then instituted nor of two years after and therefore no conclusive Argument can be built thereupon But he urgeth us with the Authority of St. Basil in his Epistle ad Caesar Patr. where he saith he finds these words It hath the same efficacy whether a person receives from the Priest one part or more Whether these be the words of St. Basil or how truly they are transcrib'd I have not the opportunity now to examine but admitting for the present that they are what is all this to the denying of the Cup to the Laity and forbidding the Administration of the Sacrament in both kinds under so severe a penalty But I find St. Basil cited by Johannes Gerhardus for a quite different purpose Johan Gerhard de Sacra Coena c 9. §. 43. Basil l. 1. de Bapt. c. 3. for he brings him in speaking on this wise If he who by eating offends his Brother be void of Charity what shall be said of him who dares idly and unprofitably both eat the Body and drink the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ And again What is the duty of a Christian Id. in Moralib sub finem Let him cleanse himself from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit and so let him eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ But at last he urgeth us with the opinion of Luther Melancthon and Spalatensis That in this point Christ hath left no necessary precept but that it may profitably and lawfully be received under one or both kinds To this I answer 1. That our Faith is not founded upon Luther's or any other Man's assertion but upon the Institution of Jesus Christ 2. That Luther wrote his Epistle to the Bohemians before he was fully grounded in the truth and that afterwards he did retract according to the example of St. Austin many things that he had written To this end you may find him begging and beseeching his Reader to read his former writings with pity and commiseration In praefat Tom. 1. Before all things I pray and beseech the godly Reader and I beseech him for our Lord Jesus Christ's sake that he would read these my writings with judgment yea and with great pity remembring
heartily desire that he may do it Greg. Naz. in Epist ad Caesareenses Chrysost ad pop Antiochenum Hom. 3. and do it diligently And that this Holy Father meant no more than this may plainly appear from what he saith of the Church of Caesarea It is saith he in a manner the Mother of all Churches and the whole Christian Common-wealth so embraceth and beholdeth it as the Circle embraceth and beholdeth the Center Thus Jerusalem is frequently stiled the Mother of all Churches and St. Chrysostome calls Antioch the Head of the World. Now as these Churches are called Mother Churches because the Cities in which they were planted were the Mother Cities of those Provinces so for the same reason the Church of Rome is oftentimes called the Chief the Principal and the Mother Church because that City was the Metropolis or Head-City of the West And as the Bishops of those Churches may be and oftentimes are called the Chief Rulers and Governours of the Church so likewise and no otherwise the Bishop of Rome is sometimes stiled the Head i. e. the chief Governour of the Church And that by the whole Church here we are to understand no more but only the whole Church of that Province Polydor. Virgil explaining those words of St. Cyprian The Chair of Peter Polydor. Virgil. de Inventor rerum l 4. the principal Church from which the Vnity of the Priesthood first began thus writeth Lest any man hereby deceive himself it cannot in any other wise be said that the Order of Priesthood grew first from the Bishop of Rome unless we understand it only within Italy For it is clear and out of question that Priesthood was orderly appointed at Jerusalem long before Peter ever came to Rome To this I might add That every Bishop may be called the Bishop of the Vniversal Church because it is his duty to take care not only of his own Flock but of the whole Church of God. As also that this Title Head of the Church hath been given to several godly Bishops who were never Bishops of Rome nor ever dreamt that any Supremacy of power over all other Churches was thereby conferred either upon him or them But I am not willing to enter farther into the Controversie than the Vindicator leads me And to this Evidence of his I think enough hath been said to show that it will not much avail him His next witness is St. Chrysostome l. 2. de Sacerd. c. 1. For what reason did Christ shed his Blood Certainly to purchase those sheep the care of which he committed to Peter and his Successors The whole force of his Argument if he can frame any out of these words must be That the Bishop of Rome is the true Successor to St. Peter Which if we should grant him I do not see how it would thence follow that the Bishop of Rome is the Supream Pastor Head and Governor of the Catholick Church For if St. Peter himself was not so he cannot have it by Succession from him De Unitate Eccles Edit Oxon p. 107. Greg. l. 4. Ep. 38. Now St. Cyprian saith The Apostles were the same that St. Peter was being joined in the same fellowship of Honour and Power And their own Pope Gregory saith Peter the Apostle is not the Head but the chief Member of the holy universal Church Paul Andrew and John what are they else but the Heads of several Nations Yet notwithstanding under one Head viz. Christ they are all members of the Church And to speak in short The Saints before the Law the Saints under the Law the Saints in the time of Grace all accomplishing the Lord's Body are placed among the Members of the Church And there was never any one yet that would have himself called the Universal Bishop So that as Paul Andrew and John were Heads of the Church in like manner and no otherwise was St. Peter Head of the Church If therefore St. Peter was then they were all so too for they were all equal and what a confusion that would be let the Vindicator judge To this may be added That if St. Peter was really the Prince of the Apostles and Head of the Church constituted by Christ St. Paul certainly was very much to blame Gal. ii 2. to withstand him to the face as he did And it must be a very great Arrogance and presumption in him to say That in nothing he was behind the very chiefest Apostles 2 Cor. xij 11. Gal. ij 7. Or to share Jurisdiction with him saying That the Gospel of the Vncircumcision was committed unto him as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter But St. Chrysostome Chrysost in Epist ad Galat. c. ii whose Authority he so much depends upon will tell him That Paul had no need of Peter 's help nor did he want his voice but was equal unto him in Honour Besides all this One may be said to succeed another either because he possesseth the same place that he did or because he teacheth the same Doctrine and with the same diligence that he did Now the former of these will not be enough to make any one the true Successor of St. Peter Alphons contra Haeres l. 1. c. 9. for as their own Alphonsus de Castro saith Though it be matter of Faith to believe the true Successor of St. Peter is the Supream Pastor of the whole Church yet are we not bound by the same Faith to believe that Leo or Clement though Bishops of Rome are the true Successors of St. Peter And yet this is the Succession they so much boast of and if this be it Dist 40. Multi the same St. Chrysostom will inform him That it is not the Chair that makes the Bishop but it is the Bishop that makes the Chair Neither is it the place that Halloweth the Man but it is the Man that Halloweth the place Dist 40. Non est facile And St. Jerome will tell him They are not always the Children of Holy Men that sit in the rooms of Holy Men. Nor did these Holy Fathers speak without Book for the Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses's Chair Matth. xxiij 2. And the Abomination of Desolation shall stand in the holy Place Matth. xxiv 15. And the Man of Sin as God shall sit in the Temple of God 2 Thes ij 3 4. As the first of these did Succeed Moses in place but not in Doctrine so the two other shall succeed Christ and his Apostles And thus Pope Liberius though an Arian Heretick and Pope Coelestinus though a Nestorian and Pope Honorius though a Monothelite may be said to succeed St. Peter in place though not in Doctrine But will the Vindicator say or can he imagine that St. Chrysostom meant That Christ shed his Blood to purchase a Church and when he had done committed the care of it to such Successors of St. Peter as these were His next is St. Jerome Epist 57 and 58.
ad Damasum whose words are thus rendered by him Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae i. e. Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior I following no other Leader but Christ am in Communion with your Holiness i. e. with the Chair of Peter c. And I cry aloud Whoever is in Communion with the Chair of Peter is mine Which may better be Translated thus I following no first Man but only Christ am joined as a Fellow in Communion unto thy Blessedness i. e. to Peter 's Chair Whence we may observe 1. That St. Jerome doth not acknowledge any first head or chief in the Church no not the Pope himself but only Christ 2. That he doth not submit himself as a Vassal or Subject to the Pope but doth consociate himself in Communion with him 3. That it is not only with him but with St. Peter's Chair And what he meaneth by St. Peter's Chair he afterwards explains when he comes to give a reason of this his Address Where he tells us The Foxes destroy the Vineyard of Christ so that among these broken Cisterns that have no Water it is hard to understand where that sealed Fountain and inclosed Garden is Therefore he thought it good to consult St. Peter's Chair and that Faith which was commended by the Apostles Mouth So that it was not St. Peter's Successor in place but in Doctrine that he applied himself unto Now if we consider that the Age in which St. Jerome lived did mightily abound with Hereticks we cannot think it strange that he should forsake the company of those wicked Men and join himself in communion with those who then held that Faith intire which they impugned But if you ask me why should he rather address himself to the Bishop of Rome than any other The answer is ready he had received his Christianity at Rome In vita Hieron he had been educated there from his youth he was a Priest of Rome and had sometime been Secretary to this very Damasus All which considered it is no wonder if he had a particular kindness for that See. Now what is all this to that universal power which the Pope at this day claims to have over the whole Church of God Should the Vindicator follow St. Jerome's Example and and in his Address call the Pope his Fellow I doubt it would not be very welcome And that St. Jerome meant no more than is here explained will plainly appear if we consider what account he made at other times of St. Peter's Chair when he found abuses and errors maintained in the Church of Rome Then he cries out Si Authoritas quaeritur c. Hieron in Epist ad Evagrium If we seek for Authority that of the World is greater than that of the City viz. Rome Whereever there is a Bishop whether it be at Rome or at Tanais or at Engubium he is of equal Merit and equal Priesthood The power of Riches and the humility of Poverty cannot make a Bishop either higher or lower All Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles His next Evidence is St. Aug. Epist 92. ad Innocentium Papam whose words are not well translated by him The words of the Epistle are these In the great dangers of the infirm Members of Christ we beseech you to use your Pastoral diligence For there is a new Heresie and too pernicious a Tempest raised by the Enemies of the Grace of Christ who by their wicked Disputations endeavour to take from us the Lords Prayer And then giving him an account what that Heresie and Tempest was he at last concludes But we hope the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ assisting who deigns to govern thee consulting him and to hear thee praying to him those who think so perversely and perniciously will yield to the Authority of your Holiness drawn from the Authority of holy Scriptures that so we may rather rejoice in their Correction than sorrow for their Destruction For the better understanding hereof we are to consider That this Epistle was sent to Pope Innocent not by St. Austin alone but by the Milevitan Council in which he presided and in which the Pelagian Heresie had been considered and censured as it had been before in the Council of Carthage And the design of their writing as appears by the whole tenour of the Epistle was not to beg his confirmation of what they had done but to acquaint him with what they had done and to desire him to take the same pastoral care and use the same diligence to discountenance that Heresie in his Province as they had done in theirs Epist 95. ad Innocent For St. Austin in another Epistle tells him We have heard that there are some even in Rome it self where Pelagius long lived who for divers causes are favourable to him some there are who report that you perswade them so to be but more who believe that he is cleared from that Heresie by the Eastern Bishops And therefore they expected that he should not only clear himself of that suspicion but also undeceive his people as to the Transactions in this matter in the East This was the design of this Epistle as indeed it was of all those Communicatory Letters which in those days were so frequent when any matter of great importance happened in the Church which were things of great use and no small advantage then for thereby Catholick Communion was preserved warning was given of any approaching danger and the Bishops and Pastors of the Church awakened to provide against it Nor were these Epistles sent to the Bishop of Rome only but to other Bishops also To this purpose we meet with another Epistle to Hilarius Bishop of Poitiers in France Epist 94. written in the same stile and to whom he makes his Address in words to the same effect as he did to the Bishop of Rome for thus he directs it To Hilarius our most blessed Lord and reverend Brother and Fellow-Bishop in the truth of Christ In this Epistle he tells him That a new Heresie an Enemy to the Grace of Christ was endeavoured to be set up and having given him an account what it was he desires him to use his pastoral care and diligence to suppress it But that St. Austin and the Fathers in the Numidian Council never dreamt of any power or authority either in him or the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop over them and all other Churches we need no other Evidence than the Acts of this very Council In which we find this Decree made Concil Milevitan Can. 22. If they have a mind to appeal from their Bishops let them not appeal but only to the Councils of Africa or to the Primates of their own Provinces But if they shall make their Appeals beyond the Seas i. e. to Rome let no Man in Africa receive them into Communion Concil Carthag 6. Can. 92. The same was also decreed in the African Council and