place informs us for saith he St. Paul here stirs up Timothy to be solicitous in preaching himself and to make choice of others who were fit for that work and therefore he saith The things that thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses i. e. confirmed by the Law and the Prophets and the Hagiographa or other sacred Writings the same commit thou to faithful Men who shall be able to teach others also i. e. to Men of a sound Faith who shall be fit by the example of holy life by their Knowledge and by their Eloquence to teach others also Now what relation this hath to Traditions or why this Gentleman brought it in as a proof of them I cannot devise These are all the Scripture proofs which he offers for Traditions but he hath a Reserve of two passages out of two of the Fathers to make good the Reer The first of which he tells us is to be found in Epiphanius Haer. 61. in these words 'T is necessary to admit of Traditions for all things cannot be found in Scripture and therefore the holy Apostles delivered some things in writing and some by Tradition How far this will serve the end he aims at is now to be considered That in some cases it is necessary to admit of Traditions was never denied by us nor did we ever affirm That all things are to be found in Scripture nor do we deny but that the Holy Apostles did deliver some things in Writing and some by Tradition i. e. by word of Mouth But we deny that it is necessary to admit of Traditions i. e. unwritten Traditions in all cases or indeed in any unless it can be made appear that they have been universally received by the whole Church in all Ages And we do affirm that though the Scriptures do not contain all things yet they do contain all things necessary to be believed by us in order to our Salvation And though we do not deny but that some things were delivered by the Apostles in Writing and some by word of mouth yet we do deny that what was delivered by word of mouth was either besides or against what was written by them What was delivered in writing hath been carefully preserved we have it before our eyes and are sure of it but of those things which were delivered by word of mouth some we are sure have been lost as for instance Those many other things which Jesus did mentioned by St. John c. 21. v. 25. and the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Anti-Christ mentioned by St. Paul 2 Th. 2. That Records are a much more faithful keeper than Tradition appears by these instances those few that were written being still preserved and believed and those infinity that were not written being all lost and vanished out of the memory of Men. And seeing God in his providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them he hath freed us from the obligation of believing them for every obligation ceaseth when it becomes impossible You will not you dare not say that God would suffer any thing to be lost that was necessary to Salvation nor can you deny but that he hath suffered these Traditions to be lost and therefore the Knowledge or Belief of them though it were a profitable thing yet is it not necessary And if so then with what face can you require us to assent unto this Article upon pain of damnation when we have no footsteps or print remaining which with divine Faith we may rely upon All which considered may we not truly say That Epiphanius here if rightly understood is neither for them nor against us For we say with him that it is necessary to admit of Tradition in some but not in all cases We acknowledge also that the Holy Apostles delivered some things in Writing and some by Tradition and when any thing is made appear to us to be of Apostolical Tradition and delivered by them as necessary to Salvation we will enquire no farther but will readily admit and embrace it His next Authority is taken out of St. Gregory Nyssen l. 3. contra Eunom p. 126. where he tells us these words are to be found 'T is a sufficient proof of our Doctrine that we have received it by Tradition from our Ancestors it having been left us as an Inheritance by the Apostles and convey'd down to us by a continued Succession of the Faithful in all Ages I see nothing to all this but what without any scruple we may readily assent to Gregory Nyssen says It is a sufficient proof of our Doctrine that we have received it by Tradition from our Ancestors And who these Ancestors were he tells us in the next words It having been left us as an Inheritance by the Apostles So then the Ancestors here spoken of were the Apostles and the Tradition here mentioned was what was left us as an Inheritance by them Now what was it that was left us as an Inheritance by the Apostles but only the Doctrine of Christianity contained in their Writings which Doctrine hath been convey'd down to us by a succession of the Faithful in all Ages i. e by Universal Tradition That this is the sence of this Father in this place is plain from his own words and is agreeable to the way and manner of speaking among the Fathers by whom the Gospel it self and the whole Religion of Christ is frequently called A Tradition De praescription advers Haereticos Concil Constantinop 6. Act. 4. Eadem Actione Basil de Spiritu Sancto 2 Th. 2.15 So the Articles of our Faith are by Tertullian called An old Tradition So the Faith of the Holy Trinity in the Council of Constantinople is called A Tradition And the Faith of two sundry Natures in Christ in the same Council is called The lively Tradition of the Apostles So St. Basil calls it A Tradition To believe in the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost And in this sence St. Paul calls the Apostolical Doctrine A Tradition This is all that he produceth in the behalf of Traditions Now whether he hath hereby proved that the Romish Doctrine of Traditions is according to Scripture and the Sence of the Primitive Fathers I leave the Reader to judge His next Effort is to make good the latter part of this Article touching all the other Observances and Constitutions of the Church And here we might reasonably have expected that he should have told us what those Observances and Constitutions are which we are required to admit and embrace But that is not the way of the Church of Rome she expects that her votaries should rely upon her guidance and conduct with an implicit Faith and observe her Dictates with a blind Obedience And therefore the Vindicator here like a dutiful Son of such a Mother never stops to us what is required of us but without more ado goes about to prove That whatsoever those Observances and Constitutions are it is our duty
the Scriptures when we do that which has seem'd good to the whole Church And who denies it We have too great a Veneration for the Doctrine and Practice of the Vniversal Church to suspect that there can be any ill in them let but any thing be made appear to have been universally received or universally practised by the Church in all Ages and we will readily admit and embrace it we will acquiesce in it and seek no farther Thus far do we perfectly agree with this holy Father nor do we dissent from him in the rest Which Church says he is commended to us by the Authority of the Scriptures Well then by his Rule we must understand the Scriptures before we can know the Church Now the Scriptures they themselves confess do not consist in the Letters and Words but in the Sence and meaning And if so then we must understand the sence and meaning of Scriptures antecedent to the Churches Interpretation of them But he goes on To the end says he that because Holy Writ cannot deceive whosoever is afraid of being deceived by the difficulty of this question may consult the Church concerning it which without leaving room to doubt the holy Scripture demonstrates And here I cannot but remarque I. That according to St. Austin Holy Writ is the only infallible rule to judge by for it cannot deceive II. That by this rule we are to find out the true Church for without any ambiguity or leaving room to doubt it plainly demonstrates it to us III. That having by this means found out the true Church we ought in all questions which are too hard and difficult for us to consult her about them All which we readily agree to Now let the Vindicator once more put on his spectacles and seriously review this place of St. Austin and I dare appeal to himself or any man of sence whether it do not directly conclude against this Article which he undertakes to prove by it But perhaps he may have better luck with his next Authority let us therefore consider that too which he cites out of the same Father de Vnitat Eccles c. 19. whence he quotes these words If we had any wise man whose Authority was recommended to us by Christ himself we could no ways doubt of following his judgment having consulted him upon this point lest in refusing we should not so much seem obstinately to withstand him as Jesus Christ our Lord by whose testimony he was recommended to us Who doubts of all this If it had pleased our Blessed Saviour to have given such testimony to the Church of Rome or any other Church we should never have doubted to follow the judgment of that Church and when they can make it appear that he hath done so we shall without any the least scruple submit to it But St. Austin goes on Christ hath given testimony of his Church True but where is it not in the holy Scriptures and if so then we must understand them before we can be satisfied concerning this Testimony and as this Church directs you ought with all readiness obey Right but first we must know which is this Church and that according to St. Austin we cannot do but by the Scriptures And if you will not 't is not to me you are disobedient or any man but most perversly to the prejudice of your own Soul you withstand Christ himself because you refuse to follow the Church which is recommended by his Authority whom you judge it a wickedness to resist All this we can readily subscribe to for when by the Holy Scripture we have once found out which is the true Church we ought with all readiness to yield obedience thereunto because it is recommended to us by the Authority of Jesus Christ whom to resist in any thing we account a great wickedness But where shall we meet with this Authoritative Recommendation except in the holy Scriptures So that still we must understand the Scriptures before we can know which is that Church that is recommended to us by Christ And now pray'e what is all this to the proof of this Article That it belongs to the Church to judge of the true sence and interpretation of Scripture and that we are not to admit Scripture to be Scripture but according to that sence which she gives of it And yet all this while we cannot according to St. Austin know the Church but by the Scripture I do also profess that there are truly and properly seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for the salvation of Mankind though all be not necessary for every one to wit Baptism Confirmation Eucharist Penance Extream Vnction Order and Matrimony that they conferr Grace and that three of them Baptism Confirmation and Order cannot be reiterated without Sacrilege HERE the Vindicator tells us That the holy Scripture no where assigns the number of the Sacraments either of their being two or seven Neither doth it give us the definition of a Sacrament and the word is not so much as named in the English Translation and only once in the Vulgar viz. Ephes v. 32. speaking of Matrimony All that we believe therefore in this point we receive from the Church as it hath been delivered founded upon the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Sence of the Scripture To this I answer That it is not more plain that in Scripture there is no mention of Sacraments than that in the Fathers there is no mention of seven The determination of the number is of so late a date Cassand Consult Art. 13. de numero Sacram. An. 1439. that their ingenuous Cassander freely confesses That it is not easie to find any man before Peter Lombard who lived in the twelfth Century which hath set down any certain and definite number of Sacraments The Council of Florence indeed insinuates this number of seven Sacraments as Suarez contends But it was never determined till the late Council of Trent in the last Age and therefore must needs be a great Novelty An. 1546. But to vindicate the Doctrine of seven Sacraments as it is now taught in the Church of Rome and summ'd up in this Article from the imputation of Novelty This Gentleman undertakes to prove that it is founded upon the Doctrine of the Fathers and the sence of the Scripture wherein how well he acquits himself we shall now consider But because he tells us that the Holy Scripture gives us no definition of a Sacrament It will be necessary to state the notion of the thing and to agree what it is before we dispute how many of them there be To the constitution of a Sacrament properly so called we say that these three things must of necessity concurr viz. the word of Institution a visible Sign or outward Element Aug. in Joan. Tract 80. and a promise of invisible Grace annexed thereunto Which is the same that St. Austin saith Accedat verbum ad
I. Church Communion it is plain is of two sorts either with the Catholick or with a particular Church Now it must be acknowledged That Articles of Faith properly so called are really terms of Communion with the Catholick Church for by our Profession of them it is that we are look'd upon as Christians and own'd as members of the Catholick Church But they are not nor cannot be the only terms of Communion with any particular Church for it is not by owning and assenting to the terms of Communion with any particular Church that we are called Christians but only Christians of such or such a Denomination i. e. We are upon our compliance with such terms look'd upon as Members of such a particular Society of Christians II. Articles of Faith properly so called are certain Fundamental Verities revealed by God in holy Scripture and summarily comprized in the Apostles Creed But meer Articles of Communion with any particular Church are no fundamental Verities of Religion though they may be fundamental Constitutions of a Society nor is it necessary that they should all be revealed by God but may be invented by Men and certain it is that all of them never were comprized either in the Apostles or any other ancient Creed III. Articles of Faith are the same to all Christians being such fundamental Verities as all ought to believe and assent thereunto But Articles of Communion are various each Community having different terms of Communion from another so that the Members of one Society though they stand obliged to comply with observe and assent unto the terms of Communion established and required of them by their own Body yet are they not any way obliged to comply with observe or assent unto the terms of Communion required in another IV. Articles of Faith are certain fundamental Verities necessary to be believed and assented to by all Christians in order to their Salvation but Articles of Communion as such are not necessary to the Salvation of Men but only to the Peace Order and good Government of a Society For a Member of one Society may be safe and saved at last without complying with the terms of Communion established by another Having thus represented to you the difference between these two sorts of Articles I shall now proceed to consider the Vindicator's Instances by which he endeavours to prove That it is in the power of the Church to add unto the Apostles Creed not only other Articles of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol but also other Articles of Faith. His first Instance is The acknowledged practice of the Primitive Church in the time of her confessed Purity This is a mighty Instance and if he can make any thing of it to evince the Addition of any new Article of Faith to the Apostles Creed in that time he will do a great Work for we own there is a great deal of difference due to the practice of the Primitive Church in that time But instead of so doing he acknowledgeth that the Apostles Creed was the only summary of the Christian Faith known in the first Three hundred Years And if so then the Church in all that time never thought it necessary to add any new Article thereunto But after this time saith he upon occasion of the Arian Heresie another Creed was composed by the Council of Nice with an express condemnation and detestation of that new broach'd Error in the Addition of these Words in relation to the Divinity of the Son I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God * For begotten born of his Father before all Worlds God of God Light of Light very God of very God begotten not made consubstantial to the Father And without the express assenting to this Addition none could be admitted to Ordination or be acknowledged as Members of the Church Which Creed with this Addition was received by the whole Church and Subscription to it is required by the Church of England Art. VIII Here this Gentleman as he thinks hath found a considerable Addition to the Apostles Creed and that made by no less Authority than that of the Famous Council of Nice But certainly never any Thinking Man besides himself ever thought this to be an Addition to but only an Explication of the Apostles Creed or a Declaration of what was the Sence of the Church in those Three hundred Years preceding touching that Article of the Apostles Creed And whereas he saith That without the express Assenting to this Addition as he calls it none could be admitted to Ordination or be acknowledg'd as Members of the Church It is very true but little to his purpose for what doth this import but only that an Assent to this Explication was required as a term of Communion but not that it should be owned as a new Article of Faith. And whereas he further saith That this Creed with this Addition was received by the whole Church and a Subscription to it is now required by the Church of England Art. VIII It is very true and the Church of England in the same Article will tell him upon what Grounds she now doth and the Church then did receive this Creed The Three Creeds Nice Creed Athanasius's Creed and that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed ought throughly to be received and believed for they may be proved by most certain Warrants of holy Scripture So that upon the whole matter it is very evident That the Council of Nice makes no new Article but only explains an old one The same Answer may serve to his two next Instances out of the Athanasian and Constantinopolitan Creeds in which upon like Occasions we meet with Explications of some other Articles of the Apostles Creed but no Addition of any new Article thereunto But our Vindicator being a mighty Thinking Man hath found out a way not only of confounding Articles of Faith with Articles of Communion but also of jumbling Additions and Explications together as if they were one and the same thing And if you will allow this Issue of his so pregnant Thoughts you shall not want a Vindication of the most absurd Doctrines and irregular Practices in the Church of Rome but if you deny him this you take away the Foundation he is to build upon and then it would be unreasonable for you to expect any good and durable Superstructure from him This is plain from his next Instance which is taken from the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England in which he saith are many particular Points not found in the Symbol of the Apostles nor yet in any of the forementioned Creeds of the Primitive Church Whence he concludes That the Church of England hath greater variety and a greater number of Additional Atticles than the Church of Rome To make good which conclusion he must according to his new way of Thinking take all the Articles of our Church to be Articles of Faith strictly and
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
persons be so Righteous as to be void of all Sin they may no doubt keep all the Commandments But if the Foundation which he builds upon happen to fail him all his Superstructure will fall to the Ground Let us therefore Examine that whether it be firm and good In order whereunto let me premise That there is a Legal and Evangelical Righteousness The former of which consists in a perfect and unsinning Obedience to the whole Law And the latter in a sincere desire and endeavour to keep all God's Commandments The former of these it is not in the power of fallen Man to attain unto And to justifie this Assertion we have good warrant from the Holy Scriptures The wise Soloman in his Prayer at the Dedication of the Temple humbly confesseth There is no Man that sinneth not 1 Kings viij 46. And St. Paul tells us The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin Gal. iij. 22. And St. James saith In many things we offend al Jam. iij. 2. And if we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the Truth is not in us saith the Apostle John 1 Ep. c. i. v. 8. I might add many more places of Scripture to this purpose but these may suffice to show us how far it is out of the power of fallen Man to perform a perfect and unsinning Obedience to the Law of God. But the latter viz. an Evangelical Righteousness we acknowledge to be attainable in this Life It is possible for a good Man sincerely to desire and honestly to endeavour to keep all the Commandments of his God and though he fail in the attempt by reason of the corruption and depravation of his Nature yet God for Christ's sake will pardon those Failings and accept of those his honest Endeavours For if there be first a willing mind it is accepted according to that a Man hath and not according to that he hath not saith St. Paul 2 Cor. viij 12 And according to this Notion of Righteousness it is Hierom. ad Ctefiphon Aug. ad Bonifacium l. 3. c. 7. that holy and good Men are said to be Just and Righteous So St. Hierom saith Men are called just not because they are void of all Sin but because in the main they are Vertuous And S. Aug. saith The Vertue that is now in a just Man so far forth is called perfect that it pertaineth to the perfection thereof both in Truth to know and in Humility to confess that it is imperfect And the same St. Aug. in another place saith Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 19 c. 26. Ipsa nostra justitia quamvis vera sit propter veri boni finem ad quem refertur tamen tanta est in hac vita ut potius peccatorum remissione constet quam perfectione virtutum Our very Righteousness it self is such in this life that it stands rather in the Remission of Sins than in the perfection of Righteousness Thus Job by the Mouth of God himself is stiled A perfect and upright Man one that feared God and eschewed evil Job i. 8. and yet he cursed the day of his Birth c. iij. And thus Zacharias and Elizabeth are said to be both Righteous before God and to walk in all the Commandments and Ordinances blameless i. e. Their Lives and Conversations were so good and vertuous that no Man had any just cause to blame them But that they were without sin doth not appear but the contrary is very manifest for not long after we find Zacharias punished for his Vnbelief Luk. i. 20. His other Scripture Proof which is 1 John v. 18. Whosoever is born of God sinneth not will do him no better service than his Former For the same Apostle in the same Epistle c. i. v. 8. saith If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us If therefore the Text by him alledged be so to be understood as if the Regenerate were free from all manner of sin then must he say that St. John and those he speaks of in the other Text were not born of God or else that he contradicts himself in these two places neither of which I presume they will dare to say We must therefore find out another sence of these words which methinks is very obvious Whosoever is born of God sinneth not i. e. He doth not make a trade of sin or he doth not deliberately and on set purpose sin against God. This their own Lyra if he had consulted him would have told him for he saith Lyra in loc That the intention of the Apostle in this place is not to secure the Regenerate from all sin but from that sin unto death of which he speaks v. 16. Thus have I examined his proofs and find them to fall far short of proving what he pretends to prove by them But if I should grant his Proposition which he calls a Definition of the Council to be true yet I do not see how the possibility of keeping the Commandments can thence be inferred All works of the just he saith are not sins What then doth it necessarily follow That it is possible for the Regenerate to keep all the Commandments No surely for though all be not yet if any of them be it will be a sufficient bar to this Inference So St. James thought or else he would not have said Whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet faileth in one point he is guilty of all Jam. ij 10. Unless therefore they will understand a possibility of keeping the Commandments Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 19. in the same sence that St. Austin doth who tells us All the Commandments of God are accounted to be done when that thing that is not done is forgiven I do not see how it can be asserted much less defended And if thus they understand it we shall not quarrel with them about it III. He tells us That the Council hath defin'd That a man justified truly deserves life everlasting by his good works And this he undertakes to prove both by Scripture and the Testimony of St. Austin Before I come particularly to examine his Proofs the force of all which stands in a misunderstanding of the Words Merit and Reward It will be convenient for a more clear decision of the difference between us to state the true notion of those words for Ambiguity of Words often hath been and still is not only the occasion of hot and fierce Disputes among men but of their continuance also That the word Merit is frequently used by the Fathers we own but that they used it in that sence in which the present Church of Rome doth we deny and thence ariseth the difference between us The Holy Fathers understood no more by it than Obtaining or Impetration but the Romanists would now have it to be understood of Earning or Deserving in the way of Condign Wages Bellarm de Justificat l. 5. c. 17. as if there were an
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
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.