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
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 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
more grievously offended By fruits worthy of Repentance we are therefore to understand such fruits as are meet to testifie the truth of our Repentance and fit us to receive Grace and Favour offered And if we consider the following words they will farther confirm us herein for it is added v. 5. He that overcometh shall be cloathed in white aray c. Whence it is evident that to walk in white or to be worthy to do so was not a privilege peculiar to those few names in Sardis which had not defiled their garments but to all others who by Faith are armed with the power of Christ and by that means obtain a Victory over the World and the Devil for they also shall be cloathed with white aray This well represents that Righteousness wherewith all the blessed ones shall stand cloathed and covered before God which is not their own but a Righteousness given unto them by another and put upon them And is the same spoken of by holy David and quoted by St. Paul when he had occasion to treat of this argument 〈◊〉 xxxij 2. â—om iv 7 8. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin To be worthy therefore imports not that Men do merit eternal life by their works but it imports a fitness and capacity in them to receive it being justified by Faith in Christ Jesus as their holy and godly life did declare His next Scripture proof is Matth. v. 12. Rejoice and be exceeding glad for great is your reward in Heaven Whence he inferrs that Heaven is given as a reward for their suffering and good Works That Heaven is a Reward we grant but it is a Reward of Grace not of Debt That it is given to those that suffer for Righteousness sake and do well we deny not but it is not given them for their suffering or well-doing And we acknowledge that it is a great Reward so great that it far exceeds the merit of all that we can do or suffer For our light afflictions which are but for a moment work for us a far more exceeding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and eternal weight of glory saith St. Paul 2 Cor. iv 17. His last Scripture is Matth. xxv 34. where our Saviour is giving an account in what manner he will proceed in the last Judgment What inference the Vindicator would draw from hence he leave us to divine for he only quotes it and so leaves it and so shall I too till he thinks fit to form his argument and bless the World with the sight of it But he closeth up his Scripture Arguments with this Salvo All this as supposing and built upon the promise of Christ and his assisting grace Which if I mistake not is a full confutation of all that he hath been endeavouring to prove For if our good works be done by his assisting grace as undoubtedly they are then are they not so our own as to merit by them and if our deserving life everlasting must suppose and be built upon the promise of Christ then is it not a Reward of Debt but of Grace or by Pact and Promise which is the thing we contend for And now I come to examine his Authorities which he brings out of two Epistles of St. Austin viz. the 105. and the 118. ad Sixt. I have carefully read over these two Epistles which I question whether the Vindicator has done for if he had he would not have been guilty of so great a mistake for the 118 Epistle is not directed to Sixtus as he saith it is but to Januarius nor is there one word in it of all that he here quotes out of it nor any one Syllable relating to that matter it being wholly spent in directing him how to conform himself to the Customs of any particular Church where he came provided they were not contrary to Faith and good manners especially in the business of Fasting and the Eucharist The 105. Epistle is indeed directed to Sixtus though he doth not tell us it is and in that I meet with what he here sets down which makes me conjecture that he hath taken it from some other upon trust for if he did consult the Author himself he betrays a great want either of honesty or ingenuity or both For it is not honest in any man to curtail his Author's Sence nor is it very ingenuous by that means to endeavour to impose upon unwary Readers All therefore that I have here to do is to bring St. Austin to speak for himself and so leave the unbyassed Reader to judge between us The design of St. Austin in this Epistle is to instruct Sixtus how to answer the Arguments of the Pelagians who were then the great Advocates for Free Will and Merits by advancing the Free Grace and Mercy of God against them St. Austin in this Epistle hath these words which the Vindicator sets down viz. As death is rendred to the Merit of sin as the pay so everlasting life is rendred as the pay to the merit of Justice But he doth not tell you what goes before nor what follows after those words in that place If he had you would more clearly have understood St. Austin's meaning than perhaps he desired you should To undeceive you therefore I stall give you the passage intire as it is in the Author When St. Paul saith he in Rom. vi 23. had said The wages of sin is death who would not have expected that he should have added and the wages of righteousness is eternal life And truly it is so for as death is rendred to the merit of sin as the wages so eternal life as the wages is rendred to the merit of Righteousness But the blessed Apostle to repress the pride of Men saith The Wages of Sin is Death Truly Wages because due because worthily deserved because rendred to Merit But then to prevent the exalting of our selves upon the account of our own Merit or Righteousness he doth not say The Wages of Righteousness is eternal Life but the gift of God is eternal Life And that we may not seek it in any other way he adds In Christ Jesus our Lord. As if he should have said O Humane not Righteousness but Pride in the name of Righteousness why dost thou begin to exalt thy self and to require eternal Life as Wages due to thee It is true Righteousness to which eternal life is due But if it be true Righteousness it is not of thy self but is from above coming down from the Father of lights Wherefore O Man if thou art about to receive eternal Life it is indeed the Wages of Righteousness but to thee it is a Grace to whom Righteousness it self is a Grace In the same Epistle I also meet with these words Are there no Merits of the Righteous surely there are because they are Righteous But they had no Merits by which they became Righteous For
of Sins Mark i. 4. And so likewise is Baptism and Repentance Acts ij 38. And yet I suppose the Vindicator will not say That either Baptism or Preaching or Repentance are propitiatory Sacrifices But perhaps he will say That all shedding of Blood made for Remission of Sins is a propitiatory Sacrifice I cannot consent to him in this neither for there is a shedding of Blood sacramental and not real which is made to represent the shedding of Christ's Blood upon the Cross and that is no propitiatory Sacrifice But what if it be real Though it be yet will not the proposition be universally true for the Blood of our Lord was really shed and for Remissions of Sins too at his Circumcision and yet Circumcision was no Sacrifice In a true propitiatory Sacrifice three Things are required 1. There must be a real Effusion of Blood. 2. That real Effusion of Blood must be for the Remission of Sins 3. That Effusion of Blood must be by the Death of the thing offered None of which are to be found in this Action of our Blessed Saviour at his last Supper and therefore it could not be a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice But if we should grant which we cannot do that this were a Sacrifice and a propitiatory Sacrifice too will it by a necessary Consequence follow that every Mass-Priest at this day doth in the Mass offer a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead Yes saith the Vindicator For though Christ was offered but once upon the Cross of which St. Paul speaketh Hebr. vij 27. yet in this manner as Christ offered himself at his last Supper we believe that the Apostles and their Successors were commanded to repeat it in a perpetual memory and representation of his Death and Passion by Christ's own Institution when he said to them Do this in remembrance of me in which words he gave them power of doing the same that he had done To this I answer That in the same manner as Christ offered himself at his last Supper he is offered still i. e. Sacramentally and that by the command of Christ we are obliged often to celebrate or repeat this Sacrament in memory of his Death and Passion upon the Cross And that by virtue of those Words Do this in remembrance of me Power was give to the Apostles and their Successors to do the same thing he did i. e. to celebrate this Sacrament in memory of his Death and Passion on the Cross All this we readily grant but what is all this to the Priest's Offering in the Mass a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead Those of the Roman Communion do indeed lay great stress upon these words Do this in remembrance of me pretending to find therein a power given to every Mass-Priest to offer up the Son of God as a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead But if they would but consult St. Paul he would better inform them what the importance of these words is For after he had recited the words of Institution and in the close thereof these very words Do this in Remembrance of me in the very next words he tells them what it was they were to do in remembrance of him saying As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come 1 Cor. xi 26. 2. Having gone as far as he can with his Scripture proofs he calls in the assistance of Antiquity telling us with sufficient confidence That this i. e. the matter contained in this Article is the Sence of the Primitive Fathers Whether it be or no is the thing we are now to consider and for that purpose I shall examine his Quotations out of them His first Witness is St. Chrysost Hom. 7. I suppose he means 17. in Ep. ad Hebr. where it is said We still offer the same Sacrifice c. To this I answer What St. Chrysostom meant by those words I know no body can better inform us than St. Chrysostom himself who immediately subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or to speak more properly we make a commemoration of the same Sacrifice And in the same Homily had the Vindicator carefully perused it of been so honest as to have noted it he might have found such Expressions as these We offer indeed but it is in remembrance of his Death This Sacrifice is an Example of that Sacrifice This which we now do is in commemoration of that which hath been done But that which the Vindicator seems to lay the great stress upon is That St. Chrysostom in this Homily and likewise l. 6. de Sacerd. calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice We grant it but if he will let him explain himself he will tell him upon what account he so calleth it in this Homily Because it representeth the Sacrifice of our Lord's Death and therein we commemorate the same till his coming again And in the other place Because we pray unto God that he would receive the Sacrifice of his Death as a satisfaction for our Sins His next Evidence is St. Ambrose sup Ps 38. Where he speaks of the Priest's offering Sacrifice for the People and of Christ's being offered up upon Earth when his Body is offered St. Ambrose in the same place explains himself saying The Shadow went before the Image followed the Truth shall be The Shadow in the Law the Image in the Gospel the Truth in the Heavens O Man go up into Heaven and thou shalt see those things whereof here was an Image and a Shadow Where he plainly tells us that what is done here upon Earth is only an Image or Representation And in another place he saith In Luc. l. 5. c. 7. We have seen him and look'd upon him with our Eyes and we have thrust our Fingers into the print of his Nails For we seem to see him that we read of and to have beheld him hanging upon the Cross and with the feeling Spirit of the Church to have searched his Wounds Now as St. Ambrose here saith We see him hanging on the Cross c. In like manner doth he say He is offered up upon Earth when his Body is offered For as their own Gloss upon the Sentences of Prosper saith Christ is Sacrificed i. e. his Sacrifice is represented and a commemoration is made of his Passion His next Authority is Cyril Alex. Anath 11. We celebrate in our Churches an Holy Life-giving and Vnbloody Sacrifice What St. Cyril meant by this Unbloody Sacrifice he himself will best inform us if we consult him about it for in another place he saith Cyril contr Julian l. 10. We having left the gross Ministery of the Jews have a commandment to make a fine thin and spiritual Sacrifice And therefore we offer unto God for a sweet smelling savour all manner of Vertues Faith Hope Charity And in the same sence that he calls these Sacrifices doth he call
honour that we can do them But that they are to be invocated call'd upon or pray'd unto we cannot consent because we have no warrant for it either in the Word of God or any good Antiquity Whether they do offer Prayers to God for us as it is not very certain so is it not any part of the question between us nor if it be granted will it warrant our praying to them As for their Relicks those that are truly such viz. their Sepulchres their Memories their Writings and their good Examples we have a great Veneration for them and do think that they ought not only not to be exposed to any contempt or disgrace but that a very great respect and regard ought to be paid them But that all those things which the Church of Rome tells us are the Relicks of Saints are really such we cannot agree nor can we go along with them in paying them that Veneration which they do we cannot repose any confidence in them nor expect any help or assistance from them nor hope to have our Prayers heard in this place rather than in another upon the account of some Relicks being there As for their Images and the honour and veneration due to them it had been well if either Pope Pius or his Vindicator had thought fit to explain themselves and told us what kind of honour and veneration they mean. The Vindicator indeed saith That they being things relating to God it must be another kind of Regard Honour and Veneration than is usually given to prophane things But whether this is or ought to be called a Religious Honour is matter of dispute but no matter of his Faith. And that as for the manner or external profession of it it ought to be measured from the intention of the Church so that we are still as far to seek for the meaning of it as before Now where can we hope to find what the intention of the Church is unless it be in the Council of Trent and its Catechism out of which Pope Pius extracted these New Articles It may not be amiss therefore before we proceed any further to see what that Council hath determined in these two points viz. The Invocation of Saints and the worship of Images which are the two things promoted in these two Articles and which this Gentleman hath here undertaken to vindicate from Novelty I. Touching the Invocation of Saints The Council hath defin'd That the Saints reigning with Christ do offer their Prayers unto God for us But is this all No it farther declares Concil Trident. Sess 25. Decret de Invocatione c. That it is a good and profitable thing for us in an humble manner to pray unto them But is this all yet No We must have recourse to their Prayers Aid and Assistance Nor is this all for the Bodies of Holy Martyrs and others now living with Christ which have been the living Members of Christ and Temples of the Holy Ghost veneranda sunt are to be worshipped or had in veneration And it expresly damns all those who teach That Veneration and Honour are not due to the Relicks of the Saints or that it is not profitable to honour these Relicks and other sacred Monuments of the Saints or that it is in vain to frequent the Memories of the Saints and that eorum opis impetrandae causâ to obtain their help and assistance Thus far the Council which is seconded by the Catechism which saith We pray to God either to give us good things Catech. ad Parochos Part 4. Tit. Quis sit Orandus or to deliver us from evil but because the Saints are more acceptable to him than we are we beg of them to undertake our cause and to obtain for us those things we stand in need of From whence it comes to pass that we use two very different Forms of Prayer for to God the proper manner of speaking is Have pity on us Hear our Prayer whereas we only desire the Saints to pray for us But then it follows Though it be lawful on another account to pray to the Saints that they would have pity on us for they are mighty merciful And in another place it saith Invocandi sunt c. They are to be prayed unto because they are continually in God's presence and most willingly take upon them patrocinium salutis nostrae the patronage of our Health and Safety which is committed to their care II. Concerning the Worship of Images that Council hath also defin'd That the Images of Christ of the Virgin-Mother of God and of other Saints Sess 25. Decret de Invocatione c. are to be had and retained in Churches But is this all No All due honour and veneration is to be given to them And how is this to be given By kissing those Images uncovering the Head and prostrating our selves before them And is all this for no other end but only to excite in us the remembrance of those they represent Certainly the Council intended something more for it builds this Definition upon the second Council of Nice Concil Nicaen 2. Action 3 4 6. Catech. ad Parochos part 3. de cultu Invocat Sanct. in which it was ordained That the Images of Christ of the blessed Virgin Mary and of the Saints should not only be received into places of Adoration but also should be adored and worshipped And so the Catechism explains it for we are there told That to make and honour the Images of Christ the Lord of his most holy and immaculate Mother and of other Saints is an holy and most certain argument of a grateful mind But is this all No. It is not only lawful to have Images in Churches and to give Honour and Worship to them provided that Honour which is given to them be referred to their Prototypes but also it is for the greatest good and benefit of the Faithful so to do But is this all yet No. The Images of Saints are placed in Temples ut colantur that they may be worshipped This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in these two Articles as it is delivered by the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parochos out of which these and the other new Articles were collected by Pope Pius IV. Which Doctrine we can by no means comply with nor subscribe to For I. As for the Invocation of Saints 1. We look upon it as a fond thing vainly invented grounded upon no warranty of Scripture but rather repugnant to the word of God. 2. We think it to be highly derogatory to the Mediatorial Office of Jesus Christ 3. We look upon Prayer as an eminent Act of Religious Worship which we think to be due to God alone and ought not to be given to any Creature And II. As for the Worship of Images We think that it is an absolute breach of the second Commandment which forbids the worship of Images and that in words so large
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