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
to admit of them and embrace them And this he pretends to do both by an Apostolical Precept and Apostolical Practice Two mighty arguments if they be apposite to the thing in hand and well managed which whether they be or no I shall now examine The Apostolical Precept which he produceth is in the Epistle to the Hebrews c. 13. v. 7 17. in these words Remember them which have the rule over you c. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your Souls as they that must give an account c. In the former of these Verses as their own Lyra upon the place tells us we are taught how to behave our selves towards our Spiritual Rulers that are dead Lyra in Hebr. c. 13. v. 7. We ought to remember them by following their Faith and imitating their good Examples And lest we should be at a loss to know who they are whom we are to remember and whose Faith and Vertue we are to follow the same Lyra tells us They were the Apostles and other Disciples of Christ In the latter place the same Lyra tells us we are taught how to behave our selves towards our Spiritual Rulers who are alive viz. by obeying their Commands and giving due Reverence to their Persons That obedience is due from Inferiors to their Superiors we readily grant But then I. They must be such Superiors as not only pretend to have but really have a right to rule over them Now we do not think that any particular Church no not the Church of Rome it self hath any authority to give Laws to another Church for it is a certain Rule Par in parem non habet imperium Equals have no power over one another And if so then the Church of Rome hath no reason to expect our compliance with every thing which she thinks fit to require of us II. As they ought to have a right to rule over us so their commands ought to be such as we may without sin obey them otherwise the rule of the Apostles will dispense with us Act. 4.19 Whether it be better to obey God or Man judge ye Now whether they be so or no how can we tell if we are not allowed before-hand to know what they are These things being thus premised I dare now venture any unbyassed Reader to be the Judge whether by virtue of this Precept the Church of Rome may justly challenge a power to impose what Observances and Constitutions she pleaseth upon the whole Christian World For that is truly the question between us Having considered the Precept by him procured and found him mistaken in it Let us now consider his argument from Primitive Practice and see whether that will stand him in any more stead This he tells us was the practice of the Apostles even of St. Paul himself and Silas who as they went through the Cities they delivered them the Decrees for to keep that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem And so were the Churches established in the Faith Acts xvi 4 5. The Apostolical Council held at Jerusalem having finished their Decrees commissionated Paul and Barnabas with Judas and Silas to publish the same among the Brethren that were of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia Acts c. xv v. 22 23. These Men faithfully discharged their duty in performing their Commission and their so doing had a good effect for thereby the Churches were established in the Faith and increased in number daily Now what is all this to the Vindicator's purpose Will it necessarily follow That because Paul and Silas published the Apostles Decrees in these places Therefore the Church of Rome may impose what Ordinances and Constitutions she will upon all Christians If not I do not see what good this instance of Apostolical Practice will do the Vindicator I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that Sence which our Holy Mother the Church has held and does hold to whom it belongs to judge of the true Sence and Interpretation thereof Nor will I ever admit or interpret it otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers WHAT Tertullian said merrily of the Heathens in his time Tertul. in Apologetico Vnless God please Man well He shall be no God and so now Man must be friendly and favourable unto God may with a little variation be here applied to the Church of Rome Vnless the Holy Scriptures please Her well they shall be no Scriptures For unless they speak according to Her Sence they are not to be admitted it belonging to Her to judge of the true Sence and Interpretation of them For I do not at all doubt but it is of that Church that this Article speaks and which it stiles Our Holy Mother the Church And for this I have the warrant of Pope Pius himself who in his XXIII Article stiles it The Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches Nor indeed can it be otherwise understood for if the true Sence of Scripture must depend upon the Judgment of the Universal Church i. e. of all the Christians or at least of all the Bishops and Pastors in the World how is it possible to get them together to declare the Sence thereof or must we reject all Scripture till we have such a Declaration If you tell me that we must look for it in the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers I answer I. That this is an impossible task for all sorts of Christians for Women and unlearned Men can never perform it if therefore their Salvation depend thereupon they must inevitably be damned II. Those that are learned and able to read and understand the Fathers do not find any such unanimous consent among them so that if according to this Article we must not admit the Scripture till they are all agreed about the Sence of it both learned and unlearned will for ever want a Rule to govern themselves by in the eternal concerns of their immortal Souls To avoid these difficulties The Church of Rome by Catholick understands the Roman Catholick Church and by Our Holy Mother the Church the Church of Rome which they call the Mother and Mistress of all Churches But will this make the business ever a jot the more easie Must all the Christians in the World out of Greece Egypt and many other more remote parts repair to Rome to receive the true Sence and Interpretation of the Scriptures Or if they do are they sure to meet with it when they come there Will they not find as much difference in opinions between the Doctors of that Church as of any other Will they not find that Councils have contradicted Councils and Popes condemned Popes And if so where then can they hope to meet with an infallible Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures To this may be added That if it belong to the Church to judge of the true Sence
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
equality of due proportion between our Works and Heaven without any respect had to Pact Promise or Favour To make a work truly meritorious it must have these five Qualifications 1. The work that is done must not be a work that is due to be done For it is no merit for a man to pay his debts Now our Saviour tells us When we have done all those things which are commanded us we are still but unprofitable Servants having done only that which was our duty to do Luke xvij 10. 2. The thing we offer must be our own For to present any thing to another that belongs unto him is no merit in us Now St. Paul. tells us We are not sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves but all our sufficiency is of God 2 Cor. iij. 5. 3. The work that a man doth to merit of another must be profitable to that other of whom he designs to merit For no man will pretend to merit by an unprofitable service Now holy David freely confesseth That his Goodness did not extend to God i. e. was no way profitable or advantageous to him Ps xvi 2. 4. The work we do to merit withal must not be defective For if there be any thing in it that wants a pardon it can never truly merit Now St. John tells us If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us 1 John i. 8. 5. There must be some proportion between the Work and the Reward Otherwise we cannot be said to deserve it In St. Paul's account The afflictions of this present time and certainly Suffering is more than Doing are not worthy of the Glory which shall be revealed in us Rom. viij 18. These are the requisites of Merit which if well attended to may be very useful in deciding this Difficulty and determining this matter in difference between us Let us now consider the other word viz. Reward That the Word Reward is frequently used both in Scripture and by the Fathers we own and that the strict and proper notion of it is a Debt due to man for the work he hath done we deny not But that it was ever used in this sence with respect to God or that ever any man according to this notion of the Word can be said to deserve a reward at God's hands we can by no means grant And hence ariseth the difference between the Church of Rome and us in order to the deciding of which let us consider that there is a twofold Reward the one due the other not due the one given as a just retribution for the work done and the other freely or at most according to Pact and Promise This distinction is fairly founded in Scripture where St. Paul saith To him that worketh the reward is not accounted to be of grace but of debt Rom. iv 4. Which plainly implies that a free gift bestowed out of meer bounty and liberality may be called a Reward as well as that which by the strict rules of Justice is due to Merit And thus we find it in Scripture sometimes given to the one and sometimes to the other For that which in Matth. v. 46. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Reward in Luke vi 32. is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Grace or Free Gift And the peny given to the labourer who came in at the last hour is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Reward though much above his desert Matth. xx 8. Ambr. l. 1. Ep. 1. Upon which St. Ambrose very well observes There is a kind of Reward which is given of liberality and of Grace and another which is the wages of Vertue and the recompence of a man's labour Having thus stated the true notion of these two words Merit and Reward upon which depends the whole Controversie between us I shall now take a more particular view of his Proofs His first Scripture proof is Rev. iij. 4. From which he thus argues Thou hast a few names in Sardis which have not defiled their garments there is Purity and Justice and they shall walk with me in white there is the Reward and the reason follows for they are worthy The whole stress of this Argument lies in the word worthy a right understanding whereof will facilitate our answer thereunto St. Paul expresly saith I reckon that the afflictions of this present time are not worthy * Condignae ad futuram Gloriam Vulg. Lat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the glory which shall be shewed unto us Rom. viij 18. The Glory which St. Paul here speaks of and the White Aray which St. John mentions do certainly import one and the same thing viz. Eternal Life Of which St. Paul saith all our Sufferings and certainly they are more valuable than our Doings are not worthy And yet those who had not defiled their garments are said to be worthy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to walk in white i. e. to be made partakers of Life and Glory This looks like a perfect contradiction which we cannot suppose these two holy and inspired Men could be guilty of for as they were both taught by the same Spirit so no doubt they both spake the same thing To reconcile them therefore we must find out another sence of the Word Worthy than this Gentleman puts upon it and I think it is no difficult matter so to do For a Man may be said to be worthy of a Reward either upon his own account or upon the account of another either for the sake of his own deservings or for the sake of another's merits To be worthy in the former sence a Man must have all those Requisites and Qualifications which are required to make up a Merit strictly so called but to be worthy in the other sence requires no more but only to be fitted and disposed to receive those favours which are merited for him by another That according to the latter of these notions we are to understand the worthyness here spoken of will appear plainly if we consider That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is here rendred Worthy may be and often is rendred fit or meet as for instance St. John Baptist warns the Pharisees and Sadduces which came to his Baptism To bring forth fruits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthy of Matth. iij. 8. Luk. iij. 8. or meet for repentance that so they might escape the wrath to come i. e. Let your Reformation declare your Repentance to be such as may fit you to come to this Baptism and consequently to escape wrath let your Repentance be according to the measure of your sin if your Sins have been great Lyra in â—oc â—ed apud â—l Ord. in â—oc so must your Repentance be too So their own Lyra understands it And the venerable Bede gives this reason for it Because the same measure of Repentance is not required of him who is guilty of little or no Sin as of him who hath
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
him anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord And the prayer of Faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him This place of Scripture hath been often enough brought upon the stage by one or other of the Roman party and as often considered and the Arguments drawn from it baffled by some of our Men. And therefore when I met with it here I did expect that this Gentleman who is so brisk at a Vindication had found some new Matter in it and thereby cut us out some new Work but instead of that he only quotes the place transcribes the words and leaves them to shift for themselves What therefore is here to be done by us save only to consider the design of the Apostle in these Words Which is plainly this St. James directs the sick person to call for the Elders of the Church to assist him in that condition The means by which they were to assist him are Two 1. They were to pray over him And 2. To anoint him with Oil in the Name of the Lord. And that in order to Two ends 1. The Recovery of the Sick. 2. The Remission of Sins Of these Means and Ends the one is Perpetual viz. Prayer and Remission of Sins the other Temporary viz. The Anointing with Oil and the Recovery of bodily Health That the Apostles had the Gift of Healing we grant and that in order to the working of their miraculous Cures they did use the Ceremony of Anointing with Oil we deny not but the Gift of Healing being now ceased in the Church that Ceremony is become useless and unprofitable and for that reason laid aside for God loves no unprofitable Signs Whilst it was in use it was used only in Order to bodily health but now in the Church of Rome it is not to be used whilst there are any hopes of Recovery but only in Articulo mortis when Men are at the point of Death as a viaticum into the other World. That this was design'd and used only in order to bodily health is plain from the Ancient Rituals of the Roman Church for above Eight hundred Years after Christ And Cardinal Cajetan freely confesseth Annot. in loc that this was the only use of it for saith he These words of St. James speak not of the Sacramental Vnction of Extream Vnction whether we consider the words or the Effects of them but rather of the Vnction which the Lord Jesus ordained in the Gospel to be used by his Disciples to the Sick. For the Text saith not Is any sick to Death but absolutely Is any sick Nor doth it assign any other use of anointing of the sick person but only the recovery of bodily health And the Ingenuous Cassander Cassand in Consult Art. 22. without any hesitation freely delivers his Opinion saying It is no Sacrament properly so called because it hath neither Word of Institution nor outward Element The eldest Evidence that we meet with for this pretended Popish Sacrament of Extream Vnction is the Council of Chalons Anno. 813. which was held above Eight hundred Years after Christ and was but at best a National Synod neither So that though we do not deny but that Anointing the Sick with Oil was a very Ancient Rite yet we cannot but look upon it as a very New Sacrament and one that was never advanc'd to that honour by any Appointmant of our blessed Saviour Of the pretended Sacrament of Orders TO evince this he produceth 2 Tim. i. 6. where St. Paul saith I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the Gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my Hands St. Paul here admonisheth his Son Timothy to a vigorous exercise of that Power and Authority which by the Imposition of his Hands he had received to Preach the Gospel Lyra in loc And this is all that their own Lyra can find in this place But the Question between us is not Whether the Office of a Priest ought to be conferred upon him by the Imposition of Hands but whether such Ordination be a Sacrament of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ To this I answer That if by the word Sacrament they only mean any sacred Sign or Mystery in Religion in which sence it is frequently used especially by the Latine Fathers we can very willingly and readily admit this Imposition of hands to be called a Sacrament But if they would advance it higher and have it called a Sacrament in the same sence as Baptism and the Supper of the Lord are or as this Article requires That we should receive it as a Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind we cannot in this consent with them and that for these Reasons I. Because Imposition of hands though it be a Sign yet is it not a sacred Sign of the Covenant of God in Jesus Christ II. Because it is not common to all the Faithful but confin'd to a certain order of Men only III. Because there is no express Institution of it to be found in the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament and consequently no promise of Grace annexed to it IV. Because it is well known that many of the Roman Communion do not think Imposition of hands to be Essential to Holy Orders and if not then can it be no outward Sign of a Sacrament in them Nor can Ordination it self be a Sacrament seeing there is no outward visible Sign of it ordained by God. For these Reasons Though we acknowledge the Conferring of Orders by Imposition of hands to have been a very ancient usage in the Church and of Apostolical practice yet we think it to be a very new i. e. no Sacrament Of the pretended Sacrament of Matrimony AS an evidence of this he produceth Eph. v. 31 32. where St. Paul saith For this cause shall a man leave his Father and Mother and shall be joined to his Wife and they two shall be one flesh This is a great mystery but I speak concerning Christ and his Church The Church of Rome calls the marriage of Priests Sacrilege and yet will have the Marriage of Lay-men to be a Sacrament which conferrs justifying Grace And to prove this the Vindicator alledgeth this Text of Scripture as many others before him have done and have received their answer but as if there had been no such thing this Gentleman with sufficient confidence barely cites it and so leaves it To which however I shall return this answer The Apostle in this place as is plain to every considerate Reader speaketh of the sacred Union between Jesus Christ and his Church which Union he illustrates by that of Marriage between the Husband and the Wife His intent was not to exalt the Mystery of Marriage but the Union of the Church with Jesus Christ This Mystery then whereof he speaketh is the
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
resembles Blood and doth he not deserve to be credited that he changed Wine into his Blood Yes no doubt when he tells us that he did so or when we have as clear Evidence of his changing Wine into Blood as we have of his changing Water into Wine at the Marriage Feast in Cana of Galilee In this he appeals to Sence bidding the Servants draw out now and carry it to the Governor of the Feast that he might taste it But in the other we are required to believe against all Evidence of Sence But to clear the point more fully St. Cyril himself will tell us what kind of change he here speaks of Cyril Hierosol Catech Myst 3. for saith he As Bread in the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Spirit is no more common Bread but is the Body of Christ so this Holy Ointment is no more that Ointment i. e. As the Ointment is changed so is the Bread in the Eucharist and no otherwise As the Ointment when once consecrated to an holy use is no more common Ointment i. e. Though it be Ointment still and the same in substance that it was yet it is no more the same Ointment for before it was Common now it is Consecrate So the Bread in the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Spirit is no more common Bread i. e. Though it be Bread still yet is it not common Bread but it is the Body of Christ i. e. The Sacrament of his Body His next Authority is Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catech. c. 37. whence he cites these words I do therefore now rightly believe That the Bread sanctified by the Word of God is changed into the Body of the Word Because it the Bread is suddenly changed by this Word This is my Body And this is effected by the virtue of Benediction by which the nature of those things that appear is Transelemented into it To this I answer That the Bread sanctified by the word of God is changed or Transelemented into the body of the Word If it be understood in the same sence that the Ancient Fathers used it we can readily subscribe unto it and in what sence they used it has been in part declared already Tertullian saith Tertull. contra Marcion l. 4. Christ took Bread and made it his Body by saying This is my Body i. e. A Figure of my Body And St. Austin saith Aug. ad Bonifac. Ep. 23. After a certain manner the Sacrament of Christ's Body is the Body of Christ He doth not say It really is but after a certain manner And in what manner it was said to be so he himself in another place informs us saying He made no doubt to say Aug. contr Adimant c. 12. Theophilact in 6. cap. Johan This is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body And Theophilact saith We our selves are Transelemented into the Body of Christ Which I suppose this Gentleman will not understand as if Believers were really and substantially changed into the Body of Christ But to clear this point let but Greg. Nyssen who certainly best understood his own meaning be his own Interpreter and it will plainly appear that by these Expressions he intended no more than what is expressed by these and many other Holy Fathers For in another place thus he writeth This Altar Gregor Nyssen de Sancto Baptism whereat we stand is by nature a common Stone nothing differing from other Stones whereof our Walls are built and our Pavements laid but after that it is once dedicated to the honour of God and hath received blessing it is a Holy Table and an undefiled Altar afterward not to be touched of all Men but only of the Priests and that with Reverence Likewise the Bread that first was common after that the Mystery hath hallowed it is both called and is Christ's Body likewise also the Wine Christ's Blood. And whereas before they were things of small value after the Blessing that cometh from the Holy Ghost either of them both worketh mightily The like power also maketh the Priest to be Reverend and Honourable being by means of a new Benediction divided from the common sort of the People Whence it is evident That as the Altar of stone was changed from its former state and yet remained stone still and as the Priest is changed from what he was before and yet remaineth the same Man still so and no otherwise did the Holy Father think that the Bread and Wine are changed in the Sacrament i. e. They are changed into Christ's Body and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine still In the next place he brings in St. Ambrose l. de his qui Myst initiant where speaking of the Eucharist he says Shall not the words of Christ be powerful enough to change the nature of things Yes no doubt when he pleaseth so to do you have read of the Creation of the World that God spake and the things were made he commanded and they received a Being If therefore Christ by his Word was able to make something of nothing shall he not be thought able to change one thing into another Yes certainly when he thinks fit to do it But the Question here is not What Christ as God can do but what he will or hath done Now let us see what kind of Argument this Gentleman can find in this Topick if he has any it must run thus Whatsoever Christ as God by his Omnipotent Power can do that he doth But Christ as God by his Omnipotent Power can make the Bread in the Sacramen to be his Body therefore he doth it Would it not be every whit as good an Argument Christ as God by his Omnipotent Power can make the Vindicator a Pope or a Cardinal therefore he hath done it Would not any Fresh Man smile at such an Argument and put him in mind of an old Maxim A posse ad esse non valet consequentia But to clear St. Ambrose from that foul Aspersion which the Vindicator here would insinuate and impose upon him we need but consult St. Ambrose himself for there is none of the ancient Fathers who has delivered his Opinion in this matter more plainly and expresly than he has done For in the same Book which is here cited he saith Ambr. de his qui initiant Myst c. 3. It is one thing that is done visibly and another thing that is celebrated invisibly Believe not only what thou seest with thy bodily Eyes for that is better seen which thou dost not see the thing that thou seest is corruptible the thing which thou dost not see is for ever Where he plainly distinguisheth between the Sacrament and the thing signified thereby And again Ibid. c. 2. As the Flesh of Christ which was Crucified and Buried was true Flesh so this is truly a Sacrament of that Flesh Our Lord Jesus Christ saith This is my Body Before the Blessing of the heavenly words it is named