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
Mystical Union between Jesus Christ and his Church and not the Union between the Husband and the Wife For having said This is a great Mystery that we might not think that he spake of the Mystery of Marriage he addeth But I speak concerning Jesus Christ and his Church But the Vulgar Translation of this Text calls it a Sacrament we grant it but doth this prove Marriage to be a Sacrament Will the Vindicator own all those things which in the Vulgar Translation are called Sacraments to be Sacraments of the Church of Rome Then the great Whore mentioned in the Revelations must be one of their Sacraments for so the Vulgar Translation calls her Rev. xvij 7. And the seven Stars mentioned Rev. i. 20. must be another for so they are there called And Dreams and Visions must be a third for so they are three times called Dan. ij 18 30 47. And Piety is called a great Sacrament 1 Tim. iij. 16. I suppose he will not own these to be Sacraments of the Church of Rome and yet in their Authentick Translation they are called Sacraments as well as Marriage But that Marriage is no Sacrament of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ among many others we have these reasons to satisfy our selves I. Because it was not instituted by Jesus Christ for it was in the World before his time If after his coming the blessed Jesus did change the nature of it and make it a Sacrament then let them shew us when and where he did it II. Because as it hath no word of Institution so neither hath it any visible Sign or outward Element for neither the words nor the actions are Elements and unless there be an Element to which the word of Institution is joined it can be no Sacrament III. Because there is no promise of Grace annexed to any outward Element for though the state of Matrimony be a sign of that Mystical Union between Christ and his Church having some Analogy with it ye we do not know that the entrance into this state hath the promise of any Grace to join or preserve us in that Union with Christ and his Church And for these reasons we exclude it from the Sacraments of the New Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ with all the requisites of a Sacrament properly so called And for our so doing we do not want Authorities among the eminent Doctors of the Roman Church I shall only give you two instances Their own Durandus delivers his opinion in plain terms telling us Durand in sentent l. 4. Dist 26. q. 3. Cajetan Annot. in loc That strictly and properly speaking Marriage is not a Sacrament And Cardinal Cajetan upon this place of Scripture cited by the Vindicator hath these words Prudent Reader thou learnest not here of St. Paul that Marriage is a Sacrament for he saith not This Sacrament but this Mystery is great and in truth the Mystery of those words is great Thus it appears that neither from Antiquity nor the written Word of God any of these five Additional Sacraments of the Church of Rome viz. Confirmation Penance Extream Vnction Order and Matrimony can with any justice plead the same title to be Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Christ and necessary for the Salvation of Mankind as it is confessed on all hands Baptism and the Lord's Supper may I do also receive and admit of all the received and approved Ceremonies of the Catholick Church used in the Administration of the above-mentioned Sacraments 1 Cor. xiv 40. THAT all things are to be done decently and in order we own to be an Apostolical precept and that in point of duty we stand obliged to yield Obedience thereunto We also acknowledge that the Superiors in every Society are the proper Judges of that Decency and Order And that it always hath been and still is the practice of all well-ordered Societies to submit to the Determination of their Superiors therein And that to invert this Order or for private persons to take upon them to dictate to their Governours in this case is the only way to introduce Anarchy and Confusion Which is all or at least the substance of all that the Vindicator here offers in behalf of this Article But after this Concession there are some things still stick with us which will not suffer us to subscribe thereunto viz. I. Because we are required to receive it not only as an Article of Communion but as an Article of Faith under the penalty of an Anathema though it only concern Ceremonies which are things mutable at the pleasure of the Church II. Because the Ceremonies here spoken of or some of them neither are nor ever were received nor approved by the Catholick Church III. Because the Roman Catholick Church as they call it is but a particular Church and hath no more power to impose Ceremonies or Usages upon any other Church than that other hath to impose upon Her. For Par in parem non habet imperium IV. If any Ceremonies imposed by the Church of Rome or any other Church be such as that the Members of that Church cannot comply with them without sin and danger the general rule of the Apostle doth not in that case bind to blind Obedience For then there is an Apostolical pattern which must take place Whether it be better to obey God or man judge ye Acts iv 19. I embrace and receive all and every thing which in the Holy Council of Trent hath been defin'd concerning Original Sin and Justification IN defence of this Article and to perswade us to a compliance therewith the Vindicator proceeds in this method I. He undertakes to give us an account of what the Council hath defin'd in these two points And II. To vindicate those their Definitions Now whether he hath been faithful in his account or whether the Definitions of the Council or his Vindication of them be such as may oblige us to comply with him and the Council therein are the things we are now to enquire into I. As touching Original Sin it must be acknowledged that the Vindicator hath faithfully set down the Doctrine thereof as it is defin'd by the Council of Trent But notwithstanding the Authority of this Council or the strength of the Proofs which indeed are weak enough whereby he endeavours to defend its Definition of this point yet there are some things we cannot comply with and till we are convinc'd by better Arguments than are here offered we cannot embrace all and every thing which in the Council of Trent hath been defin'd in this point But because the difference here is not very great and no new matter offered but only such as hath been over and over again considered and refuted and because there are matters of greater moment still behind Concil Trident. Sess 5. Decret de peccat Origin Can. 5. I shall only desire the Vindicator once more to read over that very Decree upon which this part of
one word of the Eucharist that not being instituted till two years after or thereabouts Nor doth he there speak of a Corporal eating which is done by the Mouth of the Body but of a Spiritual eating which is done by Faith. For He is there speaking to the Capernaitan Jews who followed him for the Loaves and takes occasion from their gluttonous Appetite to instruct them better to acquaint them with another kind of Food a Celestial Bread of which whosoever eateth liveth eternally and that Bread is Himself And of this it is that he saith My Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed And lest they should understand him carnally he closeth up his Discourse with these words The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life v. 63. And that in this sence St. Hilary is here to be understood I do not doubt for in these very words he saith It is so by our Faith i. e. to them that believe and the truth of it will not be denied by any but those who deny the Divinity of Christ i. e. who deny him to be the Bread which came down from Heaven v. 50. For it was not his Flesh and Blood but his Divinity that came down from Heaven But if we should grant that St. Hilary in this discourse had an eye to the Sacrament of the Eucharist as I do believe he had yet doth he very well explain himself and give us to understand that he doth not speak of Bodily but Spiritual Meat not of Corporal but Spiritual eating not of receiving Christ by the Mouth of the Body but by the Mouth of the Soul which is Faith. For in the very same Book that is here quoted he saith Christ is in us not bodily Hilar. in Matth. Can. 30. Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 83. but by the Mystery of the Sacraments And again We receive Christ truly not substantially but under a Mystery And in another place he speaks of drinking of the Fruit of the Vine Which as St. Chrysostom saith Doth certainly produce Wine not Water And I may add nor Blood. His next Quotation is out of St. Chrysostom l. 3. de Sacerd. where that Holy Father in an Ecstacy crys out O Miracle He that sits above with his Father at the very same instant of time is here in the Hands of all he gives himself to those that are willing to receive him To this I answer That it was usual with the Ancient Fathers by vehement Expressions and Rhetorical Amplifications to ravish the Minds and inflame the Devotions of their Hearers we very well know and that it was as frequent with St. Chrysostom as any other cannot be unknown to any who have been conversant in his Writings I shall only trouble you with one Instance which the Vindicator may find in the same Book which he here quotes Christ is Crucified before our Eyes his Blood gusheth out of his side and streameth and floweth over the Holy Table and the People are therewith made red and bloody Did St. Chrysostom intend to be understood plainly and literally here Surely the Vindicator will not say so nor if he well consider will he think it fit to understand him so in the place by him alledged for if so then must he grant That the People do verily and indeed see Christ's very Body and handle and touch it with their Fingers which some of his own Doctors will be ready to tell him is not only false but a worse Heresie than ever was defended by Berengarius The Miracle therefore which St. Chrysostom here speaks of is not the fleshly or bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament but the wonderful Effects that God worketh in the Faithful in that dreadful time of the Holy Communion wherein the whole Mystery of our Redemption by the Blood of Christ is expressed But if this place of St. Chrysostom doth not so fully express the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist the Vindicator hath another which he thinks will sufficiently do it and that is in his 83. Hom. in Matth. where he saith He that wrought those things at the last Supper is the Author of what is done here We hold but the place of Ministers but he that sanctifies and changes them is Christ himself Of what change St. Chrysostom here speaks he himself doth plainly intimate for in the same Homily he immediately adds So is it also in Baptism as if he should have said As in the Sacrament of Baptism the Water is changed from common to sacramental Water so in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Bread and Wine are changed from common to sacramental Bread and Wine And that he meant only this and not any substantial Change is plain for in the same Homily he saith When he would represent the Mysteries he gave Wine And in another place he saith Chrysost Ep. ad Caesar As the Bread before it is Sanctified is called Bread when by the Intercession of the Priest divine Grace hath sanctified it it loseth the Name of Bread and becomes worthy to be called the Body of Jesus Christ although the Nature of Bread abides in it And in another place he saith If it be dangerous to employ the Holy Vessels about common uses Chrysost in Matth. Opere Imperf Hom. 11. wherein the true Body of Jesus Christ is not contained but the Mysteries of his Body how much rather the Vessels of our Bodies which God hath prepared to dwell in By all which we may plainly understand what St. Chrysostom's Thoughts were of a substantial Change or of Christ's bodily presence in the Eucharist when they were cool and calm and free from any Ecstatical Rapture His next is St. Cyril of Jerusalem in Catech. whence he quotes these Words Since therefore Christ himself thus affirms and says of the Bread This is my Body and This is my Blood who can doubt of it and say it is not his Blood No body certainly for in the same sence that Christ said it was so there is no doubt to be made but that it is so i. e. Sacramentally and in a Mystery but here is to be noted that if St. Cyril be to be understood literally he will be no good Evidence for the Vindicator for he doth not say of the Bread it is changed into his Body but it is his Body c. So that according to him the Bread must be Christ's Body and the Cup his Blood which as yet they have not had the confidence to affirm nor indeed will it consist with their notion of Transubstantiation And if it be to be understood Figuratively it will less serve his purpose for then it will import no more than what Tertullian saith Tertul. contra Marcion l. 4. Christ took Bread and made it his Body by saying This is my Body i. e. The Figure of my Body But he further enforceth his Argument saying In Cana of Galilee he once by his sole Will turned Water into Wine which
THE Additional Articles IN Pope Pius ' s Creed NO ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH BEING AN ANSWER To a Late PAMPHLET Intituled Pope PIUS his profession of Faith Vindicated from Novelty in Additional Articles AND The PROSPECT of POPERY taken from that Authentick Record with short NOTES thereupon DEFENDED LONDON Printed by J. L. for Luke Meredith at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXVIII IMPRIMATUR Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Whilhelmo Archiep. Cantuar. Ã Sacr. Domest Mart. 22. 1677 / 8. THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES IN Pope Pius ' s Creed NO ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AMONG those many and great grievances which we complain of in the Church of Rome the Additional Articles of Pope Pius IV. are none of the least We look upon them as Additions to the ancient Faith imposed with great severity and as Novelties introduced into the Church without any Authority But the Vindicator tells us That though we of the Church of England be the most forward yet we of all sorts of Christians have the least reason to condemn this Prelate for this Addition who for XXIV Articles in his Profession have XXXIX in our own If this were true or the Additions were of the same kind this Remarque of his might pass among thinking Men as very considerable But had this Gentleman been so Thinking a person as he would make the World believe he is he would not have been guilty of so great a Blunder he would have seen a vast difference between Articles of Faith and Articles of Communion We do not find fault with the Church of Rome or any particular Church or any Society of Men whether Sacred or Civil for making Laws and Rules to govern themselves by or framing Articles upon compliance wherewith they will admit into or acknowledge any one to be a Member of their Society provided they be such as may be complied with without Sin and Danger But we deny that the Church of Rome or any particular Church or the Catholick Church it self hath any Authority to make new Articles of Faith or declare any thing as necessary to be Believed in order to Man's Salvation which was not so antecedent to such Declaration And this I take to be the true state of the Question between us and the Church of Rome and not as the Vindicator states it Whether there be Authority in the Catholick Church of Christ whichsoever it be to make any Addition of Articles to the Apostles Creed and require other terms of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol Upon this mistaken Question the Vindicator proceeds and all along fights with his own shadow nor with us for all that we say is only this That no new Articles of Faith ought to be added to the Apostles Creed but we never denied That other terms of Communion besides the assenting to what is expressed in that Symbol may by any Church be required of Her Members Unless therefore the Vindicator do make it appear That new Articles of Faith de jure may be or de facto have been by consent of the Catholick Church added to the Apostles Creed he will not at all impugn the Church of England nor will the Church of Rome be much indebted to him for his Vindication Now whether he doth or hath made this appear will best be seen by taking his Instances into Consideration by which he pretends and endeavours to do it But before I do that it may be convenient to acquaint you what is the just and true differences between Articles of Faith and Articles of Communion Articles of Faith I take to be certain Propositions containing such divine Verities as are necessary to be believed and assented to by all Christians in order to their Salvation Articles of Communion I take to be some certain Laws or Rules agreed upon and established by some particular Society of Christians a compliance wherewith is necessary to the admittance of any one as a Member of that Society and an Observance whereof is necessary to the Peace Order and good Government of that Society The former of these are certain Fundamental Verities taught us by God revealed in the holy Scriptures and summarily comprized in the Apostles Creed For this we have the Authority of the Trent Catechism * Catech. ad Parochos par 1. Tit. de 12. Symboli Articulis n. 1. and therefore may reasonably suppose that it will not be disowned by those of the Roman Communion And if this be granted then methinks the Consequence is plain That whatsoever is not contained in the Apostles Creed is not to be admitted as an Article of Faith. For there are many Truths revealed by God in holy Scriptures all which when known to be so revealed are necessary to be believed yet are they not all of equal necessity to Salvation and consequently not to be admitted as Articles of Faith in the strict and proper acceptation of the Word The latter are things of a quite different nature respecting principally the Peace Order and good Government of some particular Society necessary to be assented to and observed by all the Members thereof but not by all Christians For there are great Numbers of Ecclesiastical Societies in the World all or most of which have different terms of Communion which the Members of every particular Society are obliged to comply with but the Members of one Society are not under the same Obligation to observe the Constitutions of another as they are to do those of their own The Catholick Church we know is divided into several particular Churches differing in the terms of their Communion and yet none will deny but that the terms of Communion in each particular Church are to be observed in order to those ends before mentioned by the respective Members of those several Churches 'T is true indeed that all those particular Churches are Members of the Catholick Church and do or ought to hold Communion with her in Faith and Worship and upon the same terms with one another But as to what relates to the admitting of Members into or casting them out of their Society they have different terms and always have had without blame and without any the least breach of that general Communion But to bring the Instance a little nearer the Church of Rome which calls her self Catholick hath many particular Societies within her self as the Benedictines the Franciscans the Dominicans the Jesuits c. all which have particular Laws and Rules and those different from one another which are the Bands and Ligaments of their several Societies And yet the Vindicator will not deny but that they are all true Members of the Church and do hold Communion with her and with one another notwithstanding those different terms of Communion among themselves By what hath been said you may easily observe a vast difference between these two sorts of Articles which difference I shall briefly recapitulate to you in these Four particulars
have a mighty regard for it but how shall we know what the Observances and Constitutions of the Church have been if they be not conveyed unto us by an uninterrupted and unquestionable Tradition and if we do not know them how can we admit or embrace them But it is remarkable That the Observances and Constitutions mentioned in this Article are things different from what hath been delivered to us either by Apostolical or Ecclesiastical Tradition else why are they called other And it is as observable That by Church here he doth not mean the Church of all Ages but the present Church only not the Catholick but the Roman Catholick Church whose Observances and Constitutions we are required to admit and embrace Otherwise why doth he restrain it to the same Church which word same the Vindicator hath thought fit to leave out Now there are many Observances and Constitutions in the Church of Rome which we think she hath no authority to impose upon other Churches nor have they any reason to admit and embrace But notwithstanding all this our Vindicator hath undertaken to prove That not only this but all the Articles in the Profession of Pope Pius IV. are according to Scripture and the sence of the Primitive Fathers How well he hath acquitted himself in this undertaking I shall now examine and observing his own method shall consider his proofs of every Article severally He begins his proof of this Article by Scripture and then fortifies it by the Testimony of the Fathers His first Scripture proof is taken out of 2 Thes 2.15 Where St. Paul saith Brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle Here he observes That there are two ways of delivering the sacred Truth one by writing the other by Word of Mouth and that the Doctrine is to be held fast whether it be delivered the one way or the other All which we readily grant him provided it be made appear That the Tradition as it stands distinguished from the written Word be Apostolical or that what is so delivered be Truth or a Doctrine agreeable to the written Word For certainly St. Paul did not preach one thing and write another and if he did not then all that can be made of this Text will amount only to this Hold fast the self same substance of Religion and Doctrine that I have taught you either by Word or Writing i. e. either by preaching unto you in person when present or instructing you by my Epistle Niceph. l. 2. c. 45. when at a distance Thus Nicephorus understands it telling us That those things which St. Paul had plainly taught by preaching when present the same things being absent he was desirous to recal to their memories by a compendious recapitulation of them in Writing Hieron in 2 Th. 2. And the Annotator under St. Hierom's name saith Quando sua vult teneri non vult extranea superaddi And if thus we are to understand this place it will do but little service for the support of Romish Traditions Many I wish I might not say most of which are besides if not against the written word But doth not St. Chrysostome understand this place of Scripture otherwise Chrysost in 2 Th. 2.15 Hom. 4 the Vindicator thinks he doth and therefore hath produced him as an evidence against us Well let us hear what he saith They the Apostles have not delivered all in their Epistles who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it which are likewise to be believed yes if we knew what they were But all things worthy of belief and which ought to be believed when known are not necessary nor indeed possible to be believed before they are known John 21.25 Those many other things which Jesus did and were never written of which St. John speaks would all be worthy of belief and ought to be believed if they were known but not being known they are not necessary to be believed nor are we obliged to believe any one who tells us This or That was one of them the Scripture being silent therein But St. Chrysostome adds Let us therefore esteem the Tradition of the Church worthy of Credit 'T is a Tradition enquire no farther We grant the Tradition of the Church is worthy of Belief and when any is made appear to be so we will seek no farther But then it must be the Tradition not of the present Church only but of the Church in all Ages and such a Tradition as from hand to hand and Age to Age brings us up to the times and persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself and so is confirmed by all those Miracles and other arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true But I know none can better acquaint us with the mind and meaning of St. Chrysostome than St. Chrysostome himself who in the same Homily out of which these words are taken Chrysost ibid. hath these other All those things that are in the holy Scriptures are right and clear all that which is necessary is therein clear and manifest And if so then those Traditions that are not in the Scripture are unnecessary things In Ps 95. And the same Father in another place tells us When we say any thing without the Scripture the thoughts of the Hearers are uncertain The Traditions therefore which St. Chrysostome here speaks of are such as are either contained in or may be warranted by the written word and if so then he will stand the Vindicator in little stead His next Scripture Proof is taken out of 2 Tim. c. 2. v. 2. where St. Paul thus directeth Timothy The things that thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also Whence he observes That St. Paul takes care that what he had taught the faithful though only heard from him might be observed and conveyed down to Posterity by their teaching of others How well this Gloss doth agree with the Text needs no other evidence than comparing the one with the other But if we would know St. Paul's design in these words let us consider for what end he besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus when he himself went into Macedonia which he tells us was That he might charge some to teach no other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 i. e. None other but what he himself had delivered to the Ephesians for there were certain false Apostles which did endeavour to draw the Ephesians to the observation of Legal Rites and Jewish Traditions as necessary to salvation saith their own Lyra upon the place The business therefore which Timothy had to do as Governour of that Church was That none but only faithful and able men should be admitted by him to preach unto them And this is that which St. Paul again charges him to do in this place so their own Lyra upon the
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
they are made Righteous when they are justified but as the Apostle saith They are justified freely by his Grace Rom. iij. And to explain himself a little after he adds That Grace would not be Grace if it were not given freely but rendred as a due Debt In the same Epistle I find also these words It is not therefore in vain that we sing unto God His mercy shall prevent me and His mercy shall follow me Whence life eternal it self which in the end shall be enjoyed without end and therefore is rendred to precedent merits yet because those merits to which it is given are not prepared by any ability of ours but are wrought in us by Grace even Life eternal it self is called Grace for no other reason but because it is given freely not therefore because it is not given to Merits but because those very Merits to which it is given are themselves a gift These words are an Inference from what went before where St. Austin argues against Merit either before to obtain Grace or after to deserve a Reward These are his words What is the Merit of Man before Grace by which he may deservedly obtain Grace when as all our Merit is from Grace and when he crowns our Merits he crowns nothing else but his own Gifts And from hence he inferrs in the words before cited Whence I observe 1. That all that is good in us here is owing to Divine Mercy preventing us 2. That all the good we can expect hereafter must be from the same Divine Mercy following us 3. That Life eternal which is the great Reward of Vertue and Goodness is called Grace 4. That though it be said to be given to Merits it is not said to be given for the sake of those Merits 5. That those Merits to which it is given are themselves the gift of God and therefore not Merits in the strict sence of the word It is not Righteousness but Pride in the name of Righteousness that expects eternal Life as a Reward due to its deserving These are St. Austin's own words in the next page which directly contradict this Definition of the Council of Trent viz. That a man justified truly deserves Life everlasting by his good works And now if the Vindicator can make any advantage of these words of St. Austin either to himself or to his cause I shall not envy him IV. He tells us that the Council hath defin'd That by works a Man is justified and not by Faith only And to prove this he alledgeth Jam. ij 24. where it is said ye see then how that a man is justified by works and not by faith only This place of Scripture hath been so often urged and all the Arguments raised therefrom so often and so miserably baffled that I wonder with what confidence this Gentleman could bring it upon the stage again They have been often told that St. James here doth not speak of Justification before God but before Men. That as Faith only though that Faith be not alone justifies us before God so good Works do justifie the truth of that Faith and evidence the reality of our Justification thereby unto Men. Which Interpretation is well warranted by St. Paul when he saith If Abraham was justified by Works then hath he whereof to glory but not before God Rom. iv 2. I likewise profess That in the Mass is offered a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead TO persuade us to a compliance herewith the Vindicator advanceth both Scripture and Antiquity Two great Arguments if well managed Which whether they be or no I shall now Examine 1. He begins with Scripture and by way of Preface thereunto tells us That our blessed Saviour being a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedeck did at his last Supper offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins This is unhappily to stumble at the Threshold For 1. How his Consequent comes to be tack'd to his Antecedent is past my capacity to understand Our blessed Saviour was made a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck Therefore at his last Supper he did offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins What Logick there is in this I am yet to learn. 2. If he did offer himself at his last Supper to whom did he do it For we do not find that he did address himself or offer any thing to any but only to his Disciples and surely he will not say that he offered himself as a Sacrifice unto them 3. If he did offer his Body and Blood then was it not an unbloody Sacrifice as they say it was 4. If it was an unbloody Sacrifice then could it not be propitiatory For without shedding of Blood there is no Remission of Sins Heb. ix 22. But the Vindicator hath good Scripture for all this viz. Luke xxij 19. 1 Cor. xi 24. Matth. xxvi 28. In all which places the Words of Institution are recited with some variation St. Matthew saith This is my Body vers 26. St. Luke adds Which is given for you And St. Paul saith Which is broken for you His whole Argument there depends upon the Words of Institution Before therefore I meddle with his reasoning therefrom it will be convenient to consider and explain them And 1. Our Saviour saith This is not This is Transubstantiate or wonderfully converted into another substance viz the substance of my Body 2. If when he said This is he meant Transubstantiation then his Body must be Transubstantiate before he spake and if so then the Conversion doth not depend upon the Words as they affirm For This is implies a thing already done 3. When he said This is my Body it is evident that his true natural humane Body was there with them took the Bread brake it gave it eat it now if that which he took brake gave and eat was then the Body of Christ either he must have two Bodies there at that time or else the same Body was by the same Body taken broken given and eaten and yet all the while neither taken broken given nor eaten 4. When he saith This is my Body which is given for you as St. Luke or Which is broken for you as St. Paul if it be understood literally then must it be either his natural or his glorified Body if they say the former then we urge them again with the preceding Observation the latter they will not dare to say because his Body was not then Glorified 5. If these words be to be literally and strictly to be understood then the substance of Bread must be Christ's Body at that time for what can any Man living understand by This but only this Bread For what he took he blessed what he blessed he brake what he brake he gave to his Disciples what he gave to them he bad them take and eat and what he bad them take and eat of that he
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