to me that the Order is this God doth 1. Offer his Covenant under the condition of Faith and Repentance and therein Christ and his Benefits 2. We accept of the Covenant according to the tenor of it 3. God offers to confirm it with Sacraments proportional 4. We receive them and so are certified of the performance of the Covenant and have the Promises thereof conveyed by Covenant and by Seal also unto us Where you say In the Eucharist God doth first offer and exhibit growth and increase of Grdce and a nearer and faster Communion of Christ's Body and Blood and all the Benefits flowing from thence and then it is a Pledg to assure us thereof It seems to me that God having in the New Testament confirmed with Christ's Blood offered unto us Life under the condition of our receiving him would confirm to as many as receive him that they have Life Therefore he hath instituted Bread and Wine the means of Natural Life in a certain use to be Seals of Spiritual Life We now receiving them they are Pledges unto us and do certifie us of that Spiritual Life which we have by receiving Christ. Where then you say That the instrumental conveyance of the Grace signified is as true an effect of a Sacrament as Obsignation and is then existent in order of Nature unto it I do conceive that the setting of Christ and his Benefits before us in the Gospel as the Bread that came down from Heaven and in the institution of the holy Supper in the proportional creatures of Bread and Wine with condition that these worthily received shall confer those must needs go before any Obsignation But then our partaking of these Creatures duly giveth unto us the Possession of the former by way of Obsignation which in our purpose is the sole and only instrumental conveyance which the Sacraments have You will ask what is the due participation That which God requires There can be required no more of Infants but the receiving of the outward washing in Baptism they cannot prove themselves nor repent and believe Very true Have they then that Obsignation Yes doubtless according to the form of the Covenant How is that That repenting and believing their Sins are washed away Then because they do not yet repent and believe nothing passes Yes this passes The Confirmation that this Sacrament gives upon Repentance and belief of all God's Promises of the New Testament The same thing which passes to him qui fictus accedit who when afterward he doth indeed repent of his Fiction and receives Christ by Faith hath also the actual enjoying of the thing so confirmed to him The Opinion of the Franciscans out of Scotus and Bernard mentioned in the Council of Trent seems to be the true Opinion for they make the Sacraments to be effectual because God gives them Effectus regulariter concomitantes and to contain Grace no otherwise then as an effectual Sign and that Grace is received by them as an Investiture by a Ring or Staff which is obsignando Which agrees also with Catharines Opinion de intenione Ministri And Eisingrens saith that God only can give to sensible Signs Vertue to confer Grace Confess c. 1. Yet I believe they understand the matter otherwise then I have before expressed Their Authority is of little moment either way Beza Ursine and Calvin have no other meaning then I have expressed Mr. Hooker I have not Since Infants say you are capable of Baptism why not of spiritual Ablution of Original Guilt which is the thing signified tho not of actual Obsignation of this since they cannot interpose any impediment to hinder the operation of the Sacraments Questionless they are partakers of the actual Obsignation of Ablution from original and actual Guilt say I. Suppose they understand not this Obsignation nor receive this Ablution otherwise then Sacramentally As I said before the counterfeit Convert also doth tho he put a bar to his present Ablution of his Sins and consequently his own Certification thereof Where I said The true definition of a Sacrament in general will decide this Question which you grant and commend that of our Catechism I do not disallow it being well interpreted but do think incomparably better that of the Apostle That they be Seals of the Righteousness of Faith Or if we will include the Sacraments of the state of Grace before the Fall They be Seals of God's Covenant concerning everlasting Happiness If yet more generally we will include the Rain-bow Gen. 9. They be Seals of God's Covenants The Definition of Scotus Signum sensibile gratiam Dei ejus effectum gratuitum ex institutione divinâ efficacitèr signanus ordinatum ad salutem hominis viatoris methinks is a good Definition especially declaring efficaciter as he doth in hoc efficacitèr saith he includitur tam certitudinalitèr quam prognosticè I know that he acknowledges no Sacrament pro statu innocentiae but without all reason and the Definition will serve well enough for both States where he and the other Schoolmen require since the Fall some remedy for Original Sin and I perceived the same form in your Determination Certum esse Christum Sacramentum Baptismi instituisse in remedium originalis peccati ad reatus ejusdem veram solutionem I conceived you meant to make that the proper effect of Baptism which seemed also to be implied in the explication of the Question in the first Sentence and after Cumque Baptismus potissimum institutus sit ad solutionem originalis peccati c. You know what it is to demonstrate specially of one sort of Triangles that which is true in all which made me a little touch upon that point But verily I think this conceit of Sacraments to make them Medicines is the root of all Error in this matter and that it is good to take Light from the Tree of Life and that of the knowledg of Good and Evil that they are Seals only to God's Promises In my last to you as I remember I gave you occasion a little to consider the case of Women under the Law and of all Mankind before Circumcision Methinks it is very inconvenient to say that the Males should have a remedy against Sin and the Females none And the Schoolmen when they will first lay down their own conceit that such a remedy there must be and then divine what it must be they make Bellarmine ridiculous who from the silence of holy Scripture herein labours to shew the Scriptures are insufficient and yet he cannot help us here by any Traditions This Inconvenience is well avoided by making the Sacraments to confer Grace only by Obsignation of God's Promises and the end of them to be Certioration For so long as God would have Men rest upon his meer Word and Promise without a Seal his Word alone was to suffice When he gave a Seal that was to have validity as far as he extended it Now he extended Circumcision to
Father which hath sent me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day And St. Paul tells us Ephes. 2. 8. For by Grace are ye saved through Faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God So Phil. 1. 29. And that likewise it is the greatness of God's Power that raises Man's heart unto this Faith Ephes. 1. 19. So then Faith being the work of God in Man's heart which he bestows on whom he pleases all the question now is Whether Christ has obtained Reconciliation and Remission of Sins from his Father for those whom God foresaw would or could not obtain this saving Faith and if not consequently not for the Reprobate as the Lord Primat hath laid down they being only Reprobate for want of this Faith Nor will this be contradictory to my Lord Prim at 's other Proposition against such who contract the Riches of Christ's Satisfaction into too narrow a room as if none had any kind of interest therein but such as were elected before the foundation of the World Since this is to be understood of the Supralapsarian Opinion which makes Reprobation to be antecedant to the Fall of Adam and not only at a Praeterition but a Predamnation for actual Sins Whereas the Lord Primat held that Mankind considered in massa corrupta after the Fall of Adam was the only Object of God's Election or Reprobation so that it is in this sence that he is to be understood when he says that our Saviour hath obtainedat the hands of his Father forgiveness of Sins not for the Reprobate but Elect only Nor does he say that this proceeds from any deficiency in our Saviour's Death and Satisfaction which is sufficient to save the whole World if they would lay hold of it and apply it to themselves but the reason why all Men were not thereby saved was because they do not accept Salvation when offered to them Which is the Lord Primat's express words in a Sermon upon John 1. 12. concerning our Redemption by Christ. So that those passages in our Liturgy and Catechism before cited by the Doctor of Christ's being a sufficient Sacrifice for the Sins of the whole World and in the Catechism of his redeeming all Mankind must certainly be understood in this restrictive sence viz. to as many of the World of Mankind as God foresaw would lay hold of this Satisfaction by Faith and good Works or else all Men must have a like share therein whether they contribute any thing to it by Faith or Repentance or not And now I shall leave it to the indifferent Reader to judg whether the Lord Primat or the Doctor are most to be blamed for breaking their Subscription to the 39 Articles as the Doctor would have him guilty of in this Point because the Church of England in its second Article says expresly that Christ suffered was crucified dead and buried to reconcile his Father to us and to be a Sacrifice not only for Original Guilt but also for the Actual Sins of Men. In which says he as well the Sacrifice as the effect and fruit thereof which is the Reconciliation of Mankind to God the Father is delivered in general terms without any restriction put upon them neither the Sacrifice nor the Reconciliation being restrained to this or that Man some certain quidams of their own whom they pass commonly by the name of God's Elect. The Sacrifice being made for the Sins of Men of Men indefinitly without limitation is not to be confined to some few Men only Yet after the Doctor has said all he can it seems still to me and I suppose to any unprejudiced Reader that these Christ suffered c. to reconcile his Father to us and to be a Sacrifice c. for the actual Sins of Men to be not general but limited Propositions since by reconciling his Father to us can be understood no further than to us that are not Reprobates every Man supposing himself not to be of that number and in this sence the Lord Primat himself makes use of the words we and us in his Body of Divinity when he speaks of Justification and Reconciliation by Faith tho he there supposes that all Men are not actually justified nor reconciled to God by Christ's Sufferings And as for the last clause it is no more general than the former for tho the word Men be used in that place indefinitly yet it is not therefore a general Proposition it being still to be understood of those Men who truly believe for otherwise it had been very easie and natural for the Framers of this Article to have added this small word all and if they had the question would have been much as it was before Christ's Death being a Sacrifice that did not actually take away the Sins of the whole World for then none could be damned tho vertually it hath power to do it if it were rightly applied the Sacrifice having such virtue in it self that if all the World would take it and apply it it were able to expiate the Sins of the whole World as the Lord Primat in the above cited Sermon very plainly and truly expresses himself on this Doctrine The fourth Point which the Doctor accuses the Lord Primat not to hold according to the Church of England is that of the true and real Presence of Christ's most precious Body and Blood in the Sacrament Which Doctrine of a real Presence he first proves from the words of the distribution retained in the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth and formerly prescribed to be used in the ancient Missals viz. The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto Life everlasting The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ c. It is proved secondly by that passage in the publick Catechism in which the party catechised is taught to say that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the Faithful in the Lord's Supper Now if a question should be made what the Church means by verily and indeed in the former passage it must be answered that she means that Christ is truly and really present in that blessed Sacrament as before was said the words being rendred thus in the Latin Translation viz. Corpus Sanguis Domini quae verè realiter exhibentur c. verily and indeed as the English hath it the same with verè and realiter that is to say truly and really as it is in the Latin He likewise cites Bp. Bilson Bp Morton and Bp. Andrews all of them to maintain a true and real Prefence of Christ in the Sacrament and likewise Mr. Alex. Noel in his Latin Catechism makes the party catechized answer to this effect That the Body and Blood of Christ given in the Lord's Supper and eaten and drank by them tho it be only in an heavenly and spiritual manner yet are they both given and taken truly and really or
a return for all her favours Then he desired to be left to his own private Devotions After which the last words he was heard to utter about One of the Clock in the Afternoon praying for forgiveness of Sins were these viz. O Lord forgive me especially my sins of Omission So presently after this in sure hopes of a glorious Immortality he fell asleep to the great grief and affliction of the said Countess who could never sufficiently lament her own and the Churches great loss by his too sudden departure out of this life Thus dyed this humble and holy man praying for his sins of Omission who was never known to omit his duty or scarce to have let any time slip wherein he was not imployed in some good action or other and if such a man thought he had so much to beg pardon for what an account must those have to make who scarce bestow any of their time as they ought to do He had been when he died 55 years a Minister and almost all that time a constant Preacher near 14 years a Professor of Divinity in the Univesity of Dublin and several years Vice-Chancellor of the same he sat Bishop of Meath near 4 years and one and thirty years Arch-Bishop of Armagh being from St. Patrick the 100 Bishop of that See As soon as his Relations received the sad news of his death they gave orders for his interment at Rygate where he dyed the Honourable Countess with whom he had lived and dyed intending to have him buried in her own Vault in order to which his Relations being then not near it was thought fit to preserve the Corps by such means as are proper in that case so a Chyrurgeon being sent for the Body was opened and a great deal of Coagulated blood found setled in his left side which shewed that the Physician had mistook his disease not expecting a Pleurisie in a man of above 75 years of Age. But now whilst they were preparing speedily to bury him some or other put it into Oliver Cromwell's head how much it would be for the Lord Primate's as well as his own honour to have him solemnly buried which he approving of and thinking it a good way to make himself Popular because he well knew what great reputation the deceased had among all Ranks and Degrees of men Whereupon he presently caused an Order to be drawn and sent to the Lord Primate's Son-in-law and Daughter straitly forbidding them to bury his Body any where else than at Westminster Abby for that his Highness as he then called himself intended a Publick Funeral for him This Command his Relations durst not disobey as the Times then were though it was much against their Wills perceiving well enough the Usurper's design that as it was intended so it would make more for his own honour than that of the deceased Primate and withal perceiving what accordingly happened that he would never defray half the expence of such a solemn Funeral which therefore would cause the greatest part of the charge to fall upon them though they were least able to bear it and yet he would reap all the glory of it I should not have said so much on this subject had it not been to shew the World the intriguing subtilty of this Usurper even in this small Affair and that for the expence of about 200 l. out of the Deodands in his Amoner's hands which was nothing at all to him he was able to put those he accounted his Enemies to treble that charge However since it could not be avoided the Corps was kept unburied till the 17th of April following when it was removed from Rygate towards London being met and attended by the Coaches of most of the Persons of Quality then in Town the Clergy in and about London waiting on the Hearse from Somerset House to the Abby Church where the Crowd was so great that there was forced to be a Guard to prevent the rudeness of the people The Body being brought into the Quire Dr. Nicholas Bernard then Preacher of Grays-Inn preached his Sermon his discourse was on 1 Sam. 25. 1. And Samuel died and all Israel were gathered together and lamented him and buried him Of which I shall say nothing more since it is in print and is but for the most part an account of his life which we now give you more at large The Sermon ended the Corps was conveyed to the Grave in St. Erasmus Chappel and there buried by the said Dr. according to the Liturgy of the Church of England his Grave being next to Sir James Fullerton's once his School-Master there waiting a glorious Resurrection with those that dye in the faith of our Lord Jesus Many Tears were shed at his Obsequies the City and Country being full of the singular Piety Learning and Worth of the deceased Primate which though it fall not to every man's Lot to equal yet it is his duty to follow so good an example as far as he is able Quamvis non passibus aequis In the next place I shall give you a faithful account without flattery of his personal Qualifications Opinions and Learning As for his outward form he was indifferent tall and well shaped and went always upright to the last his Hair naturally Brown when young his Complexion Sanguine his Countenance expressed Gravity and good Nature his Carriage free a presence that commanded both Respect and Reverence and though many Pictures have been made of him the Air of his face was so hard to hit that I never saw but one that was like him He was of a strong and healthy Constitution so that he said That for the most part of his life he very rarely felt any pain in his head or stomach in his youth he had been troubled with the Sciatica and some years after that with a long Quartan Ague besides the fit of the Strangury and Bleeding above mentioned but he never had the Gout or Stone A little sleep served his turn and even in his last years though he went to Bed pretty late yet in the Summer he would rise by five and in the Winter by six of the Clock in the Morning his Appetite was always suited to his dyet he would feed heartily on plain wholsom Meat without Sauce and better pleased with a few Dishes than with great Varieties nor did he love to tast of what he was not used to Eat He liked not tedious Meals it was a weariness to him to sit long at Table but what ever he Eat or Drank was never offensive to his Stomach or Brain for he never exceeded at the greatest Feast and I have heard some Physicians impute the easieness of his Digestion to something very particular in the frame of his Body for when the Chyrurgeon had opened him he found a thick Membrane lined with Far which as I suppose was but a continuation of the Omentum which extended it self quite over his Stomach and was fastened above to
the Peritonaeum somewhat below the Diaphragma so that I have heard him say he never felt his heart beat in the most Exercise and the Chyrurgeon said That had it not belonged to the Body of a Person of his Eminency he would have taken it out and preserved it as a rarity which he had never found or heard of in any other Body besides and therefore the quickness of his Digestion considered it was no wonder if he bred blood so fast as he did so that he used to have frequent Evacuations thereof from the Veins on one side of his Tongue but more usually in some lower parts of his Body to the stopage of which for some time before his death may very well be ascribed that Distemper which was the cause of it As for his natural temper and disposition he was of a free and easie humour not morose proud or imperious but courteous and affable and extremely obliging towards all he convers'd with and though he could be angry and rebuke sharply when he ought that is when Religion or Vertue were concerned yet he was not easily provoked to passion rarely for smaller matters such as the neglects of Servants or worldly disappointments He was of so sweet a nature that I never heard he did an injury or ill Office to any man or revenged any of those that had been done to him but could readily forgive them as our blessed Lord and Master enjoyns Nor envyed he any man's happiness or vilified any man's Person or Parts nor was he apt to Censure or Condemn any man upon bare reports but observed that rule of the Son of Syrach Blame not before thou hast examined the Truth understand first and then rebuke His natural endowments were so various and so great as seldom are to be met with in one man viz. a Fertile Invention a Tenacious Memory with a Solid and Well-weigh'd Judgment whereby he was always from a young man presently furnished for any Exercise he was put upon which lay within the compass of those studies he had applied himself to so that in short that Character given of St. Augustin might be very well applied to him viz. Insignis erat sanctissimi praesulis mansuetudo ac miranda animi lenitas quaedam invincibilis clementia Linguam habebat ab omni petulantia convitiis puram Ingenii felicitas prorsus erat incomparabilis sive spectes ingenii acumen vel obscurissima facile penetrans sive capacis memoriae fidem sive vim quandam Mentis indefatigabilem c. But that which is above all he was endowed with that Wisdom from above Which is Pure Peaceable Gentle easie to be Intreated full of Mercy and good Fruits without Partiality and without Hypocrisie No man could charge him of Pride Injustice Covetousness or any other known Vice he did nothing mis-becoming a prudent or a good man and he was so Beneficent to the Poor that when he was in prosperity besides the large Alms with which he daily fed the attendants at his door he gave a great deal away in money keeping many of the Irish poor Children at School and allowing several Stipends to necessitous Scholars at the University not to mention other Objects which he still found out on whom to bestow his Charity And after the Irish Rebellion when he himself was in a manner bereft of all it is incredible to think how liberal he was to poor Ministers or their Widows and others that had been undone by that wicked Insurrection and I scarce ever knew he refused an Alms to any person whom he believed to be really in want insomuch that I have heard this passage from his Servant who then waited on him That once at London when he was out of the way there was brought to my Lord a poor Irish Woman pretending great necessity but he being either somewhat displeased to be called off from his Study upon which he was then very intent or perhaps he might not have at that time much to spare told her in short He was not able to relieve all that came to him upon that account if he did he should soon have nothing left for himself which this poor Woman was so far from taking ill that she went away praying for him which he immediately reflecting was much concerned at for fear he should have neglected his duty when a fit Object of Charity was offered him wherefore he presently commanded some of my Lady's Servants to run after her and if possible overtake her and bring her back but they could not light of her So when his Servant returned home he told him this accident with great concern ordering him to go the next day to some places where such people used to resort to inquire out such a Woman whom he described as exactly as he could to him which orders his man obeyed though without success At which his Lord was much troubled and could she have been found no question but she would have been very well rewarded for her being sent away empty the day before by him Yet notwithstanding all these Vertues none was more humble and free from vain glory than this person who was endowed with them so that what high esteem soever others might have of him he never put any value on himself but was little in his own thoughts and would often bewail his own infirmities and the want of those Graces he thought he saw in others and which he most earnestly desired He was so great a lover of real Piety that he thought no other accomplishments worth speaking of without it and he heartily loved and respected all humble devout Christians and would always say they were God's Jewels highly to be valued and with these though of the meanest condition he would gladly discourse speaking kindly to them causing them to sit down by him and if they were bashful he would encourge them to speak their minds freely in any words that might best express their love to God and the State of their Souls and he was so skilful a Physician in Spiritual matters that he could readily perceive every man's case and necessities and would apply suitable remedies thereunto if wavering to settle them if doubting to resolve them if sad to comfort them if fallen into a fault to restore them administering means to prevent the like Temptations nor did he neglect any opportunities by good advice and admonitions to reclaim those that were corrupted with Errors or Vices So that in all his discourses as well publick as private he still endeavoured to bring Religion into reputation and to make sin and a wicked course of life odious shameful and destructive to the Souls and Bodies of men And he would press this point with such a concerned earnestness that one would have believed those to whom he then applied himself must needs resolve not to love sin any longer And on the other side he would so magnifie the happiness and excellencies of a Vertuous and Pious Life
in very deed by God's faithful People By which it seems it is agreed on both sides that is to say the Church of England and the Church of Rome that there is a true and real Presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist the disagreement being only in the modus Praesentiae But on the contrary the Ld Primat in his Answer to the Jesuit's Challenge hath written one whole Chapter against the real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament In which tho he would seem to aim at the Church of Rome tho by that Church not only the real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament but the corporal eating of his Body is maintained and taught yet doth he strike obliquely and on the by on the Church of England All that he doth allow concerning the real Presence is no more than this viz. That in the receiving of the blessed Sacrament we are to distinguish between the outward and the inward action of the Communicant In the outward with our bodily mouth we receive really the visible Elements of Bread and Wine in the inward we do by Faith really receive the Body and Blood of our Lord that is to say we are truly and indeed made partakers of Christ crucified to the spiritual strengthning of our inward man Which is no more than any Calvinist will stick to say But now after all these hard words the Doctor has here bestowed upon my Lord Primat part of which I omit I think I can without much difficulty make it appear that all this grievous Accusation of the Doctor 's is nothing but a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strife about words and that the Lord Primat held and believed this Doctrine in the same sence with the Church of England 1. Then the 29th Article of our Church disavows all Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord. The second asserts that the Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner and that the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith And now I will leave it to the unprejudiced Reader to judge whether the Lord Primat's way of explaining this Sacrament according to the passage before cited by the Doctor does differ in sence from these Articles however it may somewhat in words as coming nearer the Articles in Ireland which the Bishop when he writ this Book had alone subscribed to and was bound to maintain for I think no true Son of the Church of England will deny that in this Sacrament they still really receive the visible Elements of Bread and Wine 2. That in the inward and spiritual action we really receive the Body and Blood of our Lord as the Lord Primat has before laid down But perhaps it will be said That the Lord Primat goes further in this Article than the Church of England does and takes upon him to explain in what sence we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord and that otherwise than the Church of England does he explaining it thus that is to say We are truly and indeed made partakers of Christ crucified to the spiritual strengthning of our inward man whereas the Church of England declares that the Body of Christ is eaten only after a heavenly and spiritual manner yet still maintains the Body of Christ to be eaten whereas the Lord Primat only says that we are truly and indeed made partakers of Christ crucified but does not say as the Article of our Church does that we are therein partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ. But I desire the Objector to consider whether the Explanation of our Church does not amount to the same thing in effect that saying that the Body of Christ is eaten in the Supper after a heavenly and spiritual manner and the Lord Primat that we are truly and indeed made partakers of Christ crucified viz. after a spiritual and not a carnal manner But perhaps the Doctor 's Friends may still object that the Lord Primat does not express this Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament as Bp. Bilson and Bp. Morton assert the former saying that Christ's Flesh and Blood are truly present and truly received by the Faithful in the Sacrament and the latter expresly owning a real Presence therein And Bp. Andrews in his Apology to Cardinal Bellarmine thus declares himself viz. Praesentiam credimus non minus quam vos veram de modo praesentiae nil timerè definimus Which the Doctor renders thus We acknowledg saith he a presence as true and real as you do but we determine nothing rashly of the manner of it And the Church Catechism above cited as also the Latin Catechism of Mr. Noel confess the Body and Blood of our Lord are truly and indeed or as the Latin Translation renders it verè realiter taken and received in the Lord's Supper Which the Lord Primat does not affirm I know not what such Men would have The Lord Primat asserts that we do by Faith really receive the Body and Blood of Christ and that in the same sence with Mr. Noel's Catechism and the Article of the Church viz. that Christ's Body is received after a spiritual and heavenly manner Which was added to exclude any real presence as taken in a carnal or bodily sence So that our Church does in this Article explain the manner of the Presence notwithstanding what Bp. Andrews says to the contrary Nor know I what they can here further mean by a real Presence unless a carnal one which indeed the Church of England at the first Reformation thought to be all one with the real as appears by these words in the first Articles of Religion agreed on in the Convocation 1552 Anno 5. Edw. 6. It becometh not any of the Faithful to believe or profess that there is a Real or Corporal Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the holy Eucharist And that our Church did likewise at the first passing the 39 Articles in Convocation Anno 1562 likewise disallow any Real Presence taken in a carnal sence Christ's Body being always in Heaven at the right hand of God and therefore cannot be in more places than one appears by the original of those Articles to be seen in the Library of Corpus Christi Colledg in Cambridg where tho this passage against a Real or Corporal Presence which they then thought to be all one are dash'd over with red Ink yet so as it is still legible therefore it may not be amiss to give you Dr. Burnet's Reasons in his 2d part of the History of the Reformation p. 406 for the doing of it The secret of it was this The Queen and her Council studied to unite all into the Communion of the Church and it was alledged that such an express Definition against a Real Presence might drive from the Church many who were still of
that perswasion and therefore it was thought to be enough to condemn Transubstantiation and to say that Christ was present after a spiritual manner and received by Faith And to say more as it was judged superfluous so it might occasion division Upon this these words were by common consent left out and in the next Convocation the Articles were subscribed without them This shews that the Doctrine of the Church then subscribed by the whole Convocation was at that time contrary to the belief of a Real and Corporal Presence in the Sacrament only it was not thought necessary or expedient to publish it Tho from this silence which flowed not from their Opinion but the Wisdom of that Time in leaving a liberty for different Speculations as to the manner of the Presence Some have since inferred that the chief Pastors of this Church did then disapprove of the Definition made in King Edward 's time and that they were for a Real Presence And that our Protestant Bishops that were martyr'd in Queen Mary's days were against this expression of a Real Presence of Christ as a Natural Body appears by those Questions which they disputed on solemnly at Oxford before their Martyrdom The first Question Whether the Natural Body of Christ was Really in the Sacrament The second Whether no other substance did remain but the Body and Blood of Christ Both which they held in the Negative So that since this expression of a Real Presence of Christ's Body was not maintained by our first Protestant Reformers nor used by the Church of England in her Articles I do not see of what use it can be now tho perhaps only meant in a spiritual sence by most that make use of it For the real presence of a Body and yet unbodily I suppose those that speak thus understand as little as I do unless that some Men love to come as near the Papists as may be in their expressions tho without any hopes now of ever making them approach the nearer to us and in the mean time giving matter of offence and scandal to divers ignorant and weak Christians of our own Religion The fifth Point that the Doctor taxes the Lord Primat with as held by him contrary to the Church of England is That she teaches that the Priest hath power to forgive Sins as may be easily proved by three several Arguments not very easie to be answered The first is from those solemn words used in the Ordination of the Priest or Presbyter that is to say Receive the Holy Ghost Whose Sins ye forgive they are forgiven and whose Sins ye retain they are retained Which were a gross prophanation of the words of our Lord and Saviour and a meer mockery of the Priest if no such power were given unto him as is there affirmed The second Argument is taken from one of the Exhortations before the Communion where we find the people are exhorted by the Priest that if they cannot quiet their Consciences they should come unto him or some other discreet Minister of God's Word and open their grief that they may receive such ghostly advice and comfort as their Consciences may be relieved and that by the Ministry of God's Word they may receive Comfort and the benefit of Absolution to the quieting of their Consciences and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness The third and most material Proof is the Form prescribed for the Visitation of the Sick In which it is required that after the sick Person hath made a Confession of his Faith and professed himself to be in Charity with all Men he shall then make a special Confession if he feel his Conscience troubled with any weighty matter And then it follows that after such Confession the Minister shall absolve him in this manner viz. Our Lord Jesus Christ who hath left power to his Church to absolve all Sinners that truly repent and believe in him of his great Mercy forgive thee thine Offences And by his Authority committed to me I absolve thee from all thy Sins in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost Amen Of the first of these three places deduced all of them from the best Monuments and Records of the Church of England the Lord Primat takes notice in his Answer to the Jesuit's Challenge p. 109. where he treateth purposely of the Priests power to forgive Sins but gives us such a Gloss upon it as utterly subverts as well the Doctrine of this Church in that particular as her purpose in it And of the second he takes notice p. 81. where he speaks purposely of Confession but gives us such a Gloss upon that also as he did upon the other But of the third which is more positive and material than the other two he is not pleased to take any notice at all as if no such Doctrine were either taught by the Church of England or no such Power had been ever exercised by the Ministers of it For in the canvassing of this Point he declares sometimes that the Priest doth forgive Sins only declarative by the way of declaration only when on the consideration of the true Faith and sincere Repentance of the Party penitent he doth declare unto him in the Name of God that his Sins are pardoned and sometimes that the Priest forgives Sins only optativè by the way of Prayers and Intercession when on the like consideration he makes his prayers unto God that the Sins of the Penitent may be pardoned Neither of which comes up unto the Doctrine of the Church of England which holdeth that the Priest forgiveth Sins authoritativè by virtue of a Power committed to him by our Lord and Saviour That the Supream power of forgiving Sins is in God alone against whose Divine Majesty all Sins of what sort soever may be truly said to be committed was never question'd by any who pretended to the Christian Faith The Power which is given to the Priest is but a delegated power such as is exercised by Judges under Soveraign Princes where they are not tied unto the Verdict of Twelve Men as with us in England who by the Power committed to them in their several Circuits and Divisions do actually absolve the party which is brought before them if on good proof they find him innocent of the Crimes he stands accused for and so discharge him of his Irons And such a power as this I say is both given to and exercised by the Priest or Presbyters in the Church of England For if they did forgive Sins only declarativè that form of Absolution which follows the general Confession in the beginning of the Common-prayer-Book would have been sufficient where the Absolution is put in the third person Or if he did forgive Sins only optativè in the way of prayers and intercession there could not be a better way of Absolution than that which is prescribed to be used by the Priest or Bishop after the general Confession made by such as
it is a Pledg to assure us thereof And so Ursinus truly saith Baptismus coena Domini sunt Sacramenta quia sunt opus Dei qui aliquid in iis nobis dat se dare testatur and he hath many Speeches to this purpose So Calvin Institut So that instrumental conveyance of the Grace signified to the due Receiver is as true an Effect or End of a Sacrament when it is duly administred as Obsignation and is praeexisting in order of Nature to Obsignation for Obsignation must be of that quod prius datur exhibetur as Mr. Beza often saith Mr. Hooker in mine Opinion doth truly explicate the Nature of Sacraments Lib. 5. Sect. 57 59 60 64 67. Nay it may seem that Obsignation is not so essential as exhibitio rei signatae for the latter may be without the former as in the Baptism of Infants where no preparation ex parte suscipientis but only Capacity and Not-resistance is sufficient ad rem signatam recipiendam All these I submit to your Lordship's Judgment and will not be contentious if any can bring that which is more demonstrative out of Scriptures Mr. Hooker saith as we say touching the efficacy of Baptism in Infants and yet holdeth the Doctrine de perseverantia fidelium as well as we do Thus fearing too much Prolixity may argue me to be unmannerly I hold my hand I know not how my Lord of Kilmore doth sort with the Irish. I perswade my self he hath godly and pious Intentions He is discreet and wise industrious and diligent and of great sufficiency many ways I do perswade my self the more your Lordship doth know him the more your Lordship will love him And this I dare say he truly honoureth and sincerely loveth your Lordship And thus with my affectionate and earnest Prayers to the God of Heaven for the continuance of your Lordship and him and my Reverend good Lord of Derry for the good of his Church and to multiply his Graces upon you and to give you all Health here and Happiness hereafter With tender of my best Service to your Lordship I commend you to the most gracious protection of the highest Majesty Your Grace's in all observance for ever Samuel Ward Sidn Coll. May 25. 1630. The Arminians as Dr. Meddus writeth to Dr. Chadderton are very factions in Amsterdam and demand justice for Barnevelt's death I fear me they will much disturb that State God keep us also LETTER CLXI Part of a Letter of the Right Reverend William Bedell Bishop of Kilmore to Dr. Ward Master of Sidney Colledg Cambridg Anno 1630 out of Bishop Bedell 's Papers A Passage in my former Letters to Mr. Doctor Ward I Thank you for the two Treatises that of my Lord of Salisbury and your own which you were pleased to communicate to me Concerning which to give you mine opinion shortly for the present This I do yield to my Lord of Sarum most willingly that the Justification Sanctification and Adoption which Children have in Baptism is not univocè the same with that which adulti have And this I likewise do yeild to you that it is vera solutio reatus veracitèr in rei veritate performed and all the like emphatical forms c. But all these sacramentalitèr and that is obsiguativè ex formulâ conditione foederis Where you make Circumcision and Baptism to be the remedy of Original Sin I think it be too specially said which is true of all Sin And so much the Text Acts 2. 38. with the rest do shew I do think also that Reprobates coming to Years of Discretion after Baptism shall be condemned for Original Sin For their Absolution and washing in Baptism was but conditional and expectative which doth truly interest them in all the Promises of God but under the condition of repenting believing and obeying which they never perform and therefore never attain the Promise Consider well what you will say of Women before Christ which had no Circumcision and of all Mankind before Circumcision was instituted and you will perceive I think the nature of Sacraments to be not as Medicines but as Seals to confirm the Covenant not to confer the Promise immediately These things I write now in exceeding post-haste in respect that this Bearer goes away so presently I only give sapienti occasionem I think the emphatical Speeches of Augustin against the Pelagians and of Prosper are not so much to be regarded who say the like of the Eucharist also touching the necessity and efficacy in the case of Infants and they are very like the Speeches of Lanfranck and Guitmund of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament opposing â—er acitèr verè to sacramentalitèr which is a false and absurd Contraposition Sed manâ—â— de Tabulâ The right Definition of a Sacrament in general will decide this Question LETTER CLXII Part of Letter from Dr. Ward to the Right Reverend William Bedell Bishop of Kilmore A Passage out of his last Letters to me May 28. AS touching the Papers which I sent you and had before sent to my Lord Primate touching the Efficacy of Baptism in Infants I would desire your Censure at your best leisure You seem in your Letter to make the principal End and Effect of all Sacraments to be Obsignation and all Sacraments to be meerly obsignatory Signs and that all ablution of Sin in Infants is only conditional and expectative of which they have no benefit till they believe and repent I cannot easily assent hereunto For so 1. Infants baptized dying in Infancy have no benefit by Baptism 2. Non-elect Infants living have no benefit at all so that to both these they are made 〈◊〉 prorsus inefficacia signa And 3. What necessity can there be of baptizing Infants if it produce no Effect till they come to years of Discretion 4. Our Divines do generally hold that the Sacraments do offer and exhibit that Grace which they signify and in order of Nature do first offer and exhibit before they assure and confirm For God doth offer and exhibit Grace promised in the Sacrament Then we exercise our Faith in relying upon God promising offering and exhibiting on his part and so receive the Grace promised and then the Sacrament assureth us of the Grace received So it is in the definition of a Sacrament in our short Catechism when it is said It is an outward visible Sign of an inward spiritual Grace given unto us ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledg to assure us thereof So that first it is a means whereby God doth offer and exhibit the Grace it signifieth which we receiving by Faith it then also becometh a pledg to assure us of the receipt thereof So the Eucharist doth first offer and exhibit growth and increase of Grace and a nearer and faster Communion with Christ's Body and Blood and all the benefits flowing thence and then it iâ— a Pledg to assure us hereof