there be any other places or other Mansions by which the Soul that believeth in God passing and coming unto that River which maketh glad the City of God may receive within it the lot of the Inheritance promised unto the Fathers For touching the determinate state of the faithful Souls departed this life the ancient Doctors as we have shewed were not so throughly resolved The Lord Primat having thus shewn in what sence many of the ancient Fathers did understand this word Hades which we translate Hell proceeds to shew that divers of them expound Christ's Descent into Hell or Hades according to the common Law of Nature which extends it self indifferently unto all that die For as Christ's Soul was in all points made like unto ours Sin only excepted while it was joined with his Body here in the Land of the Living so when he had humbled himself unto the Death it became him in all things to be made like unto his Brethren even in the state of dissolution And so indeed the Soul of Jesus had experience of both for it was in the place of human Souls and being out of the Flesh did live and subsist It was a reasonable Soul therefore and of the same substance with the flesh of Men proceeding from Mary Saith Eustathius the Patriarch of Antioch in his Exposition of that Text of the Psalm Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the place of humane Souls which in the Hebrew is the world of Spirits and by the disposing of Christ's Soul there after the manner of other Souls concludes it to be of the same nature with other Mens Souls So St. Hilary in his Exposition of the 138th Psalm This is the Law of humane Necessity saith he that the Bodies being buried the Souls should go to Hell Which descent the Lord did not refuse for the accomplishment of a true man And a little after he repeats it that desupernis ad inferos mortis lege descendit He descended from the supernal to the infernal parts by the Law of Death And upon Psal. 53. more fully To fulfil the Nature of Man he subjected himself to Death that is to a departure as it were of the Soul and Body and pierced into the infernal seats which was a thing that seemed to be due unto Man I shall not trouble you with more Quotations of this kind out of several of the ancient Greek and Latin Fathers which he makes use of in this Treatise most of them agreeing in this That Christ died and was buried and that his Soul went to that place or receptacle where the Souls of good Men do remain after Death which whether it is no more in effect but differing in terms than to say he died and was buried and rose not till the third day which the Doctor makes to be the absurdity of this Opinion I leave to the Judgment of the impartial Reader as I likewise do whether the Lord Primat deserves so severe a Censure after his shewing so great Learning as he has done concerning the various Interpretations of this word Hades or Hell both out of sacred and prophane Writers that it only serves to amaze the Ignorant and confound the Learned Or that he meant nothing less in all these Collections than to assert the Doctrine of the Church of England in this particular Or whether Christ's Local Descent into Hell can be found in the Book of Articles which he had subscribed to or in the Book of Common-Prayer which he was bound to conform to And if it be not so expressed in any of these I leave it to you to judge how far Dr. H. is to be believed in his Accusation against the Lord Primat in other matters But I doubt I have dwelt too long upon this less important Article which it seems was not thought so fundamental a one but as the Lord Primat very well observes Ruffinus in his Exposition of the Creed takes notice that in the Creed or Symbol of the Church of Rome there is not added He descended into Hell and presently adds yet the force or meaning of the word seems to be the same in that he is said to have been buried So that it seems old Ruffinus is one of those who is guilty of this Impertinency as the Doctor calls it of making Christ's descent into Hell to signifie the same with his lying in the Grave or being buried tho the same Author takes notice that the Church of Aquileia had this Article inserted in her Creed but the Church of Rome had not which sure with Men of the Doctor 's way should be a Rule to other Churches And further Card. Bellarmin noteth as the Lord Primat confesses that St. Augustin in his Book De Fide Symbolo and in his four Books de Symbolo ad Catechumenos maketh no mention of this Article when he doth expound the whole Creed five several times Which is very strange if the Creed received by the African Church had this Article in it Ruffinus further takes notice that it is not found in the Symbol of the Churches of the East by which he means the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds the latter of which is nothing else but an Explanation or more ample Enlargement of Creed Apostolical Tho this indeed be not at this day read in the Greek or other Eastern Churches or so much as known or received in that of the Copties and Abyssines But the Doctor having shown his Malice against the Lord Primat's Memory and Opinions in those Points which I hope I have sufficiently answered cannot give off so but in the next Section accuses him for inserting the nine Articles of Lambeth into those of the Church of Ireland being inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Church of England But before I answer this Accusation I shall first premise that as I do not defend or approve that Bishops or others tho never so learned Divines should take upon them to make new Articles or define and determine doubtful Questions and Controversies in Religion without being authorized by the King and Convocation so to do Yet thus much I may charitably say of those good Bishops and other Divines of the Church of England who framed and agreed upon these Articles that what they did in this matter was sincerely and as they then believed according to the Doctrine of the Church of England as either expresly contained in or else to be drawn by consequence from that Article of the Church concerning Predestination And certainly this makes stronger against the Doctor for if with him the Judgment of Bp. Bilson Bp. Andrews and Mr. Noel in their Writings be a sufficient Authority to declare the sence of the Church of England in those Questions of Christ's true and real Presence in the Sacrament and his Local Descent into Hell why should not the Judgment and Determination of the two Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York with divers other Bishops and
England and elsewhere Containing likewise divers choice matters relating to the great Controversies of those times concerning the keeping of Easter as also divers things relating to the Ecclesiastical Discipline and Jurisdiction of the Church of that Kingdom very worthy the taking notice of And I suppose about this time if not before he contracted a more intimate acquaintance with the Reverend Dr. Laud Lord Bishop of London who had for some time managed the most considerable Affairs both in Church and State And I find by divers of his Letters to the Lord Primate as well whilst he was Bishop of London as after he was advanced to the See of Canterbury that there was scarce any thing of moment concluded on or any considerable Preferment bestowed by his Majesty in the Church of Ireland without his advice and approbation which you may see by some Letters in this ensuing Collection which we have selected from divers others of lesser moment as fittest for publick view but the L. Primate always made use of his interest with the said Arch-Bishop and other great men at Court not for his own private advantage but for the common good of the Church by opposing and hindering divers Grants and Patents to some great men and Courtiers who had under-hand obtained the same and particularly he caused a Patent made to a Person of Quality of the Scotch Nation in Ireland of several Tythes to be called in and vacuated his Majesty being deceived in his Grant who would not have done any thing prejudicial to the Church had he been rightly informed of the nature of the thing and the Lord Primate was so much concerned for a competent maintenance for the Clergy in that Kingdom that he had some years before this obtained a Grant of a Patent from his Majesty to be passed in his own name though for the use of the Church of such impropriations belonging to the Crown as were then Leased out as soon as they should fall which though it did not succeed being too much neglected by those who were concerned more immediately yet it sufficiently shews my Lord's pious intentions in this matter About this time there was a Letter sent over from his late Anno 1634 Majesty to the Lord Viscount Wentworth then Lord Deputy and the Council of Ireland for determining the precedency of the Arch-Bishop of Armagh and Arch-Bishop of Dublin in respect of their Sees the latter making some pretence unto it therefore in regard of a Parliament intended by his Majesty shortly to meet it was thought fit for order's sake that controversie should be decided before their meeting In order to which he was commanded by the Lord Deputy to reduce into writing what he knew upon that subject But he not desiring to engage in so invidious an argument and which so nearly concerned himself and which he did not desire to have stirred did what he could to decline it but being still further urged and commanded to do it he did at last though unwillingly write a short and learned discourse full of excellent remarks wherein he proved the Antiquity and Primacy of his See to have preceded that of Dublin divers Ages which discourse being sent over into England the precedency was determined by his Majesty on his side as afterwards by another Letter from his Majesty and Council here he had also without his seeking the precedency given him of the Lord Chancellor which he being above such trifles were not at all able to elate him At the opening of the following Parliament he preached before the Lord Deputy Lords and Commons at St. Patrick's Dublin his Text was Genes 49. 10. The Scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a Law-giver from between his feet till Shiloh come and to him shall the gathering of the People be And in the Convocation which was now Assembled the Lord Primate at the instrance of the Lord Deputy and Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury thought fit to propose That to express the agreement of the Church of Ireland with that of England both in Doctrine and Discipline the Thirty Nine Articles should be received by the Church of Ireland which Proposal was thereupon consented to by both Houses of Convocation and the said Articles were declared to be the Confession of Faith of the Church of Ireland but without abrogating or excluding the former Articles made 1615 either by that Convocation or Parliament as two several Writers of those times viz. a Church and Civil Historian have without ground reported them to be And though the latter was at last brought to confess his Error of their being Repealed by Autority of Parliament yet he still insisted That the reception of the Articles of the Church of England though it be not an express yet is a tacite annulling of the former instancing in the Old Covenant which St. Paul proves to be abrogated by the giving of a New which were a good Argument if the Articles of the Church of England were as inconsistent with those of Ireland as those two Covenants are with each other but if they differ no more than the Nicene does from the Apostles Creed which though it contains more yet does not Annul the former then without doubt the receiving of the Articles of the Church of England was no abrogation of those of Ireland But since it is not my design to write Controversies I shall not enter farther into this Argument but shall leave the Reader to consider whether the instances brought by the Historian to prove the Articles of these two Churches to be inconsistent are convincing or not and shall say no more on this ungrateful subject but that it is highly improbable that the Lord Primate should be so outwitted by the Lord Deputy or his Chaplains as the Historian makes him to have been in this affair but that he very well understood the Articles of both Churches and did then know that they were so far from being inconsistent or contradictory to each other that he thought the Irish Articles did only contain the Doctrine of the Church of England more fully or else he would never have been so easily perswaded to an Act which would amount to a Repeal of those Articles which as hath been already said he himself made and drew up And for a farther proof that this was the sense not only of himself but of most of the rest of the Bishops at that time they always at all Ordinations took the subscription of the Party Ordained to both Articles the Articles of England not being received instead but with those of Ireland as Dr. Bernard hath informed us which course was continued by the Lord Primate and most part of the Bishops till the confusion of that Church by the Irish Rebellion And if at this day the subscription to the Thirty Nine Articles be now only required of the Clergy of that Kingdom I suppose it is purely out of prudential considerations that any divine or other person of that
Primis Haereticis Haeresibus Judaeorum Annotationes Rabbinicae ex Scriptis Rabbinorum eorum Scarae Scripturae Interpretum Imperatorum Christianorum à Constantino magno usque ad Justinianum Constitutiones Epistolae collectae recensitae Veterum Anglo-Saxorum Monumenta Anglo-Saxonicarum Epistolarum Sylloge ex variis Manuscriptis Epistolae Alcuini variae ad diversos Missae ineditae in Bibliothecâ Cottonianâ Manuscriptis collectae recensitae Epistolae venerabilis Archiepiscop Lanfranci ad diversos Missae ex antiquissimo exemplari Bibliothecae Cottonianae collectae recensitae Collectiones Genealogicae Historicae Mathematicae Astrologicae Chronologicae Theologicae variae de quibus passim judicium fertur Memorandum THat out of the forementioned Manuscripts the Incomparable Sir Math. Hale late Lord Chief Justice having borrowed them extracted those four Volumes which he calls Chronological Remembrances extracted out of thë Notes of Bishop Usher mentioned in the Catalogue of his Manuscripts which he Left to the Honourable Society of Lincolns-Inn Besides those Manuscripts above cited the Primate Usher had Written his Polemical Lectures in the University of Dublin while professor there touching the Points in Controversie between the Protestants and Pontificians 3 Volumes 4 to Lost His Lectures pro formâ when he commenced Dr. of Divinity touching the 70 Weeks Dan. 9. 24. and de Mille Annis mentioned Apocal. 20. 4. Lost His Treatise of the Hermage and Corban Lands in England and Ireland yet to be seen in Bibliothecâ Lambethianâ His Collections and Observations touching the Advancement and Restauration of our Northern Antiquities in the Gothick Anglo-Saxonick and the like obscure Languages and also concerning the Doxology found in the very Ancient Gospels in Gothick His Numerous Epistles Latin and English touching matters of Learning and Religion many of them now Printed in Collection with others An APPENDIX to the Life of the Lord Primate USHER containing a vindication of his Opinions and Actions in reference to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England and his Conformity thereunto from the Aspersions of Peter Heylin D. D. in his Pamphlet called Respondet Petrus FInding that Dr. Heylin hath taken the pains to write this Book on purpose to callumniate and asperse the Lord Primates Memory and arraign his Opinions and Actions as not conformable to the Doctrines of the Church of England I cannot well omit to consider what that Author hath there laid to his charge how justly I shall leave to the impartial Reader to judg for I hope I shall make it appear that what the Lord Primate hath either publish'd or written in private Letters on those Subjects was on very good grounds and such as may very well be defended as agreeable to the Sence and Doctrine of our Church contained in the 39 Articles Or if after all I can say the Reader shall happen to think otherwise I desire him not to censure too hardly but to pass it by since such difference if any be was not in the fundamental Doctrines of our Religion but only some Points of lesser moment or in which the Church it self has not tied men either to this or that sence and that the Lord Primate held these Opinions not out of contradiction or singularity but only because he thought them more agreeable to Scripture and Reason tho in most of them I doubt not but to shew that the Doctor has stretched the Lord Primate's words farther than ever his own sence and meaning was But to come to the Points in which the Doctor hath made bold to question his Judgment the first is his Opinion of the Divine Morality of the Sabbath or Seventh days rest asserted by him in two several Letters published tho perhaps not so prudently with those private reflections by Dr. Bernard in which Controversy whether the Authorities made use of by the Lord Primate out of the Fathers and other Writers do not make out the Assertion by him laid down or whether the Doctor has fairly and ingenuously answered those Quotations he cites in those Letters I shall not here take upon me to examine but shall observe thus much That as it is a Doctrine held by some of the Fathers as also maintained by divers learned Divines and Bishops of our Church and therefore could not be so Puritanical as the Doctor would have it especially since the Lord Primate thought that he had the Church of England on his side as she hath declared her sence of this matter in the first part of the Homily of the time and place of Prayer viz. God hath given express charge to all Men that upon the Sabbath day which is now our Sunday they shall cease from all weekly and work-day labour to the intent that like as God himself wrought six days and rested the seventh and blessed and consecrated it to quietness and rest from labour even so God's obedient People should use the Sunday holily and rest from their common and daily business and also give themselves wholly to the heavenly exercise of God's true Religion and Service Which passage being expresly in the point of my Lord Primat's side the Sabbath day mentioned in the fourth Commandment being there called our Sunday and the same reason laid down for its observation viz. because God had rested on the seventh day c. The Doctor has no way to oppose this so express Authority but to make if possible this Homily to contradict it self and therefore he produces another passage just preceding in this Homily as making for his Opinion which that you may judge whether it does so or no I shall put down the passage as he himself hath cited it with his Conclusions from it and shall then further examine whether it makes so much of his side as he would have it viz. As concerning the time in which God hath appointed his People to assemble together solemnly it doth appear by the fourth Commandment c. And albeit this Commandment of God doth not bind Christian People so strictly to observe and keep the utter Ceremonies of the Sabbath day as it was given unto the Jews as touching the forbearing of work and labour and as touching the precise keeping of the seventh day after the manner of the Jews for we keep now the first day which is our Sunday and make that our Sabbath that is our day of rest in honour of our Saviour Christ who upon that day rose from death conquering the same most triumphantly yet notwithstanding whatsoever is found in the Commandment appertaining to the Law of Nature as a thing most godly most just and needful for the setting forth of God's Glory ought to be retained and kept of all good Christian People So that it being thus resolved that there is no more of the fourth Commandment to be retained by good Christian People than what is found appertaining to the Law of Nature and that the Law of Nature doth not tie us to one day in seven
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
judicio praeterquam suo Praesul verè Magnus Qui Ecclesiam Veterum institutis Clerum suo Exemplo Populum Concionibus Affidue instruxit Chronologiam sacram pristino nitori restituit Bonarum artium Professores Inopia Afflictos Munificentiâ sublevavit Denique qui Haereses repullulantes calamo erudito contudit His ingenii dotibus his animi virtutibus ornatus Praesul optimus piissimus meritissimus Cum inter bella Civilia Ecclesiae Patriae suae funesta Sibique Luctuosa Nec Ecclesiae nec Patriae diutius prodesse poterat In Christo pacis Authore placide obdormivit Anno Aerae Christianae 1655. Aetatis suae 76. Riegat in Comitatu Surrey Martii 21. Obiit Sepultus apud Westmonast In Hen. 7mi Capellâ Apr. 5. 1656. A Catalogue of the Lord Primate James Usher's Works and Writings already Printed In Latin DE Ecclesiarum Christianarum Successione Statu cum Explicatione Quaestionis de Statu Ecclesiarum in partibus praesertim occidentis à tempore Apostolorum De primordiis Ecclesiarum Britannicarum Epistolarum Hibernicarum Sylloge Historia Gotes-Chalci Polycarpi Ignatii Epistolae Graec. Lat. cum desertatione de eorum Scriptis deque Apostolicis Canonibus Constitutionibus Clementi tributis Appendix Ignatiana De Romanae Ecclesiae Symbolo Apostolico vetere aliis fidei formulis De Anno solari Macedonum Epistola ad Lodovicum Capellum de textus Hebr. variantibus Lectionibus Annales Vet. Test. Annales N. Test. Chronologia Sacra De Graecâ Septuaginta Interpretum versione Syntagma Desertatio de Cainane In English AN Answer to Malon the Jesuits Challenge The Religion professed by the Ancient Irish and Britains A Sermon Preached before the House of Commons Westminster A Sermon of the Visibility of the Church Preached before King James Jun. 25 1624. A Speech delivered in the Castle Chamber Dublin concerning the Lawfulness of taking and danger of refusing the Oath of Supremacy Nov. 22. 1622. A Speech in the same Place upon the denial to contribute for the Supply of the Kings Army for the defence of the Government April 30 1627. Immanuel or the Mistery of the Incarnation of the Son of God A Geographical Description of the lesser Asia A Discourse of Bishops and Metropolitans A small Catechism entitled the Principles of Christian Religion with a brief Method of the Doctrine thereof His Annals of the Old and New Testament Translated into English with the Synchronisms of the Heathen Story to the destruction of Jerusalem The Power of the Prince and Obedience of the Subject stated with a Preface by Dr. Robert Sanderson late Bishop of Lincoln Published from the Original Copy written with his own hand by James Tyrrell Esq Grandson to the Lord Primate A Body of Divinity or the Summ and Substance of Christian Religion by way of Question and Answer collected by himself in his younger years for his own private Use and through the Importunity of some Friends communicated to them but not with a Design to be Printed though afterwards published by others with good Acceptance A Volume of Sermons in Folio Preached at Oxford before his Majesty and elsewhere published since his Death These that follow were gathered out of the Fragments of the Lord Primate and Published since his Death by Dr. Bernard HIS Judgment and Sense of the State of the present See of Rome from Apocal. 18. 4. Ordination a Fundamental His Sense of Hebrews 6. 2. Of the use of a Set form of Prayer in the Church The extent of Christs Death and Satisfaction with an Answer to the Exceptions taken against it Of the Sabbath and Observation of the Lords Day His Judgment and Sense of John 20. 22. 23. Receive ye the Holy-Ghost Whose Sins ye Remit c. A Catalogue of the Lord Primate Ushers own Manuscripts of various Subjects not Printed Lemmata Manuscriptorum CEnsura Patrum aliorum Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum five Bibliotheca Theologica Historiae dogmaticae Quaestionum inter Orthodoxos Pontificios Controversarum Specimen in Quaestione de Communi Sacrarum Scripturarum usu contra Scripturarum lucifugas De veterum Pascalibus Scriptis de ratione Paschali quibus computi Ecclesiastici in Universo orbe Christiano ante Gregorianam reformationem apperiuntur ex vetustissimis Manuscriptis codicibus notis Illustratum Veterum de tempore Passionis Dominicae Phaschalis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Variae Lectiones Collationes Vet. Nov. Instrumenti 1. Genesis Longe antiquissimum exemplar Graecum Cottonianum cum editione Francofurtensi Collatum 2. Collatio Psalterii à B. Hieronymo ex Heb. conversi à Jacobo Fabro Parisiis An. 1513. editi cum aliis exemplaribus Manuscriptis Impressis 3. Annotationes variarum Lectionum in Psalmis juxta Masoreth Judaeorum five cum notâ aliquâ Masoreticâ 4. Psalterium cum versione Saxonicâ interlineatâ in Bibliothecâ Salisburiensis Ecclesiae 5. Psalterium Gallicum cum Romano collatum Hebraico 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oppositum Manuscripto in Westmonasteriensis Ecclesiae Bibliothecâ 6. Collatio Canticorum utriusque Testamenti cum editione vulgatâ Latinâ 7. Variae Lectiones Collationes N. Test. ex vetustissimis Exemplaribus 8. Collatio editionis Chronici Eusebii à Josepho Scaligero edit cum Manuscripto è Regiâ Bibliothecâ 9. Collatio variorum Pentateuchi Samaritani Exemplarium cum notis Observationibus 10. Chronologia Legum Codicis Theodosiani Justiniani collata cum Malmesburiensi Manuscripto Julianae Periodi ad Juliani anni usum vulgaris aerae Christianae ad anni Juliani pariter Gregoriani Methodum accommodatae fixa jam Epochâ cum Tabulâ reductionis dierum Anni Juliani veteris ad dies Anni Gregoriani Novi hodie usitati in pluribus partibus orbis Ratio Bissextorum literarum Dominicarum Equinoctiorum Festorum Christianorum tam mobilium quam immobilium De Institutione Chronologicâ viz. De Tempore illius Mensurâ de Die ejusque partibus de horis scrupulis de Hebdomadibus Mensibus de Anno Astronomico de variâ Annorum Supputatione Secundum Graeca Exemplaria De differentiâ circuli spherae de cursu septem Planetarum Signorum Coelestium de quinque Parall in sphera Zonasdistinguent Veteres Observationes Coelestes Chaldaicae Graecae Aegyptiacae Insigniorum Imperiorum Regnorum quae ante Christi adventum in orbe floruerunt successiones et tempora ad usum veteris Historiae studiosorum eorum praesertim qui exoticam Chronologiam cum Sacra conferre cupiunt Series Chronologica Syriaca Regum Imperatorum Babylonicorum Persarum Graecorum Romanorum à Nebuchadnezzar ad Vespasianum ab Anno Mundi 4915. ad Annum 5585. De fastis Magistratuum Coss. Triumphorum Romanorum ab Urbe Condita usque ad excessum Caesaris Augusti ex fragmentis Marmoreis foro Romano effossis à doctissimis nostri temporis Chronographis suppletis Catalogus Consulum ex variis Authoribus De Ponderibus Mensuris De
stood in the Church of England at the time of the making this Homily and therefore he has put down the Proem of an Act of Parliament of the fifth and sixth years of Edward the 6th concerning Holy-days by which he would have the Lord's day to stand on no other ground but the Authority of the Church not as enjoyned by Christ or ordained by any of his Apostles Which Statute whosoever shall be pleased to peruse may easily see that this Proem he mentions relates only to Holy days and not to Sundays as you may observe from this passage viz. which holy Works as they may be called God's Service so the times especially appointed for the same are called Holy-days not for the matter or nature either of the time or day c. which title of Holy-days was never applied to Sundays either in a vulgar or legal acceptation And tho the Doctor fancied this Act was in force at the time when this Homily was made and therefore must by no means contradict so sacred an Authority as that of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled in Parliament because this Act tho repealed by Queen Mary he would have to be revived again the first year of Queen Elizabeth and so to stand in force at the time of making this Homily whereas whoever consults our Statute-Book will find that this Statute of King Edward the 6th was not revived nor in force till the first of King James when the Repeal of this Statute was again repealed tho certainly the reviving of that or any other Statute does not make their Proems which are often very carelesly drawn to be in every clause either good Law or Gospel But tho the Doctor in other things abhors the Temporal Powers having any thing to do in matters of Religion yet if it make for his Opinion then the Authority of a Parliament shall be as good as that of a Convocation But I have dwelt too long upon this Head which I could not well contract if I spoke any thing at all to justifie the Lord Primat's Judgment in this so material a Doctrine The next Point that the Doctor lays to the Lord Primat's charge as not according to the Church of England is a passage in a Letter to Dr. Bernard and by him published in the Book intituled The Judgment of the late Primat of Ireland c. viz. That he ever declared his Opinion to be that Episcopus Presbyter gradu tantum differunt non ordine and consequently that in places where Bishops cannot be had the Ordination by Presbyters standeth valid And however saith he I must needs think that the Churches in France who living under a Popish Power and cannot do what they would are more excusable in that defect than those of the Low-Countries that live under a Free-State yet for the testifying my communion with these Churches which I do love and honour as true members of the Church Universal I do profess that with like affection I should receive the blessed Sacrament at the hands of the Dutch Ministers if I were in Holland as I should do at the hands of the French Ministers if I were at Charenton Which Opinion as I cannot deny to have been my Lord Primat's since I find the same written almost verbatim with his own hand dated Nov. 26. 1655 in a private Note-Book not many months before his death with the addition of this clause at the beginning viz. Yet on the other side holding as I do That a Bishop hath Superiority in degree above Presbyters you may easily judg that the Ordination made by such Presbyters as have severed themselves from their Bishops cannot possibly by me be excused from being schismatical And concluding with another clause viz. for the agreement or disagreement in radical and fundamental Doctrines not the consonancy or dissonancy in the particular points of Ecclesiastical Government is with me and I hope with every man that mindeth Peace the rule of adhering to or receding from the Communion of any Church And that the Lord Primate was always of this Opinion I find by another Note of his own hand written in another Book many years before this in these words viz. The intrinsecal power of Ordaining proceedeth not from Jurisdiction but only from Order But a Presbyter hath the same Order in specie with a Bishop Ergo A Presbyter hath equally an intrinsecal power to give Orders and is equal to him in the power of Order the Bishop having no higher degree in respect of intension or extention of the character of Order tho he hath an higher degree i. e. a more eminent place in respect of Authority and Jurisdiction in Spiritual Regiment Again The Papists teach that the confirmation of the Baptized is proper to a Bishop as proceeding from the Episcopal Character as well as Ordination and yet in some cases may be communicated to a Presbyter and much more therefore in regard of the over-ruling Commands of invincible necessity although the right of Baptising was given by Christ's own Commission to the Apostles and their Successors and yet in case of Necessity allowed to Lay-men even so Ordination might be devolved to Presbyters in case of Necessity These passages perhaps may seem to some Men inconsistent with what the Lord Primate hath written in some of his printed Treatises and particularly that of the Original of Episcopacy wherein he proves from Rev. 2. 1. that the Stars there described in our blessed Saviour's right hand to be the Angels of the seven Churches 2. That these Angels were the several Bishops of those Churches and not the whole Colledg of Presbyters as Mr. Brightman would have it 3. Nor has he proved Archbishops less ancient each of these seven Churches being at that time a Metropolis which had several Bishops under it and 4 that these Bishops and Archbishops were ordained by the Apostles as constant permanent Officers in the Church and so in some sort Jure Divino that is in St. Hierom's sence were ordained by the Apostles for the better conferring of Orders and for preventing of Schisms which would otherwise arise among Presbyters if they had been all left equal and independent to each other And that this may very well consist with their being in some cases of Necessity not absolutely necessary in some Churches is proved by the Learned Mr. Mason in his defence of the Ordination of Ministers beyond the Seas where there are no Bishops in which he proves at large against the Papists that make this Objection from their own Schoolmen and Canonists and that tho a Bishop receives a Sacred Office Eminency in Degree and a larger Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction than a Presbyter yet that all these do not confer an absolute distinct Order and yet that Bishops are still Jure Divino that is by the Ordinance of God since they were ordained by the Apostles and whereunto they were directed by God's Holy Spirit and in that sence are the Ordinance of
God But if by Jure Divino you would understand a Law binding all Christian Churches universally perpetually unchangeably and with such absolute Necessity that no other form of Regiment may in any case be admitted in this sence we cannot grant it to be Jure Divino And much of the same Opinion is the Learned Bishop Davenant in his Treatise So that you see here that as Learned Men and as stout Asserters of Episcopacy as any the Church of England hath had have been of the Lord Primat's Judgment in this matter tho without any design to lessen the Order of Bishops or to take away their use in the Church since Mr. Mason in the said Treatise tho he grants the French Churches having a constant President of the Presbytery to enjoy the substance of the Episcopal Office Yet whereas their Discipline is still very defective he wishes them in the bowels of Christ by all means to redress and reform it and to conform themselves to the ancient Custom of the Church of Christ So that I hope after all this Question Whether Episcopacy be Ordo or Gradus will prove only a difference in words rather than substance between those of the Lord Primat's Judgment and those of the contrary since they are both agreed in the main Points in controve sie between them and the Presbyterians viz. That Bishops were ordained in the Church by the Apostles themselves from the direction or at least approbation of our Saviour himself being the Stars which St. John saw in his Vision in our Lord Christ's own Hand and that they are permanent immutable Officers in the Church which cannot subsist without it but in Cases of pure Necessity And lastly that those Presbyters which in Churches founded and setled with Bishops do separate from them are guilty of Schism These things being agreed upon on both sides I think the rest of the Controversie is not worth contending about But if any Learned Persons of the Church of England who are well vers'd in the Writings of the Fathers and other ancient Monuments of the Church have already proved or can further make out that Episcopacy has always been an absolute distinct Order as well as Office in the Church I suppose the Lord Primate were he now alive would be so far from opposing them that he would heartily thank them for giving him greater light provided it could be done without unchurching all those Protestant Churches abroad vvho want Bishops And I hope however if the Lord Primat may be thought by the Doctor or others not to go high enough in this matter nor sufficiently to magnifie his own Office yet that he may well be pardoned since it proceeded from his excess of Humility and Charity towards our neighbouring-Churches to whom no good Protestants ought to deny the right-hand of fellowship The third Point which the Doctor will have the Lord Primat to hold contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England which he says maintains an Universal Redemption of all Mankind by the Sufferings and Death of Christ as is proved by the Prayer of Consecration of the sacred Elements in the Sacrament which declares that God hath given to his Son Jesus Christ by his suffering death upon the Cross and by the Oblation of himself a full and sufficient Sacrifice Oblation and Satisfaction for the Sins of the whole World And also that in the publick Catechism the party catechised is taught to believe in God the Son who hath redeemed him and all Mankind But that in this Point the Lord Primat is of a contrary Judgment to the Church of England For as he seems not to like their opinion who contradict the riches of Christ's Satisfaction into too narrow a room as if none had any interest therein but such as were elected before the foundation of the World so he declareth his dislike of the other Extream as he is pleased to call it by which the benefit of this Satisfaction is extended to the Redemption of all Mankind The one Extremity saith he extends the benefit of Christ's Satisfaction so far ut reconciliationem cum Deo Peccatorem Remissionem singulis impetraverit as to obtain a Reconciliation with God and a Remission of Sins for all Men at his merciful hands p. 21. which tho they are the words of the Remonstrants at the Conference at the Hague Anno 1611 and are by him reckoned for untrue yet do they naturally result from the Doctrine of Universal Redemption which is maintained in the Church of England not that all Mankind is so perfectly reconciled to Almighty God as to be really and actually discharged from all their Sins before they actually believe which the Lord Primate makes to be the meaning and effect of that Extremity as he calls it p. 2. but that they are so far reconciled unto Him as to be capable of the remission of their Sins in case they do not want that Faith in their common Saviour which is required thereunto And here the Doctor thinks he finds out two notable Contradictions in the Lord Primat's Letter of the Year 1617 since in one part thereof he seems to dislike of their Opinion 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 as before was said And in the other he declares that he is well assured that our Saviour hath obtained at the hands of his Father Reconciliation and Forgiveness of Sins not for the Reprobate but Elect only p. â—1 Now the Doctor has done his worst Yet I hope to prove that tho there may be a difference between my Lord Primat's way of explaining this Doctrine and that of the Doctor 's which proceeds indeed from the different Notions they had of Election and Reprobation Yet that there is no such formidable Contradiction in these two Propositions of my Lord Primat's by him laid down as the Doctor fancies or that the L. Primat hath maintained any thing in this Doctrine contrary to that of the Church of England for 1. the Doctor owns that all Mankind is not so perfectly reconciled to Almighty God as to be really and actually discharged from all their Sins before they actually believe but that they are so far reconciled unto him as to be capable of the remission of their Sins in case they do not want that Faith in their common Saviour which is required thereunto Now what will the Doctor get by these words if they are so far reconciled to him as to be capable of the remission of their Sins in case they do not want that Faith which is required thereunto since the Question still remains between the Lord Primat and those of the contrary Opinion Whether all Men can obtain without the aid of Grace this saving Faith which is required thereunto Our Saviour says the direct contrary Joh. 6. 44 65. No Man can come to me except the
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
of the Papists when he urges these words I absolve thee from all thy Sins as an Argument of the Priests power to forgive Sins authoritative and as if this Form had something more in it or could work further towards the remission of the Sins of the Penitent than any of the rest I shall leave it to the Reader Whereas whosoever will consider the Office of the Priest will find that it is not like that of a Judg or a Vice-Roy as the Doctor would have it under a Soveraign Prince who has power not only to declare the person absolved from his Crimes but also may reprieve or pardon him when guilty or condemn him tho innocent neither of which perhaps the Prince himself by whose Commission he acts would do whereas the Priest whatever power he has delegated from God vvhich I do not deny yet it is still only declarative and conditional according to the sincerity of the Repentance in the person absolved For as his Absolution signifies nothing if the Repentance of the Penitent or dying person be not real and sincere so neither can he hinder God from pardoning him if it be so indeed tho he should be so wicked or uncharitable as to deny him the benefit of this Absolution if he desire it so that the Office of the Priest in this matter rather resembleth that of an Herald who has a Commission from his Prince to proclaim and declare Pardon to a company of Rebels who have already submitted themselves and promised Obedience to their Prince which Pardon as it signifies nothing if they still continue in their Rebellion so tho the Herald alone has the power of declaring this Pardon yet it is only in the Name and by the Authority of his Prince who had passed this Pardon in his own Breast before ever the Herald published it to the Offenders so that it is in this sence only that the Priest can say thus By his Authority viz. of our Lord Jesus Christ committed to me I absolve thee from all thy Sins since he does this not as Christ's Vicar or Judg under him but as his Herald or Ambassador or as St. Paul words it In the Person of Christ forgives our Offences Yet still conditionally that we are really penitent and consequently is not effective but only declarative of that Forgiveness I shall now in the last place shew you that the Church of England understands it in no other sence but this alone and that if it did it would make it all one with that of the Papists First That the Form of Absolution which follows the general Confession is only declarative the Doctor himself grants so likewise that before the Communion is only optative in the way of prayer and intercession and consequently no other than declarative or conditional and therefore that the Absolution to particular Penitents both in order to receive the Communion as also in the Visitation of the Sick are no other likewise than declarative appears from the great tenderness of the Church of England in this matter not enjoining but only advising the Penitent in either case to make any special Confession of his Sins to the Priest in which case alone this Absolution is supposed to be necessary unless he cannot quiet his Conscience without it or if he feel his Conscience troubled vvith any weighty matter after which Confession the Priest shall absolve him But our Church does not declare that either the Penitent is obliged to make any such special Confession to the Priest either before the Sacrament or at the point of Death or that any person cannot obtain remission of their Sins without Absolution as the Church of Rome asserts so that it seems our Church's Absolution in all these cases is no other than declarative and for the quieting of the Conscience of the Penitent if he find himself so troubled in mind that he thinks he cannot obtain pardon from God without it Tho the Priest as the Herald above-mentioned whose Office it is to proclaim the King's Pardon still absolves authoriative and could not do it unless he were authorized by Jesus Christ for that purpose And if the Doctor or any other will maintain any higher Absolution than this it must be that of the Church of Rome where a small Attrition or sorrow for Sin by virtue of the Keys that is the Absolution of the Priest is made Contrition and the Penitent is immediately absolved from all his Sins tho perhaps he commit the same again as soon as ever he has done the penance enjoyned And that the pious and judicious Mr. Hooker who certainly understood the Doctrine of the Church of England as well as Dr. H. agrees fully with the Lord Primat in this matter appears from his sixth Book of Ecclesiastical Policy where after his declaring with the Lord Primat that for any thing he could ever observe those Formalities the Church of Rome do so much esteem of were not of such estimation nor thought to be of absolute necessity with the ancient Fathers and that the Form with them was with Invocation or praying for the Penitent that God would be reconciled unto him for which he produces St. Ambrose St. Hierom and Leo c. p. 96. he thus declares his Judgment viz. As for the Ministerial Sentence of privat Absolution it can be no more than a declaration what God hath done it hath but the force of the Prophet Nathan's Absolution God hath taken away thy Sins than which construction especially of words judicial there is nothing more vulgar For example the Publicans are said in the Gospel to have justified God the Jews in Malachy to have blessed the proud man which sin and prosper not that the one did make God righteous or the other the wicked happy but to bless to justifie and to absolve are as commonly used for words of Judgment or Declaration as of true and real efficacy yea even by the Opinion of the Master of the Sentences c. Priests are authorized to loose and bind that is to say declare who are bound and who are loosed The last Point in which the Doctor taxes the Lord Primat as differing from the Church of England is in the Article of Christ's descent into Hell The Church of England says he maintains a Local Descent that is to say That the Soul of Christ at such time as his Body lay in the Grave did locally descend into the nethermost parts in which the Devil and his Angels are reserved in everlasting Chains of Darkness unto the Judgment of the great and terrible Day This is proved at large by Bishop Bilson in his learned and laborious Work entitled The Survey of Christ's Sufferings And that this was the meaning of the first Reformers when this Article amongst others was first agreed upon in the first Convocation of the Year 1552 appears by that passage of St. Peter which is cited by them touching Christ's preaching to the Spirits which were in prison And tho
that passage be left out of the present Article according as it passed in the Convocation of the Year 1562 yet cannot it be used as an Argument to prove that the Church hath altered her Judgment in that Point as some Men would have it that passage being left out for these Reasons following For first that passage was conceived to make the Article too inclinable to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which makes the chief end of Christ's descent into Hell to be the fetching thence the Souls of the Fathers who died before and under the Law And secondly because it was conceived by some Learned Men that the Text was capable of some other construction than to be used for an Argument of this Descent The Judgment of the Church continues still the same as before it was and is as plain and positive for a Local Descent as ever she had not else left this Article in the same place in which she found it or given it the same distinct Title as before it had viz. De Descensu Christi ad Inferos in the Latin Copies of King Edward the 6th that is to say Of the going down of Christ into Hell as in the English Copies of Queen Elizabeth's Reign Nor indeed was there any reason why this Article should have any distinct place or title at all unless the maintenance of a Local Descent were intended by it For having spoken in the former Article of Christ's Suffering Crucifying Death and Burial it had been a very great Impertinency not to call it worse to make a distinct Article of his descending into Hell if to descend into Hell did signifie the same with this being buried as some Men then fancied or that there were not in it some further meaning which might deserve a place distinct from his Death and Burial The Article speaking thus viz. as Christ died for us and was buried so is it to be believed that he went down into Hell is either to be understood of a Local Descent or else we are tied to believe nothing by it but what was explicitly or implicitly comprehended in the former Article And lastly That Mr. Alex. Noel before mentioned who being Prolocutor of the Convocation in the Year 1562 when this Article was disputed approved and ratified cannot in reason be supposed to be ignorant of the true sence and meaning of this Church in that particular And he in his Catechism above mentioned declares that Christ descended in his Body into the bowels of the Earth and in his Soul separated from that Body he descended also into Hell by means whereof the power and efficacy of his Death was not made known only to the Dead but the Devils themselves insomuch that both the Souls of the Unbelievers did sensibly perceive that Condemnation which was most justly due to them for their Incredulity and Satan himself the Prince of Devils did as plainly see that his tyranny and all the Powers of Darkness were opprest ruined and destroyed But on the contrary the L. Primat allows not any such Local Descent as is maintained by the Church and defended by the most learned Members of it who have left us any thing in writing about this Article And yet he neither followeth the Opinion of Calvin himself nor of the generality of those of the Calvinian Party who herein differ from their Master but goes a new way of a later discovery in which although he had few Leaders he hath found many Followers By Christ's descending into Hell he would have nothing else to be understood but his continuing in the state of separation between the Body and the Soul his remaining under the power of Death during the time he lay buried in the Grave which is no more in effect tho it differ somewhat in the terms than to say that he died and was buried and rose not till the third day as the Creed instructs us In vindication of the Lord Primat's Judgment in the sence of this Article I shall lay down some previous Considerations to excuse him if perhaps he differed from the sence of the Church of England in this Article if it should appear that it ought to be understood in a strict and literal sence For first you must understand that this Article of Christ's Descent into Hell is not inserted amongst the Articles of the Church of Ireland which were the Confession of Faith of that Church when the Lord Primat writ this Answer to the Jesuit the Articles of the Church of England amongst which this of Christ's Descent into Hell is one not being received by the Church of Ireland till the Year 1634 ten years after the publishing of this Book so that he could not be accused for differing from those Articles which he was not then obliged to receive or subscribe to 2dly Had this Article been then inserted and expressed in the very same words as it is in those of the Church of England could he be accused of being Heterodox for not understanding it as the Doctor does of a Local Descent of Christ's Soul into Hell or the places of Torment since the Church of England is so modest as only to assert that it is to be believed that he went down into Hell without specifying in what sence she understand it For as the Lord Primat very learnedly proves in this Treatise the word Hell in old Saxon signifies no more than hidden or covered so that in the original propriety of the word our Hell doth exactly answer the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which denotes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the place which is unseen or removed from the sight of man So that the word Hell signifies the same with Hades in the Greek and Inferi in the Latin Concerning which St. Augustin gives us this Note The name of Hell in Latin Inferi is variously put in Scriptures and in many meanings according as the sence of the things which are intreated of do require And Mr. Casaubon who understood the property of Greek and Latin words as well as any this other They who think that Hades is properly the seat of the Damned be no less deceived than they who when they reade Inferos in Latin Writers do interpret it of the same place Whereupon the Lord Primat proceeds to shew That by Hell in divers places of Scripture is not to be understood the place of the Wicked or Damned but of the Dead in general as in Psal. 89. 48. What Man is he that liveth and shall not see Death shall he deliver his Soul from the hand of Hell And Esa. 38. 18 19. Hell cannot praise thee Death cannot celebrate thee they that go down into the Pit cannot hope for thy Truth The Living the Living he shall praise thee as I do this day Where the opposition betwixt Hell and the state of Life in this World is to be observed Therefore since the word Hell does not necessarily imply a place of Torment either in Scriptures or
ancient Authors and that Christ's descent into Hell is not to be proved from any express place of Scripture as the Doctor himself grants since upon the review of the Articles of our Church past in Edward the sixth's time this passage of St. Peter of Christ's preaching to the Spirits in Prison was left out in the present Articles of our Church as not well bearing that interpretation And that the learned Grotius and Dr. Hammond have in their Comments on the New Testament explained this place in a quite different sence So that all the light we can receive as to this Article of our Creed must be sought for in the ancient Fathers of the Church whose Opinions in this point are various and uncertain as the Lord Primat sufficiently sets forth in this Treatise some of them understanding by this word Hell or Hades Abraham's Bosom or place of Happiness whither the Angels carried Lazarus or that Paradise in which our Saviour promised the good Thief he should be with him So that this sort of Hell can have no great difference from Heaven it self Others of them will have our Saviour descend into Hell or some out-skirts of it which were no places of Torment only that he might make the Patriarchs and Prophets a Visit whom they supposed to be there detained tho he did not fetch them from thence Others as St. Jerom St. Augustine and others suppose Christ to have descended into Hell or the place of Torment to bring forth such Souls of his as he found there Others that he went thither to preach and to bring from thence all the Souls of the Heathens that heard then and believed his Preaching Others again that he emptied Hell of all its Prisoners and left the Devils there alone Which Opinion tho very untrue was maintained by St. Cyril and others into which Error they were led by the superficial consideration of those words of St. Peter above-mentioned From which difference and variety of Opinions we may learn that as the Fathers were not Infallible so this Opinion of Christ's Local Descent into Hell as a place of Torment was not generally agreed on amongst them no more than the Reasons for which he should go thither And therefore sure our more Modern Authors as Bp. Bilson and Mr. Noel could be no more certain than the Fathers themselves in what sence our Saviour descended into Hell or what business he had to do there Especially since this Article of our Church only says we must believe he went down into Hell without specifying in what sence he went thither which she might easily have done if she had not thought it better to leave Men to their liberty to put what reasonable sence they should think fit upon so obscure and doubtful an Article and which has so little influence upon our Faith or Manners supposed to be taken in one or the other sence Therefore I cannot see how the Lord Primat deserves to be blamed if in a matter of so great uncertainty and variety of Opinions he followed some of the most sober of the Fathers who did not understand Christ's descent into Hell or Hades to be understood of any local descent into a place of Torment And that the Lord Primat was not the first Discoverer or Broacher as the Doctor would have him of this Interpretation of Hades or Hell for the state of Souls as separate from their Bodies I shall shew you from several Quotations the Lord Primat makes use of out of the Fathers and other ancient Authors to this purpose First as for the Heathen or prophane Writers he shews out of Plato and other Philosophers and Poets that the word Hades signifies a general invisible future state of the Soul after it is separated from the Body consisting of two places one of Bliss and the other of Torment according to the nature and actions of the Soul whilst it was united with the Body and which places they fancied to be as far beneath the Earth as the Heaven is from it for they imagined that the Earth was not round but flat and that the Sea and Skies did meet So that most of the ancient Fathers having no notion of the roundness of the Earth and of its being encompassed with Air and likewise being most of them Platonic Philosophers it is no wonder if they had the same notion of this Hades as those ancient Philosophers and Poets had before Yet some of them were better instructed as St. Chrysostom who says modestly If thou dost ask me saith he of the situation and place of Gehenna I will answer and say that it is seated somewhere out of this World and that it is not to be enquired in what place it is situated but by what means rather it may be avoided But St. Gregory Nyssen in his Dialogue between himself and Macrina touching the Soul and the Resurrection makes her to answer the Question proposed by Gregory in this manner Where is that name of Hades so much spoken of and which is so much treated of in our common Conversation so much in the Writings both of the Heathen and our own into which all men think that the Souls are translated from hence as into a certain Receptacle for you will not say that the Elements are this Hades Whereunto Macrina thus replies It appeareth that thou didst not give much heed to my speech for when I spake of the translation of the Soul from that which is seen unto that which is invisible I thought I had left nothing behind to be enquired of Hades neither doth that name wherein Souls are said to be seem to me to signifie any other thing either in prophane Writers or in the holy Scripture save only a removing unto that which is invisible and unseen So likewise Theophylact and Hugo Etherianus after him What is Hades or Hell Some say that it is a dark place under the Earth others say that it is the translation of the Soul from that which is visible unto that which is unseen and invisible For while the Soul is in the Body it is seen by the proper operations thereof but being translated out of the Body it is invisible and this did they say was Hades Hitherto also may be referred the place cited before out of Origen in his fourth Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by St. Jerom is thus delivered They who die in this World by the separation of the Flesh and the Soul according to the difference of their works obtain divers places in Hell Where by Hades Inferi or Hell he meaneth indefinitly the other World in which how the Souls of the Godly were disposed he thus declares in another place The Soul leaveth the darkness of this World and the blindness of this bodily Nature and is translated into another World which is either the bosom of Abraham as it is shewed in Lazarus or Paradise as in the Thief that believed upon the Cross Or yet God knows if that
learned Divines after a serious debate and mature deliberation as well declare what was the Doctrine of the Church of England in those Questions of Predestination Justifying Faith Saving Grace and Perseverance But it seems with the Doctor no Bishops Opinions shall be Orthodox if they agree not with his own But to come to the Charge it self The main Reason why the Doctor will needs have the Lord Primat to be the cause of the inserting these Articles of Lambeth into those of Ireland agreed on in Convocation 1615 is because the Lord Primat being then no Bishop but only Professor of Divinity in the University there and a Member of Convocation was ordered by the Convocation to draw up those Articles and put them into Latin as if Dr. Usher could have then such a great influence upon it as to be able to govern the Church at his pleasure or that the Scribe of any Synod or Council should make it pass what Acts or Articles he pleases or that one private Divine should be able to manage the whole Church of Ireland as the Doctor would needs have him do in this Affair Whereas the Doctor having been an ancient Member of Convocation could not but know that all Articles after they are debated are proposed by way of Question by the President and Prolocutor of either House and are afterwards ordered to be drawn into form and put in Latin by some Persons whom they appoint for that purpose and tho perhaps they might not be themselves in all points of the same Opinion with those Articles they are so ordered to draw up and that Dr. Usher did not hold all those Articles of Ireland in the same sence as they are there laid down appears from what the Doctor himself tells us in this Pamphlet for p. 116 he saith That it was his viz. the Lord Primat's doing that a different explication of the Article of Christ's descent into Hell from that allowed of by this Church and almost all the other Heterodoxies of the Sect of Calvin were inserted and incorporated into the Articles of Ireland And p. 129 he finds fault with the 30th Article of that Church because it is said of Christ that for our sakes he endured most grievous Torments immediatly in his Soul and most painful Sufferings in his Body The enduring of which grievous Torments in his Soul as Calvin not without some touch of Blasphemy did first devise so did he lay it down for the true sence and meaning of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell In which expression as the Articles of Ireland have taken up the words of Calvin so it may be rationally conceived that they take them with the same meaning and construction also But the Doctor owns that this was not the Lord Primat's sence of this Article for p. 113 aforegoing he says thus Yet he viz. the Lord Primat neither follows the Opinion of Calvin himself nor of the generality of those of the Calvinian Party who herein differ from their Master but goes a new way of a later discovery in which altho he had few Leaders he hath found many Followers But as I shall not take upon me to enter into a dispute with the Doctor or his Followers in defence of these Irish Articles and to prove they are not contradictory to those of England it not being my business yet I cannot forbear to observe that it is highly improbable that all the Bishops and Clergy of Ireland should incorporate the nine Articles of Lambeth containing all the Calvinian Rigours as the Doctor calls them in the points of Predestination Grace Free-will c. if they had thought they were inconsistent with those of the Church of England and had not been satisfied that it was the Doctrine then held and maintained in those Points by the major part of the Bishops and Clergy of our Church as also believed by the King himself who confirmed them and certainly would never else have sent one Bishop and three of the most Learned Divines within his Dominions to the Synod of Dort to maintain against the Remonstrants or Arminians the very same Opinions contained in these Irish Articles But if all those must be counted by the Doctor for Rigorous Calvinists that maintain these Articles and consequently Heterodox to the Church of England I desire to know how he can excuse the major part of our Bishops in Queen Elizabeth and King James's Reign and a considerable part of them during the Reigns of the two last Kings of blessed Memory some of whom are still living from this Heterodoxy And if all Men must be guilty of Calvinism who hold these Opinions concerning Predestination Grace and Free-will then the most part of the Lutherans who differ very little from Calvin in these points must be Calvinists too Nor are these Points held only by Protestants but many also of the Church of Rome hold the same as witness the Jansenists and also the Order of the Dominicans who come very near to Calvin in the Doctrines of Predestination c. and are as much opposed by the Jesuits as the Arminians are by the Anti-remonstrants in Holland But perhaps the Doctor may make St. Augustin a Calvinist too since he is much of the same Opinion with the Lord Primat in most of these Points against the Pelagians Having now I hope vindicated the Lord Primat from these unjust Accusations of his differing from the Church of England in matters of Doctrine I now come to answer his Aspersions upon the Lord Primat in lesser matters and that you may see how unjustly he seeks out a Quarrel against him he makes it a crime in him because those who were aspersed with the names of Puritans made their Addresses to him by Letters or Visits and because he was carress'd and feasted by them where-ever he came as the Doctor will have it as if the Lord Primat had no other Perfections but his asserting those Calvinian Tenents Then he goes on to tax the Lord Primat with Inconformity to the Rules and Orders of the Church of England in several particulars but with how great want of Charity and with how many malicious Inferences and Reflections without any just grounds I leave to the impartial Reader who will give himself the trouble to peruse that Pamphlet many of those passages being cull'd here and there out of Dr. Bernard's Treatise entitled The late Lord Primat's Judgment c. without ever considering what went before or what followed after and without taking notice that several things enjoined in the Canons of the Church of England had no force or obligation in that of Ireland where those Canons were not yet subscribed to or received and consequently such Ceremonies as were by them enjoined being in themselves indifferent as the Church declares it had been singularity in him to have observed them there and much worse to have imposed them upon others for it is truly said of him by Dr. Bernard That he did not affect some