rather than substance, between those of the Lord Primate's judgment, and those of the contrary, since they are both agreed in the main points in controversie 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 who want Bishops. And I hope however, if the Lord Primate 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 Primate 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 Primate is of a contrary judgment to the Church of England. For as he seems not to like their opinion, who contract 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 Primate'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. 21. Now the Doctor has done his worst. Yet I hope to prove that tho there may be a difference between my Lord Primate'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 Primate's by him laid down, as the Doctor fancies; or that the Ld Primate 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 Primate, 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 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 Primate hath laid down) they being only reprobate, for want of this faith. Nor will this be contradictory to my Lord Primate'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 as a præterition, but a predamnation for actual sins. Whereas the Lord Primate 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 obtained at 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 Primate'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 judge whether the Lord Primate 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 Primate 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 Primate 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 quæ 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 presence of Christ in the Sacrament; and likewise Mr. Alex. Noel in his Latin Catechism makes the party catechised 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 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 præsentiae. But on the contrary, the Ld Primate, 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 |