Imágenes de páginas

kind; 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

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 Primate (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 λoyoμaxíu, a strife about words, and that the Lord Primate 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 Primate'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 Primate has before laid down.

But perhaps it will be said, that the Lord Primate 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 Primate 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 Primate, 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 Primate 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 Bishop Andrews, in his Apology to Cardinal Bellarmine, thus declares himself, viz. "Præsentiam credimus non minus quam vos veram, de modo præsentiæ nil temere 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, vere & realiter) taken and received in the Lord's Supper. Which the Lord Primate does not affirm. I know not what such men would have. The Lord Primate 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 of 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 d He adds the word real, which is not in the Latin.



more places than one :" appears by the original of those Articles, to be seen in the library of Corpus Christi Colledg in Cambridg, where tho this passage against a real or corporal presence (which they then thought to be all one) are dash'd over with red ink ; yet so, as it is still legible, therefore it may not be amiss to give you Dr. Burnet's reasons in his 2d part of the History of the Reformation, p. 406, for the doing of it, . . "The secret of it was this; the Queen and her Council studied to unite all into the communion of the Church; and it was alledged, that such an express definition against a real presence, might drive from the Church many who were still of that perswasion; and therefore it was thought to be enough to condemn transubstantiation, and to say that Christ was present after a spiritual manner, and received by faith; 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. Though 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

e Vid. Dr Burnet's Hist. of the Reformation, part 2, p. 405.

« AnteriorContinuar »