AN ACCOUNT OF THIS THIRD EDITION OF THE FOLLOWING BOOK, AND THE OF THIRD I THINK myself obliged to give some account of the addi- ACCOUNT tions in every part of this book, by which in this edition it is augmented into two volumes. I shall begin with the first treatise of The Christian Priesthood, in which something hath been added in almost every page of the former editions, but more especially from the thirty-eighth to the sixty-fifth page, where I treated of the Christian sacrifice or oblation in the holy Eucharist; and what in them took up but fourteen leaves, in this edition printed in the same types takes up fifty-two, from page 42 to page 146b. Where, as I promised elsewhere, and anotherd hath promised for me, I have a [Dr. Charles Trimnel, bishop of Norwich, delivered a charge at his primary visitation in 1709, which was published at the request of the clergy in the following year. After reflecting on the book called The Rights of the Christian Church, &c., he considers three "opinions that have been revived of late with some zeal in behalf of the clergy. ... The independence of the Church upon the State; the power of offering sacrifices, properly so called; and the power of forgiving sins;" as having been chiefly put forward "by those of the late separation," pp. 5, 6. He referred, p. 13, to Hakewill's work against Heylin. See below, p. 6. He became bishop of Winchester in 1721, and died 1723. Heylin had published in 1637, Antidotum Lincolniense, or an answer to a book entitled, the Holy Table name and thing, which book was a reply by Williams, bishop of Lincoln, to Heylin's former work, A Coal from the Altar or an answer to the Bishop of Lincoln's letter to the Vicar of Grantham against placing the Communiontable in the manner of an Altar, 1636. In sect. ii. c. 5, 6 of the Antidotum Lincolniense he treats of the Eucha ristic sacrifice. In 1641 Dr. George b [That is, of the third edition, being In the epistle to the reader, before d [The Rev. Hilkiah Bedford, A.M., ACCOUNT OF THIRD 2 Objections to the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice. shewed from the unanimous and universal tradition of the Dr. Hickes in it he says, "I hear This edition will I under- e [It was called, The faithful stewards, or the pastoral duty, preached at Canterbury, June 1, 1710.] f In a letter to the Doctor, entitled, A seasonable and modest apology in behalf of Dr. George Hickes, and other Non-Jurors. London, printed for Sam. Keble, 1710. An answer to some things contained in Dr. Hickes's Christian Priesthood [asserted, and in his preface, concerning the Christian Sacrifice. By a Presbyter of the Church of England. London, 1709.] and Patres Vindicati [designed as a supplement to a book entitul'd, An answer to some things, &c. By John Hancock, D.D., author of the said book. London, 1709. The first work was anonymous. Dr. Hancock was rector of St. Margaret's, Lothbury, and was one of the four London clergy (Hoadly being another) who refused to join in the address of the bishop and clergy to the queen in 1710. He had preached the Boyle Lectures in 1706.] London, printed for John Morphew near Stationers' Hall, 1710. [The Propitiatory Oblation in the Holy Eucharist truly stated and defended from Scripture, antiquity, and the communion service of the Church of England. . . in which some notice is taken of Dr. Hancock's answer to Dr. Hickes. This pamphlet was written by John Johnson, author of the Unbloody Sacrifice, "anonymously to avoid offence." After it was written, Bishop Trimnel's Charge was published; and as he had animadverted on some passages in the Clergyman's Vade Mecum, (the notes on the 2nd Apostolical Canon,) which had also been published anonymously, in 1705 and 1707, Johnson replied in Not strange that clergy should maintain it; 3 OF THIRD I might have been excused, had I not added one word to ACCOUNT what I had written upon that subject, in the former editions EDITION. of The Christian Priesthood. However, I thought all learned men, interested in this controversy, would expect something more from me upon this subject; and I hope that I have now said enough to make it appear, that all the ancient Churches believed the bread and wine to be the proper subject matter of the Christian oblation in the holy Eucharist, or the sensible things which they really offered, and believed ought to be really offered, to God in that holy service, for the sacrificial feast; and by consequence that they thought it to be an outward sacrifice properly so called. In these additions I have also tacitly answered the most material objections of those two authors against the Christian sacrifice, as they themselves, or any other persons versed in their writings, may perceive; and I hope the latter, when he hath read them, will not think it so unaccountable, that the presbyters of a reformed Church should lay claim to it," as his lordship expresses himself. Surely they have a right to claim that which the prelates of the whole Catholic Church claimed, and to which bishops themselves were expressly ordained, viz., to offer up the bread and cup in that holy Sacrament, as I have shewed from the most ancient form of consecration; and that they ought to esteem that as an honour, which I have shewed was so often singled out as the most honourable part of the priest's office, even of the episcopal office itself. Wherefore the bishop objects to little purpose, that this doctrine of 'offering a proper sacrifice in the Eucharist "hath been revived of late for advancing the honour of the clergy:" but it is not any matter, a long postscript. To this Trimnel sent out an answer in a second edition of his Charge in 1713, to which Johnson replied in the Prefatory Epistle addressed to the bishop of Norwich, prefixed to the Unbloody Sacrifice, in 1714, in which, p. 5, he acknowledges himself the author of this pamphlet and the Vade Mecum.] i Visitation Charge, p. 13. J Christian Priesthood, [ch. ii. sect. 10. § 6.] ["The second opinion, which has been revived of late, for advancing the "new or honour of the clergy, with as little OF THIRD 4 or the independence of the Church; ACCOUNT how lately it hath been revived, or by whom, or for what EDITION. end, so it be true and catholic, quod ab omnibus, quod ubique, quod semper, as I hope I have proved it to be. His lordship also tells his clergy, that "it is advanced with as little foundation and as little probability of success as that of the independence of the Church upon the State." To which I answer first, that if it hath but as good a foundation as the independence of the Church upon the State, its foundation is very sure in the Scriptures, fathers, and councils, as he may see in Is. Casaubon's Tract De Libertate Ecclesiastica, which I have published in the Appendix' for my own justification, and I hope for his lordship's satisfaction. As for the success of either doctrine, that is in the hands of God; but his lordship must be little acquainted with the world, if he doth not know there are considerable numbers amongst the most learned who believe both, and particularly that of the Eucharistical sacrifice, as he hath found by The Propitiatory OblationTM, and the proœmial Dissertation of Mr. Hughes before S. Chrysost. de Sacerdotio, translated into English in the Appendix"; and may also find by the living testimonies of others I have produced. And if his lordship will do me the honour to believe me, I can assure him there are very many more of the best authority and reputation, both among the clergy and laity too, besides Mr. Nelson P, who believe this doctrine; and I beseeeh his lordship to consider, if it is so new or so unaccountable for the presbyters of a reformed Church to assert it, as for bishops and presbyters of the Church [Appendix, No. vi.] [John Johnson was then rector of Cranbrook, and proctor for the diocese of Canterbury. He is alluded to also in the Vindication of Dr. Hickes and the author of the Seasonable and Modest Apology, "Is it not evidently the doctrine of jurors too, and hath not one of them, a person of great worth and learning, lately written a very judicious book in defence of it called the Propitiatory Oblation ?"—pp. 30, 31. London, 1712.] [Appendix, No. viii.] In the Preface and Appendix, [No. vii.] [See The great duty of frequenting the Christian Sacrifice, by Robert Nelson, published in 1707.] a [In the previous year, 1710, at Dr. Sacheverell's trial, "Talbot, bishop of Oxford, Wake, bishop of Lincoln, Trimnel, bishop of Norwich, and myself, spoke on the other side. We shewed the falsehood of an opinion too commonly received, that the Church of England has always condemned resistance."- Burnet's Own Times, ii. 544. fol. 1734. Their chief argument, as stated by Burnet, (ibid.,) was that the English government had, during several reigns, assisted the French Protestants in their wars against their kings, and that convocation had voted subsidies for the purpose. In a sermon preached before the house of lords, Feb. 17, 1708, p. 5. Bp. Trimnel spoke of resistance to ar not so strange as the doctrine of resistance; 5 of England to assert the doctrine of resistance, which is as plainly condemned by her in all cases, or for any cause, as these, and many such like words and sentences, can express. When my lord can bring me half as many, or half as plain texts of Scripture against the Eucharistical oblation, as I can bring against resistance; or prove it not to have been the doctrine of the ancient Catholic Church, from half as many, or half as plain testimonies of fathers and councils, as I have proved it was; then I will believe with Mr. Hoadly', that resistance of sovereign powers is not only lawful, but laudable; and that it is our duty to resist and depose them, when they do not answer the ends of government, and a damnable sin in that case not to resist. I think it very strange for any bishop or presbyter of the Church of England to oppose a doctrine which is so apparently founded in Scripture, and supported by antiquity, universality, and consent, and yet embrace another which is neither warranted by Scripture or tradition, but expressly condemned by both, as well as by that Church of which they are priests. And if it be an argument against the oblation of the bread and wine in the Eucharist, that Mr. Mede and Dr. Heylin were the first writers of the reformed Churches that published this doctrine, as the bishops from Dr. Hakewill observes; how bitrary power as "a cause so laudable r -Def. of Serm. c. i. Hoadly's Works, S ["Though I am not aware of any error in Dr. Hakewill's affirming Dr. Heylin to have been the first among the reformed that published to the world the doctrine of a proper sacrifice in the Eucharist; yet it must be acknowledged, that the learned Mr. Mede's Discourse upon that subject since published was made about that time, if not a little before it."-Visitation Charge, p. 15. Heylin's work was published in 1637. His preface is dated May 10. Mede died in 1638. His treatise, On the Christian Sacrifice, was first published in 1648, but a small tract, Of the name Altar or θυσιαστήριον, anciently given to the holy table, written as a chapel common-place in 1635, containing the same doctrine, was published in 1637. Imprimatur 17 cal. Jul. 1637.] t["He (Dr. Heylin) is the first of the reformed Churches who ever published this doctrine."-Hakewill's Diss. ACCOUNT OF THIRD |