ritual exercise, in which the mind of the individual derives edification, and perhaps grace, from the contemplation and remembrance of an absent Redeemer's sufferings.

Our doctrine leaves this subject in the sacred mystery with which God has enveloped it. It is not to be denied that the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation facilitates the mental conception of that mystery: but it has the fatal defect of being opposed to the plain language of Scripture; and if those statements are to be explained away, and reduced to merely figurative expressions, according to the doctrine of Paschasius Radbertus and his school; the Berengarians, Zuinglians, and Socinians, may with reason claim a similar privilege of arbitrarily explaining away into figures the very passages in which the doctrine of the true presence itself is conveyed.

The Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is entirely founded on human reasoning from the nature of bodies, and the supposed incompatibility of the scriptural statement that the eucharist is bread and wine, literally understood, with the other expressions of Scrip

P The Roman doctors are grievously perplexed by the language of Scripture in calling the eucharist bread after consecration. Bellarmine(De Euchar. 1. i. c. 12.) mentions four solutions of the difficulty. (1.) It is called bread by a trope, as having been bread, as in Exod. vii. the rods turned into serpents are still called rods, Matt. ii. the blind are said to see, &c. (2.) Scripture ordinarily names things according to their appearance, e. g. angels ap

pearing in the human shape are called men; oxen, pomegranates, &c. made of brass, are called simply oxen, &c. (3.)" Optime"

bread is a Hebrew phrase for any sort of food. (4.) It is so called because it is a solid, principal, substantial food. Of course it is easy to explain away any terms of Scripture however clear; but those who arbitrarily give a figurative meaning to these terms of Scripture, cannot oppose the Zuinglians and Socinians.

66

ture. But what Bossuet has observed of the philosophical reasonings of the school of Zurich and Geneva against the real presence, que les recevoir en matière de religion, c'est détruire non seulement le mystère de l'eucharistie, mais tout d'un coup tous les mystères du Christianisme," is perfectly applicable to those of Romanists for their transubstantiation.

CHAPTER VIII.

ON THE CHARACTER AND CONDUCT OF ARCHBISHOP

CRANMER.

THE opponents of the English Reformation have eagerly laid hold of every imputation however unjust and groundless against the character of archbishop Cranmer; and when they have painted it in untrue colours, we are asked whether we can recognize in such a man, the instrument whom God would have chosen to promulgate doctrines of the utmost importance, hitherto unknown to the church. Now we are by no means concerned to establish the immaculate sanctity of Cranmer, because we do not imagine that any doctrine which he was instrumental in establishing in our churches was novel. A prelate of learning and respectability as he was, might, without superlative sanctity, have been a very useful instrument in correcting abuses, errors, and superstitions, by the exercise of his ordinary vocation. But as these writers represent Cranmer as a monster of perjury, dissimulation, ingratitude, &c. in order to excite prejudice against the reformation of the church of England, which he most laudably promoted, it may be adviseable briefly to

notice and refute some of the more prominent charges against him.

I. It is alleged that Cranmer promised obedience to the Roman pontiff in the oath taken by him at his consecration in 1533, though he internally neither acknowledged the spiritual power of the pontiff, nor intended to obey it; and that his protestation made at the same time was an unjustifiable attempt to elude the oath".

b

Now first, it is certain that this oath was taken by every bishop in Europe with certain exceptions, not simply and absolutely. Every English bishop on receiving his temporalities from the crown, renounced by oath "all such clauses, words, and sentences" which he had of the pope, "that in anywise hath been, is, or hereafter may be hurtful or prejudicial to the king or his royal dignity or privileges "." The learned canonist Van Espen (of the Roman communion) observes, on the articles of the oath of bishops, that the three first are plainly conformable to those of oaths of fealty made by vassals to their superior lord; that they infer subjection to the pope not only in spirituals but in temporals. In the fourth article he shows that the "regalities of St. Peter" means the temporal possessions of the Roman see. The fifth, eighth, and ninth articles he observes, can only be executed by permission of the prince, in France and Belgium; and therefore they must be taken only conditionally. Some of the articles, he says, are so expressed, that, considering their tenor, and the ancient customs of provinces, it is very doubtful whether bishops can fulfil their oath as regards them. On one article (9) he cites Fleury's observation: "In France this article is not observed." On another article (7) he cites Florens, who says, "this clause is of the widest extent, nor does our custom allow it in many respects;" and the same, he adds, may be without doubt affirmed of Belgium. In fine he remarks, that

66

Provisions, reservations, and mandates apostolical, are not here (Belgium) admitted generally and indiscriminately, but with certain limitations according to the rights and received customs of churches: nor is it to be

b Burnet, vol. i. p. 226.