Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	blood_n	body_n	soul_n	10,399	5	5.2639	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86302	Respondet Petrus: or, The answer of Peter Heylyn D.D. to so much of Dr. Bernard's book entituled, The judgement of the late Primate of Ireland, &c. as he is made a party to by the said Lord Primate in the point of the Sabbath, and by the said doctor in some others. To which is added an appendix in answer to certain passages in Mr Sandersons History of the life and reign of K· Charles, relating to the Lord Primate, the articles of Ireland, and the Earl of Strafford, in which the respondent is concerned.	Heylyn, Peter, 1600-1662.	1658 (1658)	Wing H1732; Thomason E938_4; Thomason E938_5; ESTC R6988	109,756	140

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 I should have left this point but that I must first desire Dr. Bernard to reconcile these two passages which I find in the Lord Primates Letter of the year 1617. in one of which he seems to dislike of their opinion who contract the Riches of Christs satisfaction into too narrow a room as if none had any kind of interess 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 onely p. 21. Let Dr. Bernard reconcile these so different passages erit mihi magnus Apollo in the Poets language If the Lord Primate did subscribe the Articles of the Church of England as Doctor Bernard saies he did p. 118. I know who may be better blam'd for breaking his subscription then he whom the Lord Primate hath accused for it p. 110. For in the second Article of the Church of England it is said expresly that Christ suffered was crucified dead and buried to reconcile his Father to us and to be a sacrifice not onely for original guilt but also for the actual sins of men In which 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 man or that man some certain quidams of their own whom they pass commonly by the name of Gods Elect. The sacrifice being made for the sins of men of men indefinitely without limitation is not to be confined to some few men onely as the general current of the Calvinian Divines have been pleased to make it as if Christ really and intentionally died for none but them 4. The Church of England doth maintain that Christ is truly and really present in the Sacrament of his most precious body and blood Which Doctrine of a Real presence is first concluded 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. Which words being thought by some precise and scrupulous persons to incline too much towards Transubstantiation and therefore not unfit to justifie a real presence were quite omitted in the second Liturgy of that King Anno 1552. whe● Dudly of Northumberland who favoured the Calvinian party carried all before him the void place being filled up with th● words of the Participation viz. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee c. Take and drink this in remembrance c. An alteration not well grounded and of short continuance For when that Book was brought under a review in the first year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth those words of the Distribution were re●●ored to their former place and followed by those of the Participation as it still continueth It is proved secondly by that passage in the publick Catechisme in which the Party catechized is taught to say that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords 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 rendered thus in the Latine Translation viz. Corpus sanguis Domini quae vere realiter exhibentur c. Verily and indeed as the English hath it the same with vere and realiter that is to say truly and really as it is in the Latine And thirdly this appears to be the Doctrine of this Church by the most Orthodox and Learned Prelates of the same the words of three of which only I shall now produce that out of the mouths of two or three witnesses the truth hereof may be established God forbid saith Bishop Bilson we should deny that the flesh and blood of Christ are truly present and truly received of the faithful at the Lords Table It is the Doctrine that we teach others and comfort our selves withal Secondly Bishop Morton as great an enemy to the Superstitions of the Romish Mass as ever wrote against it doth expresly say That the question is not concerning a real presence which Protestants as their own Jesuites witness do also profess Fortunatus a Protestant holding that Christ is in the Sacrament most really verissime realissimeque as his own words are But none more positively and clearly then Doctor Lancelor Andrews then Lord Bishop of Chichester who in his Apology written in Answer to Cardinal Bellarmin thus declares himself as one and one of the chief Members of the Church of England viz. Praesentiam credimus non minus quam vos veram de modo praesentiae nil temere definimus We acknowledge saith he a presence as true and real as you do but we determine nothing rashly of the manner of it And in his Answer to the eighteenth Chapter of Cardinal Perrons Reply he thus speaks of Zuinglius It is well known saith he that Zuinglius to avoid Est in these words hoc est Corpus meum in the Church of Romes sense fell to be all for significat and nothing for est at all And whatsoever went farther then significat he took to savour of the Carnal presence For which if the Cardinal mislike him so do we a further declaration of the true sense and meaning of the Church in this particular we have from Mr. Alexander Noel Dean of Saint Pauls and Prolocutor of the Convocation in the year 1562. when the Articles or Confession of this Church were approved and ratified who in his Catechism publickly allowed to be taught in all the Grammar Schools of this Realm thus resolves the point The Question is Coelestis pars ab omni sensu externo longe disjuncta quaenam est That is to say what is the Heavenly or Spiritual part of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper To which the party Catechised returns this Answer Corpus sanguis Christi quae fidelibus in Coena Dominica praebentur ab illisque accipiuntur comeduntur bibuntur coelesti tantum spirituali modo vere tamen atque reipsa id est the Heavenly or Spiritual part is the Body and Blood of Christ which are given to the faithful in the Lords

Supper and are taken eaten and drank by them which though it be onely in an Heavenly and Spiritual manner yet are they both given and taken truly and really or in very deed by Gods faithful people By which it seems that it is agreed on 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 onely in the modus Praesentiae But on the contrary the Lord Primate in his Answer to the Jesuits challenge hath written one whole Chapter against the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament In which though he would seem to aim at the Church of Rome though by that Church not onely the reall 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 then this viz. That in the receiving of the blessed Sacrament we are to distinguish between the outward and th● inward Action of the Communicant In the outward wi●● 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 truely and indeed made partakers of Christ crucified to the spiritual strengthning of our inward man Which is no more then any Calvinist in the pack which either do not understand or wilfully oppose the Doctrines of the Church of England will stick to say 5. The Church of England teacheth 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 it thus viz. And because it is requisite that no man should come to the holy Communion but with a full trust in Gods mercy and with a quiet conscience therefore if there be any of you which by the means aforesaid cannot quiet his own Conscience but requireth further comfort or counsel then let him come to me or to some other discreet and learned Minister of Gods word and open his grief that he may receive such ghostly counsel advice and comfort as his conscience may be relieved and that by the Ministry of Gods word he may receive comfort and the benefit of absolution to the quieting of his conscience and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness The third and most material proof we have in 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 profest himselfe 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 followeth 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 which 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 Primate takes notice in his Answer to the Jesuites challenge p. 109. where he treatech 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 on the other But of the third which is more positive and material then 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 onely 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 vertue of a power committed to him by our Lord and Saviour That the supreme 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 questioned by any which pretended to the Christian faith The power which is given to the Priest is but a delegated gower 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 which 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 Priests or Presbyters in the Church of England For if they did forgive sins onely Declarativè that form of Absolution which follows the general Confession in the beginning of the Common-prayer-Book would have been sufficient that is to say Almighty God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ which desireth not the death of a sinner but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live and hath given power and commandment to his Ministers to declare and pronounce to his people being penitent the absolution and remission of their sins and pardoneth and absolveth all them which truly repent and unfainedly believe his holy Gospel Or if he did forgive sins onely Optativè in the way of prayers and intercession there could not be a better way of Absolution then that which is prescribed to be used by the Priest or Bishop after the general confession made by such

recorded in the fourth Commandment p. 113. And in these words we have two several propositions viz. First That the setting apart of some whole day to Gods solemn worship is juris Divini naturalis and secondly that the Sabbath which he meaneth by this solemn day was juris Divini positivi recorded in the fourth Commandment both which shall be examined in their several turns And first I would fain know of Doctor Bernard or any other of the Lord Primates Chaplains since he cannot answer for himselfe where we shall find that the setting apart of some whole day for Gods solemn worship was juris Divini naturalis That some time was to be set apart for the worship of God is agreed by all and reckoned by most knowing men not interessed in any party to be the moral part of the fourth Commandment but that this time should be some whole day is neither imprinted in mans heart by the Law of Nature nor ever required of the Iews nor observed by the Christians Or granting that some such whole day was to be set apart for Gods solemn worship I would fain know in the first place when the said whole day was to begin and how long to continue whether it were a whole natural day or a whole artificial day as they use to phrase it And if it were a whole natural day then whether to extend from midnight to midnight after the reckoning of the Gentiles or from Sun-setting to Sun-setting from Even to Even according to the account of the Iewes or if a whole artificial day then whether a day of twelve hours onely after the reckoning of the Iewes or from Sun-rising to Sun-setting be they more or less according to the several Climates under which men lived Which points unless they be well stated the conscience will have nothing in this case to rely upon In the next place considering that the Lord Primate speaks indefinitely of some whole day without determining when and how often the said whole day was to be observed I would fain know whether such a whole day was to be set apart once or twice in the week or whether it would suffice to the fulfilling of the moral part of the fourth Commandment if it were onely once a month or once a year or once in seven year or once in the course of a mans whole life For being it is said indefinitly that the setting apart of some whole day to Gods solemn worship is juris Divini naturalis ingraffed in the Heart of man by the Law of Nature it may be probably inferred that the setting apart of one whole day at what time soever a man pleaseth may very sufficiently comply with the intention of that Law and consequently discharge the man so doing from all further observance which how far it will satisfie the consciences of men or be accounted acceptable in the sight of God I shall leave to others to determine But admitting that this whole day which the Lord Primate speaks of was to have as frequent a return as the Iewish Sabbath I would then know when such a whole day was either ordinarily kept or required to be kept by the Iewes or Gentiles That no such whole day was ever ordinarily kept by the Iewes appears by their riotous feastings on the Sabbath day which before we spake of by which it is most evident that the one half of that day was either spent in Luxury and Riot or in Rest and Idleness and that the least part of the other moyety was spent in holy Meditation and much less in the solemn worship of God which in the first settlement of that Nation in the Land of Canaan was performed onely in the Tabernacle as afterwards in the Holy Temple at which but few of the people and those which dwelt near the place of worship could give any attendance We meet indeed with a Commandment that the Sabbath was to be continued from Even to Even Levit. 23. 32. that is to say from Friday evening at Sun-set until the like time of Sun-set on the Sabbath day Which Precept being first given by God with reference to the day of Atonement or Expiation and commonly applyed by the Iewes to the weekly Sabbaths requires no otherkeeping of the day for that space of time more then the afflicting of their souls by a solemn fast then onely rest from labour all servile works And this appears plainly by the first words of the said 32. verse where it is said That it should be unto them a Sabbath of rest compared with vers 30 31. where forbearing all or any manner of work is the chief thing required to the observation of that day And yet that rest from labour and cessation from all manner of work frequently intermitted also either with reference to the solemn keeping of the day it self Mat. 12. 5. or the preservation of the creature Luke 13. 15. 14. 5. But that the whole day extending from Even to Even should be either spent in afflicting their souls as it is meant onely of the day of Atonement or Expiation which was observed but once a year or in the acts of solemn and religious worship if it be understood of the weekly Sabbath to which the Iews commonly applied it also as before was said as I no where find So have I no reason to believe it without better grounds Certain I am that so much of the Sabbath day after this account as intervened between the Sun-setting on the Friday and the Sun-rising on the Sabbath was partly spent in rest from labour and making necessary preparations for the day ensuing and part thereof in necessary repose and sleep for the refreshing of their bodies and support of nature and how the rest of that day was spent we have seen before There is another place in Scripture much prest upon the consciences of the people by the rigid Sabbatarians of these times to stave them off from any lawful recreation on their new made Sabbath that is to say Isa 58. 13 14. where God speaks thus unto that people If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath from doing thy pleasure on my holy day and call the Sabbath a delight the holy of the Lord honourable and shalt honour him not doing thine own wayes nor finding thine own pleasure nor speaking thine own words then shalt thou delight thy self in the Lord. But if we look better on this Text and compare it with vers 3. of the same Chapter where we find mention of a fast and of the afflicting of their Souls on the day of that fast we may see easily that the Text so much insisted on by our Sabbatarians relates onely to the day of Atonement which being a day of publick humiliation and of confessing their sins to the Lord their God required a stricter withholding of themselves from their lawful pleasures then any of the weekly Sabbaths So as admitting that this whole day was by God required to be

observed by the ancient Gentiles whom that old Bishop of Antioch had no reference to in this citation Johannes Philoponus the Grammarian speaks more plainly then Theophilus did but he speaks nothing to the point which we have in hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which Balthazar Corderius thus translateth Illud certè omnes homines consentiunt septem soles esse dies qui in seipsos revoluti totum tempus constituunt And so it was no question in that Authors time which was about the year 600. and somewhat after the distinction of time into weeks being then generally received by all civil Nations who either had received the Gospel or had been under the command of the Roman Empire That which comes after touching Moses Solus itaque magnus Moles septenarii dierum numeri rationem divina insp●ratione hominibus tradidit shewes rather the original of the distinction then the general practice it being more then a thousand years from the death of Moses before that distinction of time was received by the G●eeks and R●m●ns and therefore not to be hoped nor look't for in the barbarous Nations And this is that which Petavius the Jesuite a right learned man hath thus delivered Anni divisio posterior est in Hebdomadas ea dividendi ratio prorsus à Iudaeis o iginem traxit Romani etiam ac Gentiles ante Tertulliani aevum adsciv●sse videntur The last division of the year saith he is into weeks derived originally from the Hebrewes and seems to have been taken up by the Romans and other Gentiles before the time of Tertullian who takes notice of it By which it seems that this distinction was of no great standing in the Roman Empire till first their acquaintance with the Jewes and afterwards their receiving of the Christian faith had brought it into use and esteem amongst them The Proposition of the Histo●ian being thus made good I doubt not but the Application wil hold accordingly For hereupon it is inferred Hist of Sab. Part. 1. c. 4. n. 11. That the Chaldees Persians Greeks and Romans all the four great Monarchies did observe no Sabbaths because they did observe no weeks But the poor Historian must not pass with this truth neither which necessarily doth arise upon the proof of the Proposition And therefore he is told That if he had read how well the contrary is proved by Rivetus and Salmasius he would not have made such a Conclusion as he doth That because the Heathen of the four great Monarchies at least had no distinction of weeks therefore they could observe no Sabbath And I concur fully with the Lord Primate in this particular The Historian was not so irrational as to infer that the Heathen of the four great Monarchies could observe no Sabbath because they did observe no weeks in case it had been proved to his hand or that any sufficient Argument had been offered to him to demonstrate this that the very Gentiles both Civil and Barbarous both Ancient and of later dayes as it were by an universal kind of Tradition retained the distinction of the seven dayes of the week which is the point that Rivet and Salmasius are affirmed to have proved so well p. 79. But on the contrary the Historian having proved that there was no such distinction of the seven dayes of the week retained by the ancient Gentiles either Civil or Barbarous and so well proved it that the Lord Primate hath not any thing to except against him the Application will hold good against all opposition and I shall rest my selfe upon it that the Heathen which observed no Weeks could observe no Sabbath SECT V. The Historian taxt for saying that the falling of the first Pentecost after Christs Ascension upon the first day of the week was meerly casual The Lord Primates stating the Question and his inference on it Exceptions against the state of the Question as by him laid down viz. in making the Feast of First fruits to be otherwise called the feast of Pentecost or the feast of Weeks c. and that he did not rightly understand the meaning of the word Sabbath Levit. 23. 16. The Pentecost affixt by Moses to a certain day of the month as well as the Passover or any other Annual Feast made by the Primate to fall alwayes on the first day of the week and God brought into act a miracle every year that it might be so An Answer to the Lord Primates Argument from the practice of the Samaritans in their keeping of Pentecost The Quartodecimani and the Samaritans Schismaticks at the least if not Hereticks also The Lord Primate puts a wrong sense upon Isychius and Saint Ambrose to prove that they gave to the Lords day the name of Sabbath and his ill luck in it The inference of the Lord Primate examined and rejected The first day of the week not called the Lords day immediately after the first Pentecost as is collected from Waldensis nor in a long time after The Lord Primates great mistake in Tertullians meaning about the Pentecost Each of the fifty dayes which made up the Pentecost esteemed as holy by the Primitive Christians as the Lords day was The mystery of the First fruits not first opened by the Lord Primate as is conceived by Dr. Twisse who applauds him for it THe second charge which the Lord Primate layes upon the Historian relates unto the holding of the great feast of Pentecost upon which day the Holy Ghost came down and sate upon the heads of the Apostles in the shape of cloven fiery tongues and added by Saint Peters preaching no fewer then three thousand soules to the Church of Christ It was saith the Historian a casual thing that Pentecost should fall that year upon the Sunday It was a moveable feast as unto the day such as did change and shift it selfe according to the position of the feast of Passover the rule being this that that on what day soever the second of the Passover did fall upon that also fell the great feast of Pentecost Nam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 semper eadem est feria quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Scaliger hath rightly noted So that as often as the Passover did fall upon the Saturday or Sabbath as this year it did then Pentecost fell upon the Sunday but when the Passover did chance to fall upon the Tuesday the Pentecost fell that year upon the Wednesday sic de caeteris And if the Rule be true as I think it is that no sufficient Argument can be drawn from a casual fact and that the falling of the Pentecost that year upon the first day of the week be meerly casual the coming of the Holy Ghost upon that day will be no Argument nor Authority to state the first day of the week in the place and honour of the Iewish Sabbath But the Lord Primate will by no means allow of this and therefore having framed a discourse concerning the feast of Pentecost

Verdict of the Church of England the Lords day had obtained such a pitch of credit as nothing more could be left to the Church of Ireland in their Articles afterward to adde unto it But against this Judgment I appeal and must reverse the same by Writ of Error For first although the Lords day had obtained such a pitch of credit in the Realm of England as is here affirmed it was obtained rather by the practises of the Sabbatarians who were instant in season and out of season to promote the Cause then by any countenance given unto it by the Church and the Rulers of it And secondly if any such Verdict had been given it was not given by any Jury which was legally summoned or trusted by the Church to act any thing in that particular And then the Foreman of this Jury must be Doctor Bound Master Greenham Master Perkins Doctor Lewis Bayley Master Dod Master Clever Doctor Gouge Master Whateley Doctor Sibs Doctor Preston Master Bifield Doctor Twisse and Master Ley must make up the Pannel the five Smectymnuans and he that pulled down the Cross in Saint Pauls Church-yard standing by in a readiness to put in for the Tales as occasion served Unless the Verdict had been given by these or such as these the Lords day never had attained such a pitch of credit as is here supposed but how a Verdict so given in may be affirmed to be a Verdict of the Church of England I am yet to seek So that except there had been something left to the Church of Ireland in their Articles to adde unto it The Sabbatarian Brethren would have found small comfort from any Verdict given on their side by the Church of England The Church of England differs as much in this point from the Articles of Ireland as the Lord Primate differeth in it from the Church of England The Lord Primate sets it down for a Proposition that the setting apart of one day in seven for Gods solemn worship is juris Divini Positivi recorded in the fourth Commandment p. 105. But the Lords Spiritual the most eminent Representers of the Church of England declared in the Parliament in the 5 6. of Edw. 6. That there is no certain time or definite number of dayes prescribed in holy Scripture but the appointment both of the time and also of the number of dayes is left by the Authority of Gods word to the liberty of Christs Church to be determined and assigned orderly in every Countrey by the discretion of the Rulers and Ministers thereof as they shall judge most expedient to the setting forth Gods glory and edification of their people The Church of England hath declared in the Homily of the time and place of prayer that the Lords day was instituted by the Authority of the Church and the consent of godly Christian people after Christs Ascension But the Lord Primate doth entitle it unto Christ himself and to that end alledgeth a passage out of the Homily De Semente ascribed but ascribed falsly unto S. Athanasius viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The proper meaning of which words hath been shewen already in the first Section of this Treatise The Lord Primate in conformity to the Articles of the Church of Ireland affirms for certain that the whole day must be set apart for Gods solemn worship But in the Church of England there is liberty given upon that day not onely for honest Recreations but also for such necessary works of labour as are not or have not been restrained by the Laws of the Land Which makes the difference in this case between the Lord Primate and the Church of England to be irreconcilable And here I would have left the Lord Primates Letter writ to his Honourable Friend the Contents whereof have been the sole Subject of the present Section but that the Lord Primate will not so part with the Historian he must needs bestow a dash upon him before he leaves him telling his Honourable Friend How little credit the Historian deserves in his Geography when he brings news of the remote parts of the world that tells so many untruths of things so lately and so publickly acted in his neighbour Nation This I must needs say comes in very unhandsomely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dictum at the best and savours little of that moderation humility and meekness of Spirit for which Doctor Bernard hath so fam'd him not onely in this present Treatise but his Funeral Sermon But let this pass cum caeteris erroribus without more ado I have some other game in chase to which now I hasten SECT X. Seven Points of Doctrine in which the Lord Primate differeth from the Church of England The Lord Primates judgment in the point of Episcopacy and the ordination of Ministers beyond the Seas That Bishops and Presbyters did differ Ordine and not onely Gradu proved by three passages in the Book of Consecration and by the different forms of the Ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons used in the said Book The form and manner of making Bishops Priests and Deacons expresly regulated by the Canons of the fourth Council of Carthage The Ordination of Presbyters by Presbyters declared unlawful by the Rules of the Primitive Church The Universal Redemption of Mankind by the blood of Christ maintained by the Church of England but denied by the Lord Primate not constant to himselfe in his own opinion A Real presence of Christ in the Sacrament maintained by the Church of England and affirmed by the most eminent Prelates of it but both denied and opposed by the Lord Primate in his Answer to the Jesuites challenge That the Priest hath power to forgive sins proved by three several passages out of the Book of Common-Prayer The meaning of the two first passages subverted by the Lord Primates Gloss or Descant on them but no notice taken by him of the last which is most material That the Priest forgiveth sins either Declarativè or Optativè better approved by the Lord Primate neither of which come up close to the Church of England and the reason why The Church of England holdeth that the Priect forgiveth sins Authoritativè by a delegated not a soveraign power and that she so holdeth is affirmed by some learned men of the Church of Rome The benefit of Absolution from the hands of the Priest humbly desired and received by Doctor Reynolds at the time of his death The Church of England maintains a local Descent and the proof thereof The Church not altered in her judgement since the first making of that Article Anno 1552. as some men imagine The Lord Primate goes a different way from the Church of England and the great pains by him taken to make it good A transition to the nine Articles of Lambeth THe difference between the Church of England and the Lord Primate in the point of the Sabbath we have shewed already and well it were if he differed from the Church of England