Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	believe_v	forgive_v	forgiveness_n	3,528	5	10.5756	5	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

contrary to the New which is denied in the first clause of this Article and secondly this Article must be contradicted by the Book of Homilies which in another of these Articles is approved as before was said As Adversaries to which truth the Author of the Book entitled The Faith Doctrine and Religion professed and protected in the Realm of England c. being a Commentary on the 39. Articles Perused and by the lawful Authority of the Church of England allowed to be publick doth account all such as have taught and published first that whereas all other things were so changed that they were clean taken away as the Priesthood the Sacrifice and Sacraments this day that is the Sabbath day was so changd that it yet remaineth and secondly that the Commandment of sanctifying every seventh day as in the Mosaical Decalogue is Natural Moral and Perpetual If so then no such thing required of Christians as to dedicate the first day of the week wholly to the service of God or to rest thereon from our common and dayly business as it is positively determined in this Article of the Church of Ireland Adde here those desperate consequences which have been raised by some men from these Sabbath-Doctrines It having been preacht in some of the Pulpits in this Kingdom as Mr. Rogers tells us in his Preface to the Book above mentioned that to do any servile work or business on the Lords day is as great a sin as to kill a man or commit adultery that to throw a Bowle to make a Feast or dress a VVedding Dinner on the Lords day is as great a sin as for a man to take a knife and cut his childs throat and that to ring more Bells then one on the Lords day is as great a sin as to commit a wilful murder Most desperate consequents indeed but such as naturally do arise from such dangerous premises Fifthly it is declared Num. 71. that we ought to judg those Ministers to be lawfully called and sent which be called and chosen to the work of the Ministry by men who have publick Authority given them in the Church This serves to countenance the Ordination of Ministers beyond the Seas ordained if I may so call it by the imposition of the hands of two Lay-Elders for each single Presbyter without the assistance or benediction of the Bishop and is directly contrary to the Book entituled The form and manner of making and consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons according to which Book justified and approved by the 36. Article of the Church of England no Priest or Presbyter can be otherwise ordained then by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop Sixthly it is declared Num. 74. That God hath given power to his Ministers not simply to forgive sins which prerogative he hath reserved onely to himselfe but in his name to declare and pronounce unto such as truly repent and unfainedly believe his Holy Gospel the absolution and forgiveness of sins VVhich Doctrine how contrary it is to the Doctrine of the Church of England hath been shewed at large in the tenth Section of this Book To which I shall now onely adde that for the better encouragement of the penitent party to make a true and sincere confession of his sins that so the Priest may proceed to Absolution on the better grounds it is ordered by the 113. Canon of the year 1603. That if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the Minister for the unburthening of his conscience and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him the said Minister shall not at any time reveale and make known to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy except they be such crimes as by the Laws of this Realm his own life may be called into question for concealing the same under pain of Irregularity By incurring of which pain of Irregularity he doth not onely actually forfeit all those spiritual promotions of which he is at that time possessed but is rendered utterly uncapable of receiving any other for the time to come Seventhly it is declared Num. 80. That the Bishop of Rome is so far from being the Supreme head of the Universal Church of Christ that his works and Doctrine do plainly discover him to be that man of sin foretold in the holy Scriptures whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth and abolish with the brightness of his coming Of which opinion the Lord Primate also was as is affirmed by Doctor Bernard p. 162. where he telleth that the Lord Primate had in two learned Sermons given his judgement at large that the Papacy was meant by Babylon in the seventeenth and eighteenth of the Revelation But there is no such Doctrine concerning Antichrist in the Book of Articles or in any other publick Monument or Record of the Church of England but the contrary rather And this appeareth by a prayer at the end of the second Homily for Whitsunday viz. That by the mighty power of the Holy Ghost the comfortable Doctrine of Christ may be truly preached truly received and truly followed in all places to the beating down of Sin Death the Pope the Devil and all the Kingdom of Antichrist In which words the Pope the Devil and the Kingdom of Antichrist being reckoned as the three great enemies of the Church of Christ it must needs be by the Doctrine of this Church in the Book of Homilies that the Pope and Antichrist are as much distinguished as either the Devil and the Pope or the Devil and Antichrist which no man of reason can conceive to be one and the same Eighthly the Church of England in the tenth Article speaks very favourably of the will of man in the act of Conversion and all the other Acts of Piety which depend upon it viz. That we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will and working with us when we have that good will according to that memorable saying of Saint Augustine the greatest Champion of Gods grace against the Pelagian Heresies Praevenit nos gratia Dei ut velimus subsequitur ne frustra velimus Whereas it is declared in the Articles of Ireland that man is meerly passive in the work of his own Conversion velut inanimatum quiddam as was said by Luther the Article affirming Num. 32. That no man can come unto Christ unless the Father draw him that is to say unless the Father doth so draw him that nothing be ascribed to mans will either in receiving of Grace preventing or working any thing by the assistance of Grace subsequent or Grace concurring no other kind of drawing by our Heavenly Father being allowed of in this Act in the Schools of Calvin For on this ground Calvin dislikes that saying of Saint Chrysostome that God draws none but such as are willing to come

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

as are to receive the Communion viz. Almighty God our Heavenly Father who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them which with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him have mercy upon you pardon and deliver you from all your sins and confirm and strengthen you in all goodness and bring you to everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen Or else the first clause in the form of Absolution used at the visitation of the sick would have served the turn that is to say Our Lord Jesus Christ who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners which truely repent and believe in him of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences And there could be no reason at all imaginable why the next clause should be superadded to this prayer viz. And by his Authority committed to me I absolve thee from all thy sins c. if the Priest did not forgive sins Authoritativè by such a delegated and commissionated power as before we spake of And that this is the Doctrine and intent of the Church of England appears by the acknowledgement of two learned men of the opposite faction For thus saith one of the great sticklers for the Church of Rome viz. Hereunto is also pertinent the Doctrine of those Protestants who hold that Priests have power not onely to pronounce but to give remission of sins Yea it seemeth to be the Doctrine of the Communion-Book in the visitation of the sick where the Priest saith And by his Authority committed unto me I absolve thee from all thy sins Then which there could not come a clearer Testimony from the mouth of an Adversary And for the other side I will take Dr. Lewis Bayley afterwards Bishop of Bangor a man precise enough as to the perpetual morality of the Lords day Sabbath and Calvinist enough in some other Tenets of that rigid Sect And yet this man in his Book called the Practice of Piety not onely doth advise his sick Penitent to send in time for some godly Minister to whom he may unfold his griefs confess his sins that so he may receive the benefit of Absolution but tells him that then he should not doubt in foro conscientiae but that his sins be as verily forgiven on earth as if he did hear Christ himself in foro judicii pronouncing them to be forgiven in Heaven And this he doth exemplifie in Doctor Reynolds the ablest and most learned man of all that shewed themselves on the Puritan party who being on his death-bed did earnestly desire to receive the benefit of sacerdotal Absolution according to the form prescribed in the Book of Common-prayer and humbly received it at the hands of Dr. Holland the Kings Professor in Divinity in the University of Oxon for the time then being and when he was not able to express his joy thankfulness in the way of speech did most affectionatly kiss the hand that gave it and yet this Doctor had not only a chief hand in the Millenary Petition as they commonly called it presented to K. James at his first coming to this Crown wherein they excepted not only against the use but the very name of Absolution as being a forinsecal word which they desired to have corrected but managed the whole busines of it at Hampton Court And this he did with such fidelity and zeal that to give that party some contentment it was ordered in the Conference there that to the word Absolution in the Rubrick following the general confession these words Remission of sins should be added for explanation sake as it stil continueth so powerful an Orator is death as to perswade men in extremities of sickness to apply those remedies which in the times of health they neither thought lawful nor convenient to be used in such extremities 7. But to proceed in the Article of Christs descending into Hell the Church of England doth maintain a local descent that is to say That the Soul of Christ at such time as his body lay in the grave did locally descend into the nethermost parts in which the Devil and his Angels are reserved in everlasting chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great terrible day This proved at large by Bishop Bilson in his learned and laborious Work entituled The Survey of Christ's sufferings in which he hath amassed together whatsoever the Fathers Greek and Latine or any of the ancient Writers have affirmed of this Article with all the Points and Branches which depend upon it And that this was the meaning of the first Reformers when this Article amongst others was first agreed upon in the Convocation of the year 1552. appears by that passage of S. Peter which is cited by them touching Christs preaching to the Spirits which were in prison And though that passage be left out of the present Article according as it passed in the Convocation of the year 1562. yet cannot that be used as an Argument to prove that the Church hath altered her judgment in that Point as some men would have it that passage being left out for these reasons following For first that passage was conceived to make the Article too inclinable to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which makes the chief end of Christs descent into Hell to be the fetching thence the souls of the Fathers who died before and under the Law and secondly because it was conceived by some learned men that the Text was capable of some other construction than to be used for an argument of this Descent The judgment of the Church continueth still the same as before it was and is as plain and positive for a local descent as ever formerly She had not else left this Article in the same place in which She found it or given it the same distinct Title as before it had viz. De Descensu Christi ad Inferos in the Latine Copies of King Edward the Sixth that is to say Of the going down of Christ into Hell as in the English Copies of Queen Elizabeths Reign Nor indeed was there any reason why this Article should have any distinct place or Title at all unlesse the maintenance of a local Descent were intended by it For having spoken in the former Article of Christs Suffering Crucifying Death and Burial it had been a very great impertinency not to call it worse to make a distinct Article of his Descending into Hell if to Descend into Hell did signifie the same with this being buried as some men then fancied or that there were not in it some further meaning which might deserve a place distinct from his Death and Burial The Article speaking thus viz. As Christ died for us and was buried so is it to be believed that he went down into Hell is either to be understood of a local Descent or else we are tied to believe nothing by it but what was explicitely or implicitely comprehended in the former Article Now that this

consent at least of the Metropolitan all other Bishops of the Province consenting to it and giving their assistance at that sacred Ceremony if not otherwise hindered And though this fourth Council of Carthage was but National onely yet was it universally received and that too in a very short time over all the Church and made the standing Rule by which the consecrating of Bishops and the ordaining of Priests and Deacons was to be officiated A Rule so punctually followed by the Church of England that it seemeth to be rather of the Carthaginian then the Roman party and more to savour of the Primitive then the popish Ordinals And to this Rule the Church did tie it selfe so strictly concerning the consecration of an Arch Bishop or Bishop that though a Bishop in some cases might ordain a Priest or Presbyter without the presence and co-operation of other Presbyters yet was there no case whatsoever in which it was lawful for one or more Priests or Presbyters to ordain another And so it was adjudged in the case of Coluthus whose ordinations were therfore declared void of no effect because he was no Bishop but a Presbyter onely as is affirmed by Athanasius in Apol. 2. Which as it clearly contradicted the Lord Primates judgement in the point of the lawfulness of the Ordination of Presbyters by Presbyters without the concurrence of a Bishop so doth it justifie the Church of England against him in the point of Episcopacy which she affirms and he denies to be a distinct Order from that of the Priest or Presbyter But nothing doth more fully manifest the Lord Primates judgement in this particular and consequently his dissent therein from the Church of England then his publishing the judgement and opinion of Doctor Reynolds in this point which he so far enlarged and explicated that Doctor Bernard reckoneth it amongst his works The title of the Book runs thus The judgement of Doctor Reynolds touching the Original of Episcopacy more largely confirmed out of Antiquity by James Arch-Bishop of Armagh The Doctors judgement is as followeth viz. When Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church through every City to feed the flock of Christ whereof the Holy Ghost had made them overseers they to the intent they might the better do it by common Counsel and consent did use to assemble themselves and meet together In which meetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they chose one amongst them to be the President of their Company and Moderator of their Actions As in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and Pastors to guide it yet amongst those sundry was there one chief whom our Saviour calleth the Angel of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterwards in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop So far the words of Dr. Reynolds then which there nothing can be said more contrary to the first institution nor more derogatory to the Order and Estate of Bishops And if the Lord Primate did magnifie his own office no better in other things then he did in publishing this piece Doctor Bernard might have spared that part of the character which he gives us of him for so doing p. 151. For by this magnifying of his Office he made himself no better then the President of the Presbyters within his Diocess the chief Priest or Arch-Priest we may fitly call him though possibly in regard of his personal abilities he might be suffered to enjoy that presidency for term of life such a perpetual Presidency as Calvin was possessed of when he reigned in Geneva and sate as Pope over all the Churches of his Platform and was enjoyed by Beza many years after his decease till Danaeus thinking himself as good a man as the best made a party against him and set him quite beside the Cushion Since which time that Presidency hath continued no longer in any one man then from Session to Session from one Classical meeting to another loco libertatis erat quod eligi coeperunt in the words of Tacitus Which fate would questionless befall all the Bishops in Christendom if their Presbyters were once possessed with this fansie that the Bishop was but a Creature of their own making as is affirmed by Doctor Reynolds or that they and their Bishop did not differ Ordine but Gradu onely which the Lord Primate to the great magnifying of his office hath declared to be his own constant opinion 3. In the next place the Church of England doth maintain an Universal Redemption of all mankind by the death and sufferings of our Saviour This first proved by that passage in the publick Catechism by which the party catechized is taught to believe in God the Son who redeemed him and all mankind secondly by that clause in the Letany viz. O God the Son Redeemer of the world have mercy upon us c. thirdly by the prayer of consecrating the Elements of Bread and Wine viz. Almighty God our Heavenly Father which of thy tender mercy didst give thine onely Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our Redemption who made there by his own oblation of himself once offered a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD c. Nor was it without some such meaning that she selected those words of our Saviour in Saint Johns Gospel viz. God so loved the World that he gave his onely begotten Son c. to be used in the preparation to the Communion as she reiterated some others viz. O Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world incorporated into the Gloria in Excelsis at the end thereof But in this point the Lord Primate is of a contrary judgement to the Church of England For as he seems not to like their opinion who contract the riches of Christs satisfaction into too narrow a room as if none had any interess therein but such as were elected before the foundation of the world so he declareth his dislike of the other extreme as he is pleas'd 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 Christs satisfaction so far ut reconciliationem cum Deo peccatorum 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 though 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 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