Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A79660
|
The Catholick doctrine of transubtantiation proued to be ancient and orthodoxall against the sclanderous tongue of D. Iohn Cozens a Protestants minister auouching the sayd doctrine neuer to haue been knowne, in the Church before the Councels of Latteran and of Trent.
|
Campion, William, 1599-1665.
|
1657
(1657)
|
Wing C410; ESTC R42675
|
41,340
|
187
|
his bloud was his pronouncing of the forme of Consecration ouer them saying This is my body This is my bloud which words were efficacious practick such as these were fiat lux let light be made by the omnipotence of his power he makes them good therefore S. Irenaeus by them proues him to be the sonne of God true God because they are such a confession such a confirmation as requires omnipotâ—nce in the speaker to make them good And it is cleere that S. Irenâ—us doth heere supoose it to be the generall receiued doctrine of faith that Christ is truly really in the Eucharist from this vndoubted article of faiâ—h work of omnipotency beleeved to be in it he proues him to be God And l. 5. c. 1. Our saviour confessed that the Chalice of the Eucharist was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper bloud affirmed that the bread was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper body Againe l. 4. c. 34. The bread receauing the inuocation of God Consecration is no more common bread but Eucharist that is bread made heeuenly incorruptible by the inuocation consisting of two things the earthly and the heauenly that is the species the Deifyed body of Christ §. 43. S Iustin Martyr Apolog 2. Which as himselfe doth there testify was written Anno Domini 150. Non vt communem panem uâ— que communem pâ—tum haec summus sed que madmodum per verbum Dei incarnatus Iesus Christus saluator noster carnem sanguinem pro salute nostra habuir sic etiam per preces verbi Dei ab ipso Eucharistiam factam cibum ex quo sanguis carnes nostra aluztur illius incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse edocti sumus We do not take these things as common bread common drinke but as by Gods word Iesus-Christ our Saviour incarnate had flesh bloud for our saluation so we are also taught that the foode whence our bloud flesh by mutation be nourished being by the prayers of the word of God by him made Eucharist that is consecrated is the flesh bloud of the same Iesus incarnate Heere S. Iustin doth not say the blessed Sacrament is earthly bread such as our fresh is nourished withall but that such foode as our flesh is nourished withall being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consecrated made Eucharist is now after consecration the flesh bloud of Christ that this was the beleefe of the Church in those primitiue tymes which were the very next succceding the Apostles §. 44. S. Ignatius the Disciple of S. Iohn the Apostle apud Theodoretum Dialog 3. THEY the simonians other old Heretiks who denyed our saviour to haue true humane nature admit not Eucharist oblations because they do not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which suffered for our firmes Heere this holy father saies those Heretiks who denyed our saviour to haue true humane nature denyed the Eucharist least by confessing the Eucharist which is the flesh of Christ they should be enforced to grant that Christ had true human flesh The Doctor cannot question this authority of S. Ignatius being Theodoret vpon whom he relyes cites it Besydes The Epistles of S. Ignatius this ad Smyrnenses in particular are cited by Eusebius S. Athanasius S. Hierom Theodoret who where neerer to those tymes therefore had better meanes to know the truth in this particular then we that are so many ages since know nothing of those tymes but by their meanes who succeed them immediately And these fathers are for these respects sundry others of incomparably greater authority then all the Protestant ministers that euer were putt all together though we should suppose them to haue some morall honesty were not such forgers of lyes as they do prove themselues euery where in their writings §. 45. S. Denis the Areopagite who was S. Pauls Disciple de Eccles Hier. c. 3. O Most diuine holy sacrifice open those mysticall signifying vailes wherewith thou art covered Shew thy selfe clearly vnto vs replenish our spirituall eyes with thy singular reuealed brightnes To addresse such an inuocation to the Sacrament would be foolish impious if it were only Bakers bread not heauenly diuine liuing bread in it for he doth inuocate the Sacrament it selfe and doth aske of it those things which can only be demanded of God Therefore he beleeved that Christ himselfe God man was truly contained in the Sacrament The Doctor will peraduenture run heere to the old shift deny the authority of this Booke but as I said euen now of S. Ignatius his epistle so I say heere of this Booke auouch that the authority of S. Gregory the great of S. Martin Pope Martyr in Concilio Romano of Agatho Pope in his Epistle to the Emperour Constantine the fourth of Pope Nicolas the first in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour of the 6. Generall Councel Art 4. of the 7. Generall Councel Art 2. of S. Maximus of S. Thomas others is so farre aboue the authority of all Protestant Diuines Churches that ever were that these are to be by all wise men dispised contemned as the scorne of the world for opposing so great an authority auoucling S. Denis the Aropagite to be author thereof §. 46. HITHERTO we are come through all ages from the Concel of Latteran vp to the Apostles shewing the doctrine of Transubstantiation to haue beene beleeved taught by the Pastors Doctors of the Church of God all along as a doctrine of faith euery where receiued practised by the Church from whence by the receiued Rule of S. Augustine it doth immediately follow that for so much as the originall or beginning of this doctrine such is the Antiquity thereof cannot be found it is to be supposed it hath its Originall from the Apostles themselves which Rule saith D. Whiteguift the pretended Bishop of Canterbery Vviteguift Defen pag. 351. is of credit with the writers of our tyme namely with Swinglius Caluin Gualter surely saith he I think no learned man doth dissent from them But that we may more fully demonstrate this truth leaue no age out adde to what we sayd the Apostolicall credit together with the supreme souueraigne authority of Gods owne word who is infinit truth therefore can neither deceiue others nor be himselfe deceiued I will bring them in as witnesses of the first age who were the first masters of Christianity founders of the Church In the 1. Age. §. 47. S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.23 BRETHREN I receiued of our Lord that which also I haue deliuered vnto you that our Lord Iesus the night wherein he was bâ— be trayed tooke bread giuing thankes brake sayd Take yee eate this is my body which shall be deliuered for you c. The very same words fact of our Saviour are
THE CATHOLICK DOCTRINE OF TRANSVBTANTIATION proued to be ancient and Orthodoxall Against the sclanderous tongue of D. Iohn Cozens a Protestants minister auouching the sayd doctrine neuer to haue been knowne in the Church before the Councels of Latteran and of Trent Aug. in psal 36. Tanto magis debemus commemorare vanitatem Haereticorum quanto magis quaerimus salutem eorum By how much more we seeke the saluation of HereticKes by so much more we ought to maKe the vanity of their lyes appeare Luther Epist ad Io. Heruagium TypographuÌ„ The sacramentaries began their opinion of the sacrament with lyes and with lyes they defend it PRINTED AT PARIS M.DC.LVII TO THE READER COVRTEOVS READER As the cause of my first writing this paper was to satisfy the Countesse of Insiquin giue her not only the true sense and meaning of S. Austin but also the beleefe of all Orthodox Antiquity concerning the reall presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist so the reason why I now publish it is to informe those of the truth who peraduenture may haue heard of a conference which casually happened thereupon between my selfe and D. Iohn Cozens a Protestant minister Which because it is related by some of his friends with much partiality preiudice to the truth I am aduised by friends to publish it with all the most materiall circumstances wherewith it was accompanyed or which were the occasion of it whereby it will appeare that Luther the grand Patriarke of all Protestant Congregations neuer spoke truer then when speaking of the Abettors of the Sacramentarian doctrine which is the doctrine of the English pretended reformation he sayd Epist ad Ioannem Heruagium TypographuÌ„ The Sacramentaries began their opinion with lyes and with lyes they defend it this I say will appeare plainly by the following relation 1. The Countesse of Insiquin being trobled at her Honorable Lords being become a Roman Catholick and vsing all the meanes she could to draw him to returne againe to Protestanisme among other indeauours she applyed the industry of D. Io Cozens a Protastant minister who to that effect wrot sundry papers to him wherein he impugned the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome ouer the whole Church of Christ as a doctrine crept-in since the Apostles tymes and not warranted by the authority of Orthodox Antiquity 2. These papers the earle of Insiquin was pleased to send vnto me and withall requested me to returne an answer to them especially to the authorities alleadged therein out out of S. Gregory the great and S. Cyprian against our Catholick doctrine 3. In compliance with my Lords request I drew a short answer wherein I shewed first by the testimone of the Doctours owne brethren that his vrging of S. Gregories refusing the title of vniuersall Bishop is very vaine and idle and grounded vpon wilfull blindnesse and Hereticall obstinacy because it is cleerer then the sunne and confessed by the greatest schollers of Protestant syde that S Gregory notwithstanding the foresayd obiection did clayme and exercise the Primacy of authority and iurisdiction ouer all Churches in causes spirituall and Ecclesiasticall and therefore he tearmeth the see of Rome the head of all Churches the mother Church the mistresse of Nations and auoucheth them to be peruerse men that will not be subiect to her and that S. Peter was by God appointed ouer all the Church c. These acknowledgments are made of S. Gregory by Bale Bulinger Melanchton the Centurists and other Protestant writers against D. Cozens and his old worne-out obiection which hath beene so many tymes already answered and refuted not only by our Catholick Diuines but euen by Protestants In so much that Andreas Friccius a Protestant whom Peter Martyr styleth an excellent learned man writeth thus in confutation of this foolish obiection saying L. 2. de Eccles cap. 10. pa. 570. Some there be c. that obiect the authority of Gregory who saith that such a title pertaineth to the Precursor of Anti-Christ but the reason of Gregory is to be knowne and it may be gathered from his words which he repeateath in many Epistles that the title of vniuersall Bishop is contrary to and doth gainsay the grace which is commonly poured vpon all Bishops He therefore that calleth himselfe the only Bishop taketh the Bishop like power from te rest Wherefore this title he would haue to be reiected c. But it is neuerthelesse euident by other places that Gregory thaught that the charge and Principality of the whole Church was committed to Peter And yet for this cause Gregory thought not that Peter was the forerunner of Anti-Christ Thus Friccius So euident it is by the Confession of this Protestant that S. Gregory himselfe claymed and defended the Primacy of the Roman Bishop Church ouer all other Bishops and Churches whatsoeuer And yet D. Cozens will be still vrging against vs this obiection of s. Greg which proceeding doth euidently conuince him to be either extreme ignoraÌ„t little verst euen in his owne authors or else which is much worse to haue layd a syde all shame and honesty being resolued to maintaine any thing though neuer so cleer against his owne conscience so that he may for base ends and secular interest deceaue the vnlearned 4. Hauing shewed that his argument drawne from the authority of s. Gregory was of no credit euen with the learnedst of his owne schoole I went on declaring how the minister abused S. Cyprian by disiointing clipping and confounding S. Cyprians sayings that so he might obscure his meaning which are the ordinary shifts of Protestant ministers and are most vnexcusable in D. Cozens because he wilfully perseuers in it notwithstanding the notice which was lately taken thereof in the very selfe same controuerâ—y by that learned Diuine Mr. Thomas Carre in his occasionall discourses and in like occasion by D. Thomas Vane in his vindication of the Councel of Latteran both of them laying open his foul peruerting and corrupting of the fathers and the Councel to his eternall shame and confusion for it cannot but appeare to euery indifferent man that the minister is not so much a louer of truth as he would faine appeare to his followers but rather to be accounted of the number of those who loue darkenesse more then light falshood more then truth 5. These hereticall slights being discouered in the Minister I shewed how the places of S. Cyprian being faithfully cited make most cleerly for our Catholick doctrine seing it is cleer that he beleeued and taught that the Roman Church was by diuine institution the Principall and chief Church that she had the prerogatiue of being the mother Church of all other Churches that the Primacy or head-gouerning authority was by Christ giuen to S. Peter and his successor and that his Chaire that is the see of Rome is the fountaine and head-spring from whence do flow all the stremes of pure and infallible doctrine is the sunne from whence all the starres