Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	authority_n	church_n	council_n	1,729	5	6.6396	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64146	An answer to a book entituled An account of the Church Catholike where it was before the Reformation; and whether Rome were or be the Church Catholike. Wherein is proved, that the Catholike Church never was, nor can be distinct from that which is now called, the Church of Rome. By R.T. Esquire.	R. T.	1654 (1654)	Wing T42; ESTC R221978	68,689	169

unanimiter nobiscum conspirat Basil Epist 293. Here you see the whole Western Church vindicated from that Heresie which doubtless S. Hilary well knew Those then in France that retain'd their antient Faith kept themselves within the communion of the Roman Catholique Church from whose communion never yet any separated but Schismatiques and Heretiques 34. The n●x● Father of the Church that I m●et with is Arch-bishop Lawd as you are pleas'd to call him whose authority you have often cited which I cannot but wond●r at since he was so far from being a Father that he neither liv●d nor died a Son of the Church but the Doctor out of that pretended A●ch-bishops book charges ●h● Church of Rome with four opinions ●●pugnant to th● pl●in words of Scripture viz. 1. ●ransubstan●●ation 2 Administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind 3. Invo●ation of Saints 4. Adoration of Images Answ Though it be not much pertinent to our present purp●se to examine these D●ct●ines according to Scripture since the Doctor conf●ss●s that the Church of Rome n●twithstanding her errors is a tr●● Church and a member of the one Catholique Sect. 12. yet because he b●lieves the Church of Rome is justly charged with th●se ●nsound and un-Catholike Doctrines as ●● is pleased to ca●● them I could not pass them by but shall endeavour as briefly as may be to vindicate the Church of Rome from that foul and false c●lumnie 35 First then Transubstantiation according to the Roman Catholike Doctrine is a true and real change of the total substance of Bread and Wine after and by vi●●ue of the words of Consecration pronounc't by the Priest into the true reall and substantial Body and Blood of Christ Let us now examine how this Doctrine is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture Our blessed Saviour saith Matth. 26. 26 and Ma● 14. 22. This is my Body and This is my Blood The words are plain and being taken literally must necessarily import a change For that which was before Bread and Wine after our Saviours consecration is according to the proper and literal sense of the words the very Body and Blood of Christ Where is then the Repugnancy between this Doctrine and the plain words of Scripture Christ sayes of that which was Bread and Wine This is my Body and This is my Blood The Church of Rome sayes so ●oo Instead then of a Repugnancy here is a ful● consent and agreement between the plain word● of our Savi●ur and th● Doctrine of the Church of Rome Well but the words are not to be taken literally but figuratively Be it so Then is this Doctrine of the Church of Rome repugnant at the most but to the figurative sense not to the plain words or literal sense of Scripture But to come closer If the Doctor can produce any one Text of Scripture that shall be but halfe as plain for the Metaphorical or figurative sense or that the Creatures of ' Bread and Wine are not really and substantially changed into the very Body and Blood of Christ after Consecration but retain their former nature and substance of Bread and Wine as these words of Christ are for such a change I' will then for my part give the cause and turn Protesiant too or any thing else that Doctor Boughen shall command me to be But if he cannot produce any such Text as most certainly he cannot then is the Doct●ine of the Protestants and not that of the Church of Rome repugnant to the plain words of Scripture 36 But to justifie your selves and to avoid the Catholike Doctrine of the real presence and Transubstatiation you thus interpret those words This is my Body c. viz. This is a signe or figure of my Body but what Scripture have you for it What authority What Catholique Father what Councel did ever give that interpetation of those words I confess if there be no true and real change of Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ in the blessed Sacrament then will I also admit of that interpretation For if there be no such change then of necessity those creatures of Br●ad and Wine can be but bare signes and figures onely of Christs Body and Blood But behold Gods Providence over his Church The Holy Ghost fore seeing the evasions and shifts that some men would use to delude the world and to poison the Church with their Heretical Doctrines in opposition to Gods sacred Truth has in St. Lukes Gospel 22. 19 20 utterly cut you off even from that very glosse and interpretation The words of the Evangelist are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Cup of the new Testament in my blood which Cup is shed for you These are the words in the Original Language of St. Lukes Gospel And though both in the Latin and English translation the Relative which may seem to refer to Blood as well as to Cup yet in the Greek it is very plain that it must refer to Cup. If then that which was c●●●ain'd in the cup was that which was sh●d for the sins of the world how could it be Wine o● a sign or figu●e ●●ly of Christs bloud or any thing else but the true and real bloud of Christ For no sign o● sigure of bloud but Christs true and real precious bloud was shed for the sins of the world I will endeavour to make this Doctrine appear more plaine by this Syllogism That which was shed for the sins of the world was the true and real precious bloud of Christ But that which was in the cup was that which was shed for the fins of the world Ergo. That which was in the cup was the true and real precious bloud of Christ The Major Proposition cannot be denied without blasphemy the Minor is most plain by the words of the Text and therefore the conclusion must necessarily follow Here is no Fallacy Doctor in this Syllogism no more terms then ought to be in a Syllogism but to utterly debar you of your sign or figure I argue thus That which was shed for the sins of the world was not a sign or figure only of Christs bloud But that which was in the Cup was shed for the sins of the world Ergo. That which was in the Cup was not a sign or figure only of Christ's bloud Those words then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Cup the New Testament in my Blood cannot admit of this interpretation This Cup is a sign of my Blood unless you will grant that a bare sign of Christ's bloud was shed for the sins of the world which is high blasphemy For it is very plain by the express words of the Text That the very Cup which was the New Testament in Christ's Blood was shed for the sins of the world whe●efore that Cup could not be a sign onely but the tru precious bloud of our Saviour Wh●t say you Doctor who now

ignorance and to strengthen him by your weakness 53. I pass by your scurrilous speeches a-against M. T. B. as your comparing him to Seneca's wives fool your charging him for not being able to search the Scriptures Councels and Fathers to discover the antiquity and succession of your Doctrine there where no man ever yet did or can discover it I will only say this that M. T. B. has shewn more wit and judgment in one line then you have in all your Pamphlet and has said more in one sentence then you or all the Rabble of your Sect can answer in an age But let us see how you prove the antiquity of your Doctrine 54. The Doctrine you say of the Church of England is clear in your Book of Common-Prayer as for the positive part and in your book of Articles wherein much is Negattve Answ A very antient Doctrine then it must be your Book of Common-Prayer being made not much above 100. years since viz. 29. May 1549. in the reign of K. Edward the Sixth and your Book of Articles not much above half an hundred But was your book of Common-Prayer intended for a Confession of Faith or for publique Service and Devotion Is there any point of Faith or Doctrine absolutely declar'd and defin'd there You will say perchance that in the three Creeds are contain'd divers Declaratious and definitions of Faith I confess it but those Creeds are not inserted there meerly as definitions of Faith with a precept under a curse that all should believe whatsoever is there declard but as parts of your Publique Service that by frequent repetition thereof the vulgar people might know the principal points of Faith necessary for salvation I deny not but some Doctrines may be deducible thence though nothing positively declared it being a book which belongs rather to the Discipline then Doctrine of your pretended Church 55. The positive Doctrine you say of your Church contained in that Book was ever professed and is visible in all Catholique Writers Answ I confess that most if not all of the Doctrines deducible thence were ever professed and are visible in all Catholique Writers because they are the Doctrines of the Roman Catholike Church whence you have borrowed them as you have your whole book of Common-Prayer and the Scripture it self only you have taken the sacrilegious boldness to expunge out of both what your private phancies would not admit but if you can shew any one of your negative or positive Doctrines contain'd in your book of Articles and which is opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in any one Catholique Writer Father or Councel from the time of the Apostles to Luthers Apostasie I here profess before all the world that I will then become a Protestant my self or whatsoever else you will command me to be 56. But whereas you say That the most skilful of the Roman Catholique Party are not able to shew a succession of men professing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the first 700. years of Christianity I am so amaz'd that I know not whether I should charge you with gross ignorance or hellish malice In plain terms you must be either a most ignorant animal or a malicious deceiver Is it possible that you should obtrude such a notorious falshood to the world and not blush certainly you never read the Fathers nor Councels nor therein examin'd the antient Doctrine and practise of the Church or if you have as you pretend your judgment is not sufficient to understand them or else malice and obstinacy hath so blinded you that you cannot see it there as the malicious and obstinate Jews could not see our blessed Saviours Divinity through so many stupendious miracles The Sun it self was never so clear at noon-day as the succession of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and of men professing the same not only for the first 700. years of Christianity but from the time of the Apostles to this present day Has it not been already clearly shewn by divers learned Catholique Writers by you yet un-answer'd Has not Bellarmine Baronius Cardinal Peron D. Stratford c. most evidently manifested it to the world Were I not confin'd within the narrow precincts of a Reply I could most plainly demonstrate it my self but it would require a far larger volume then I have now time or opportunity to compose It is sufficient for me since you have appealed to the first 500. years after our Saviours birth that I have proved Sect. 44. that the Doctrine of those times is not different from but the very same with the present Doctrine of the Roman Catholike Church 57. Your Church of England you say has been visible since the first or second Conversion though not alwayes under Reformation Answ Which you mean by the first or second Conversion I know not but from the time of her last Conversion by S. Augustine the Monk which is commonly reputed her third conversion for almost 1000. years together you were an apparent visible part of the Church Catholique but when you began your blessed Reformation you then ceast to be a Church or a part of the Catholique Church For in K. Hen. eight's dayes you began your Schism separating your selves from the communion of your holy Mother the Church of Rome and the Bishop thereof the common Pastor of Christs Church and in K. Edw. the Sixths Reign your Schism begat Heresie and under this happy Reformation you have ever since continued But now Doctor where are your pretended Bishops what is become of your book of Common-Prayer who now subscribes to your 39. Articles You cannot reasonably deny but those who have lately reformed you had more authority and reason for it then you had to reform the whole Church or to censure Doctrines of Faith universally taught by Gods Church and receiv'd as such by all your Fore-fathers from the time of Englands conversion to the Christian Faith till after Luthers apostasie You considered not when under pretence of Reformation you forsook the whole Church that you did but leave a patern to your Successors how they also when they should think fit might forsake you and reform this your blessed Reformation as by Gods just judgments they have lately done For I am sure they walk by the same Rule of Scripture and are as competent Judges and as able interpreters thereof as ever you were or can be only they are not so tyrannical as you were who forced men against their consciences to subscribe to your Doctrine and Discipline which according to your own principles might be erroneous and superstitious 58. But you say Sect. 9. That you never read in Fathers or Councels That to communicate with Rome is either a sure or any token of a good Catholique Answ Then you never read S. Hieroms 57 Epist to Pope Damasus where you might have seen these words Ego Beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri commumione cons●●ior super illam Petram