Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	catholic_n	church_n	visible_a	2,907	5	9.9387	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79524	Catholike history, collected and gathered out of Scripture, councels, ancient Fathers, and modern authentick writers, both ecclesiastical and civil; for the satisfaction of such as doubt, and the confirmation of such as believe, the Reformed Church of England. Occasioned by a book written by Dr. Thomas Vane, intituled, The lost sheep returned home. / By Edward Chisenhale, Esquire.	Chisenhale, Edward, d. 1654.	1653 (1653)	Wing C3899; Thomason E1273_1; ESTC R210487	201,728	571

and that the rather because I will therein give a brief account of the state of the Popes and of the means and wayes by which they have grown to the present height of jurisdiction they now exercise as well over other Churches as over Princes and in that respect it may serve for an answer to the Doctors twentieth additional Chapter without incurring a just censure of an absolute digression from the subject matter of the Doctors discourse CHAP. XIV That the Pope hath no power to depose any Prince although an Heretick That Bishops are not equal with Kings and that the antient practice of Rome's church was against this neither claiming the same in Spiritual or Temporal capacities THe Pope of Rome claimes to be Peters successor and by vertue thereof to be Christs Vice-general universal father of the Church the onely dispensor of Apostolick Benedictions and supreme head of the Catholick Church these are the titles and appellations by which he desires to be distinguished that by these it may be known he is dignified above all the Clergy upon earth I have in the second Chapter given some satisfaction concerning the unjustness of this his claime yet I might admit him what he here desires to be thought to be and notwithstanding prove that that power of jurisdiction will not extend to a warrant his busie intermedling in temporal affaires much less be a sufficient warrant for his dethroning of any Prince or Potentate or disobliging his people and subjects from their obedience and duty to such civil Magistracy as is set over those people to rule and govern them In prosecution of this matter I will first treat of the power of Kings and Bishops in general then examine the Popes power in particular Kings are called sons of the most high Of the prerogative of Kings 2 Sam. 7.14 Gods on earth Psal 82.6 All people are to obey them in all they command Josh 1.28 They have their Commission from Almight God by me Kings reign Prov. 8.15 and Rom. 13. Their wrath is as the roaring of a Lyon Prov. 19.12 And if they transgress none is to question them Psal 51.4 Lyranus upon this Psalm says David had sinned against God alone as a Judge to punish him for being a King he had no superior to punish him and yet he had sinned against Vriah causing him to be murdered but as to be punished he crys out unto the Lord Against thee only have I done this evil And herewith agree Saint Ambrose de Apolog. David cap. 10. pag. 386. and Hugo Cardinalis upon that Psalm Kings shall bear rule and exercise dominion Luk. 22. He is the Minister of God to take vengeance on them that do evil The whole Scripture magnifies the majesty power and dominion of Kings which it witnesses to be given to those absolute Monarches and Kings mentioned in Scripture even by God himself that power which they had being of God Rom. 13. And none should say unto them What dost thou As for Priests it is plain by the Scripture that those under the Law were to offer sacrifice for the sins of the people Of the Office of Bishops 1 Chron. 9.2 Heb. 9.6 5.1 Gods Covenant with them was of life peace and that their lips should preserve knowledge Malach. 2.4 And the Priests under the Gospel are a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God by Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2.5 they are commanded to pray for all men 1 Tim. 2. For Kings and all that be in authority and Peter the prime Apostle was commanded to follow Christ who left him an example of suffering and obedience which S. Peter himself witnesses to the world 1 Pet. 2.21 For hereunto are ye called for Christ also suffered for us leaving us an ensample that yee should follow his steps From all which places of Scripture may be deduced these conclusions Kings are representatives of God the Father to them is given all power and dominion to rule and command Priests are the lively Images of Christ to whom he has left his precept of humility to be obedient and serve To Kings is left authority to punish evil doers to Priests to pray for all men even their own oppressors not to recompence evil for evil Rom. 12.17 Kings are to use the material sword for vengeance Priests the spiritual sword the Word to make supplication for all Saints Eph. 6.18 Kings are not to be rebuked Priests are to suffer with patience Kings sit in Gods throne Priests serve at his Altar Kings are Angels of God 2 Sam. 14.20 Priests are the Embassadors of Christ beseeching us in Christs stead to be reconciled unto God Yet Kings though they be thus exalted and superintendent over all they have an especial charge to respect the Priests and hearken unto them Num. 27.21 And it is the duty of Priests to reverence them 2 Chro. 13. Priests pay their tribute of obedience and duty but Kings are to recompence it with respect and love The power of the Priest over the people ceased when Saul was King and yet Saul was to hearken to Samuel The Majesty of the one must not despise the humility of the other the King as I said is the Minister of Justice the Priests the Messengers of Mercy These two must not clash against each other but with Princely David ought with harmonious concurrence of spirit to sing of mercy and judgement mercy and truth to meet together righteousness and peace to kiss each other For as there is a Noli me tangere for the one Touch not mine anointed so there is a precept of preservation for the other Do my prophets no harm There is a general tye laid upon all Let every soul be subject to the higher powers wherein the Ministers of the Gospel are included and likewise there is a rule of obedience prescribed to all Heb. 13. Obey them that have the oversight of you for that they watch for your souls c. wherein Princes are not exempted Which shews that Princes are to hearken to their word and doctrine and to be courteous to them and not to grieve the holy Spirit of God Eph. 4. and they are to be obedient to Princes for that they bear not the sword in vain So that these two seem to have a mutual dependencie each on other the Priest must exhort with sound doctrine to which obedience must be given upon paine of damnation and the King may enjoyn the practice of that or any other rule of faith agreeable to the word of God which the Bishop likewise upon the same paine is bound to observe onely here is the difference in point of variance betwixt King and Priest the King is above the Priest to execute Judgement the Priest being bound to obey not to rule which is no confusion of the Ecclesiastical estate they being hereunto ordained to suffer for Christs sake when it shall please God for their sins or the sins of the people to

practice of the Church That the Sacrifice upon the Altar is superstitious and The authority of the Church no excuse to change the administration of the Lords Supper into one kinde THe Church of Rome having thus gained a general consent though at first forced upon many by the power and domineering of the Popes to her doctrine of Transubstantiation she stuck not long in this station but partly to make good what she had introduced into the Church and partly to shew to the world the divine Legislative power of her Head she soared a pitch higher whereas before this she but maintained an opinion which but to some weak capacities did convince all not being satisfied with the sincerity of her doctrine concerning the nature and quality of this Sacrament of the Lords Supper which Christ himself instituted and by his last Will and Testament left it as a Legacie to his faithful servants her Popes now take upon them after their former opinion was confirmed by Councel and generally received and believed as an Article of Faith to dispense with that Sacrament of Christ Jesus and have in stead thereof instituted one of their own making administring in one kinde and denying the Cup to the Lay-people which is a novel trick of Papal invention and never practised in the Churches upon earth till they forced it upon some over which the Popes did without controul rule at will and pleasure Christ Jesus did institute this Sacrament in both kindes Paul enjoyns both the whole Church did administer in both and the Fathers teach that as well the wine as the bread is to be received and did think wine so necessary that it could not be administred in water much less in the cake alone in which there is no liquid element to represent the shedding of Christs blood for which end it was ordained Cyprian who wrote 260 yeers after Christ in his 3 Epist ad Cecilium lib. 2. Forasmuch saith he as Christ said I am the true vine and the Cup is his blood it cannot be thought that his blood is in the cup if wine be not in the cup whereby the blood is signified unto us Chrysost in Matth. cap. 26. Hom. 83. Christ used wine as well before his Resurrection as after S. Hierome in Sophon cap. 3. doth witness that in his time the Priest did administer the Eucharist and divide the blood unto the people In the Canon of Pope Gelasius and in the Popes Decrees de Consecrat a strict Injunction is laid that all receive in both kindes for that the dividing of that Sacrament is sacriledge I need not instance in this any more particulars in respect that none can deny but that anciently it was in both kindes administred I will therefore examine the reasons the Church of Rome gives for her alteration from this antient way and for administring in one kind and in so doing I shall plainly lay open her errors in this point The Councel of Constance held 1414. Councel of Constance Ses 13. decreed Quod nullus Presbyter sub conditione excommunicationis communicet populo sub utroque specie Panis Vini Which notwithstanding the Councel of Basil did after restore to the people again Anno 1431. So that in this new doctrine of hers Rome has met with much controversie even in her self Gelasius the Pope decreeing it to be sacrilegious to omit either kind by which it is evident that the Church of Rome has erred de fide For Gelasius taught that judicially as Pope and the Council of Constance was approved by Pope John 23. and this Councel of Basil by Eugenius the 4. Which proceedings wound the infallibility of the Church of Rome and spoiles her unity one Pope being against another and one Council against another To decide which strivings the late Prerogative Royal of the Popes being above Councels was therefore decreed which notwithstanding by that means the Church of Rome is made infallible yet it spoiles her of her marks of antiquity and constant visibility and therefore absolutely spoiles her for being taken to be the onely Catholick Church for if so then the Catholick Church was once utterly extinguished from off the earth which is against Gods promise and impious to imagine The Pope being thus grown above Councels he now as he pleases declares this Councel void the other to be of force and by vertue of this his Prerogative he has approved the Councel of Constance and yet but in part for he onely takes as much out of that Councel as makes for his turn he onely confirmes their Decree prohibiting the Cup to the Laity but their other Decree of the power of Councels to be above the Pope that 's abominable and his Holiness commands that Decree to be believed to be Heretical By this is to be noted that the Popish Religion is a nose of wax as pleaseth his Holiness to set it forth it must be received upon the score of his infallibility though it be never so destructive to former Christian principles to the ruine of Councels and overthrowing of the true antient Catholick Faith yet such is the condition of the Pope that his will can guide him into no tenent though never so contrary to truth but his faithful Papal servants the Jesuites will dawb over his rotten Doctrine with the smooth plaisters of humane reason and think with subtile Sophistry to beguile the simple the deluding of whom doth not in their uneven hands counterpoise the pleasing of their Master the Pope and therefore did they strive to varnish over this new point of Communion in one kind with some counterfeit Paint Will you please to take a view thereof and I hope I shall so far convince their reasons that the case will meerly stand upon the Popes will and if so I presume none will be so irreverent to their Master Christ to forsake his institution and to adhere to the Popes institution lest they may be said with the Jewes to reject Christ and chuse Barabbas The Doctor would perswade that it was no precept to receive in both kindes but onely being of institution and not precept the Church has power to alter it as occasion may serve To which I answer 2. It was christs precept to receive in both kinds It was injoyned us by way of command to receive in both kinds for Christ in the 6 of John v. 53 sayes Except ye eat the flesh 〈◊〉 ●rink the blood of the Son of man ye have no life in you Christ took the Bread and said Take eat And also he took the Cup and said Drink ye all of it Matth. 26. This is an absolute precept as well for the Cup as the Bread and Saint Paul delivered it so to the Corinthians according as he had received of the Lord he likewise enjoyning it to them as a precept probet seipsum let a man examine himself let him eat let him drink the Commandment extending to the one as well as to the other which

in that service as it is made manifest in the ensuing Chapter The humble confession of all penitent hearts their acknowledging of Christs benefits their thanksgiving for the same their faith and consolation in Christ their humble submission to his will is a sacrifice of laud and prayse acceptable unto God no less then the sacrifice of the Priest Christ did not ordain this Sacrament that any one might receive it for another but that every one for himself is to be made partaker of this mystery of his salvation For as one may not be baptized for another for the Godfathers answering for the child say he hath faith because he hath the Sacrament of faith by the outward element of water which as it self cleanseth so the childe thereby is born again of water and of the Spirit to newness of life Baptism the infant spiritually receiving regeneration by the outward element of the water according to the effectual working of the holy Spirit unto newness of life the infant being thereby made a member of Christ by faith in Jesus given unto him in that Sacrament of Baptism So may not one receive this holy Sacrament for another Let every man be baptized Act. 2. here is spiritual regeneration to every man by himself And Mat. 26. Christ said to the multitude Take and eat and drink ye all of this and here is spiritual growth and living in Christ every man by himself and by this means we that are many branches become one Vine being baptized into one Spirit and all made to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12.13 Whereas the Doctor urges that those words Drink ye all of this were spoken to the Apostles and that therefore the cup is not to be given to the people He might as well conclude they shall not have the bread because Christ gave that to his Apostles whereas all Divines agree that what was spoken to them was thereby meant of the whole Church upon earth which are all the Saints of God upon earth of particular Churches whensoever assembled into a Society which is manifest by S. Paul who delivered to the Corinthians that which he had received formerly of the Lord Jesus to wit both the bread and the cup enjoyning every one to examine himself and so let him eat and so let him drink By which it is plain that it was to be delivered to the people in both kindes And if one kinde had been sufficiently significant of Christs flesh and blood offered by himself upon the Cross for our redemption sure Christ would never have added the cup as part of that Sacrament thereby to signifie his blood if already it had been sufficiently signified in the bread Wherefore unless the Papists will charge Christ to be superfluous in his institution of this Sacrament they must allow the cup unto the people as well as bread and both as well as one Lastly the Doctor would justifie the change of the Church of Rome in this particular upon the authority of the Church given by Christ to his Apostles so to do And for this he urges S. Austin who was dead five hundred and fifty yeers before ever this doctrine of Rome was heard of S. Austin stood much for the significancie of the bread and wine that this Sacrifice was but a representation of Christs Sacrifice and that which you see on the Altar or Table is the bread and the cup which your eyes shew you is the wine but saith he faith sheweth that that bread is the body and that cup is the blood of Jesus Christ It was the practice of the Church in his time to administer in both kindes he when he lived taught the necessity of wine against those that mingled water and so did Cyprian and others and now that they are dead the Doctor will have them teach another doctrine S. Austin might say that Christ left authority to his Apostles to make such appointments in what order this Sacrament should be received as whether sitting kneeling how often or the like but not that they should institute a new Sacrament Christ gave both Elements Saint Paul delivered both according as he had received and it was to be done in remembrance of Christ and they were commanded to be imitators of him Ephes 5.1 Christ left this as a Legacy to his Church and he made the Apostles Executors of this his last Will and Testament which they were to discharge by dispensing that Legacy to Christs faithful Saints and People Wherefore for them to withhold part of the thing bequeathed to wit the participation of the cup which is by S. Paul called The Communion of his blood is to forfeit that trust Christ has reposed in them and to forget his precept he enjoyned them commanding to teach all Nations whatsoever he had commanded them We are bound to hold fast the traditions we have learned If then the Scripture tell us that Christ with his Apostles did communicate in both kinds and Saint Paul administring to the Corinthians said Traditi vobis quod accepi a Domini how comes the Church of Rome to forsake this tradition which Christ himself taught and practised and the Primitive Church for a thousand yeers held for faith if it ought to be reduced to one kind how came it to pass to be let alone so long and by what Authority doth Rome claim this power sith the ancient Fathers and the Primitive Church did not onely use to administer to the people in both kinds but maintained and defended the necessity of Bread and Wine the outward elements of this Sacrament as may appear by the Testimony of the afore-cited Fathers and particularly it was the profession of the Church of Rome as Gelasius Bishop thereof witnesseth Shall but the Church of Rome prescribe any new rule of faith or manmers and shall any disobey he is straightwaies anathematized for casting off the Tradition of the Church and the Catholick Church upon earth communicated in both k nds and shall the late Popes of Rome alter this and escape the censures Were there nothing for it but the bare usage of the Primitive Churches it were enough to convince the Church of Rome but whenas there is Christs precept and institution for it how doth the Church of Rome justly incur the condemnation of the Pharisees teaching for doctrines the commandments of men and laying aside the commandments of God follow their own traditions Mark 7. But such was the transcendent wickedness of the Church of Rome in these dayes that scarce any Apostolick Rule but has suffered some alteration by his Holiness and his Legislative conclave of Cardinals who being soared to a height above Councels Princes and all other Powers on earth stick not to wrestle against these commandments of the God of Heaven witness their additions to the Baptisme as if the Baptisme wherewith Christ was Baptized were not sufficient without the Romish spittle and salt and as if this Sacrament of Bread and Wine were

superfluous as to the cup the Church of Rome administers in one kind as if nothing were perfect and to be received in the Catholick Church but what his Holiness please to teach and allow And their reasons are so weak they offer for such their alterations that any one may plainly discern it is Will not Reason brings her into such changes Who but knows that Christ as he was man and the Apostles likewise were obnoxious to the same inconveniences of spilling the Wine as the Doctor alledges or part sticking upon their beards as the people of these dayes are But they knowing that it was Christs order to separate the cup from the bread and give it to be divided amongst them thereby denoting to them how his blood should be separated from his flesh and by Christ left as a pattern for them to follow and to have continuance till his comming again they by eating the bread and drinking the cup shew the Lords death till he come and for that the same was to be continued in remembrance thereof and they being commanded likewise hereunto Drink ye all of this Let a man examine himself and let him eat and let him drink They would not and we dare not admit of Romes alteration but desire of God to hold fast this truth we have received and that it would please him to confirm us herein that we may be blameless in the day of the Lord Jesus praying that all other Churches as in this so in all other points of faith and doctrine may be of one consent and firmly united together in one mind and one judgement that we may all proceed in one Rule and walk together as followers of Christ and his Apostles having them for an ensample to us that we may with one mind and one mouth praise God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Amen CHAP. XVII That the Lyturgie and private Prayers ought not to be in an unknown Language which the Congregation doth not understand WHereas Saint Paul in the 1 Cor. 14. is against giving of thanks or praying without understanding because the hearer is not edified nor can say Amen to he knows not what the Doctor to help the lame Dogg over the style and to clear his new step-mother the Church of Rome from the errors which other Churches lay to her charge for that she restrains her Prayers and her Lyturgy universally to the Latine tongue would needs have us to understand that S. Paul doth not hereby impugne the Lyturgie of the Church of Rome which sayes he was for the service and praise of God and he to whom it is directed understands any tongue but it is meant sayes he of Church-meetings which were onely for instruction and edification of the Auditors and not at all to be understood to gainsay the Lyturgie of Romes Church To which I answer 1. S. Paul's meaning is as well meant of the one as of the other for vers 26. When ye come says he together according as every one hath a tongue or hath interpretation let it be done to edifying By which it is plain that both praises and prayers Psalms as well as doctrine ought to be with understanding For vers 28. If any man hath an unknown tongue let him keep silence in the Church and speak to himself and to God That man that hath the spirit of Tongues may speak to God and himself but he must be silent to others unless they can understand him for how shall they say Amen to they know not what God requires from us the heart Give me thine heart David desired to praise the Lord in soul and spirit Praise the Lord O my soul and all that is within me praise his holy Name We must not think that a little lip-labour to say Amen to we know not what can be acceptable unto God 1 Sam. 1. Hannah prayed in her heart to the Lord. Not every one that saith Lord Lord shall be saved Matth. 7. God doth not require lip-service he condemned the Scribes and Pharisees who drew neer unto him with their lips but their hearts were far off Matth. 15. We are commanded to serve God with all our heart and soul Josh 24. We must sing and make melody to the Lord in our hearts Ephes 5. We must approve that which is pleasing to the Lord vers 10. God is King of all the earth sing ye praises therefore with understanding By all which and many more places of Scripture it is plain that the service of the Congregation it must be with the heart that is with the understanding We must not think that God is well pleased with the peoples devotion that proceeds not from the heart I will for the better satisfaction of those that seem to be satisfied with the Doctor 's exposition of S. Paul offer these reasons to his consideration against those he has propounded to justifie the Romane Lyturgie universally Platina writes La●ne service first set up that the first Latine Service that ever was at Constantinople was anno 687. whenas the sixth Councel there held was assembled for before that it was never had in the Latine but in the Greek or Hebrew Tongue But now was the Pope grown to be universal by the late donation of Phocas for countenancing his murder of Mauritius and it did not stand with his new-acquired honour and dignity that the Language of any other Church should be preferred before that of Rome and therefore at a General Councel the representative of the several Churches must the Language of the Romane See be preferred before any other For as the Pope was universal Head he must needs have an Universal Tongue otherwise his Universality were dumb And this was the true ground of composing the Latine Lyturgie and not as the Doctor would perswade us because it was the most general Tongue for whenas this was consented unto by many other Bishops to please the Lordly Pope the Emperours great favourite it gave occasion for the spreading of that Language because the Service began to be in many places in it not that it was so copious or known a Tongue before Nor doth the reason the Doctor brings justifie but rather condemn the Latine Lyturgie for saith he the Lyturgie of the Eastern Churches was used in Greek though all the Eastern parts spoke not that Language therefore why may not Rome prescribe a Lyturgie in Latine to the Western Churches To which I answer It was thought fit by the Fathers of the Primitive Church to have one uniform Lyturgie in all the Churches upon earth and ●o that end did those then-then-visible Churches use the Greek Tongue Why has the Church of Rome set up another form By this the Doctor contradicts her Antiquity and the other mark that she should never have separated from a Society more ancient then her self or else den●es her Universality in that she is but to prescribe a Latine Lyturgie to the Western Churcbes and so he makes those marks