Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	authority_n	church_n	reason_n	1,707	5	5.2951	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34439	Motives of conversion to the Catholick faith, as it is professed in the reformed Church of England by Neal Carolan ...	Carolan, Neal.	1688 (1688)	Wing C605; ESTC R15923	53,424	72

that the giving of the Cup to the people is an indifferent thing and may be done or omitted as the Rulers of the Church shall judge convenient Some of them proceed farther and pretend that receiving the Bread alone was less or more the practice of all ages since the beginning of Christianity Many conjectures and surmises have been invented by Bellarmin and others in order to make this seem likely and yet all in vain For many learned men of the Roman Catholick party are ashamed of this pretence and ingenuously confess that there never was any such practice approved amongst the Ancients Alphonsus à Castro asserting the lawfulness of the peoples communicating in both kinds hath these words saith he For I have learned from the Writings of many holy men Nam olim per multa saecula sic apud omnes Catholicos usurpatum esse ex multorum sanctorum scriptis didicimus Alphons titul Eucharist Haeres 13. that anciently for many ages it was the custom for all Catholiques to communicate so Lindanus a great maintainer of Popery affirms that both kinds were generally received in the Eucharist even till the year 1260. Panopliae lib. 4. c. 56. in these words I now omit other things says he which make for this purpose to wit Omitto nunc alia quae huc faciunt quod in aetatem usque Divi Thomae 1. ann Domini 1260. utriusque speciei Communio ferè ubique fuerir Laicis administrata sed non ubique periculis fortè effusi Sanguinis Domini scandalis unà cum populis negligentia pietatis detrimento increbescentibus paulatim utriusque speciei Communio in unam degeneravit that till the age of St. Thomas that is till the year of our Lord 1260. the Communion in both kinds was almost every where administred to the Laity but not every where perhaps dangers and scandals arising from spilling the Blood of Christ together with the peoples negligence and the decay of Piety becoming every day greater the Communion of both kinds gradually degenerated into one Albaspinaeus the late learned Bishop of Orleans in France undertakes to confute several of Bellarmins Conjectures about the pretended Antiquity of the Half Communion especially his fancy that the Lay-communion a thing sometimes mentioned by the ancient Writers was a custom of the peoples receiving only in one kind and upon this occasion Albaspinaeus hath these words following But if we grant that which by all means we ought to acknowledge to wit Atqui si detur quod concedi omninò necesse est quo tempore Concilia Patres de Communione Laicâ mentionem fecerunt Laicos sub utraque specie communicâsse sequitur non esse sub una specie Communionem lib. 1. Observat cap. 4. that in those times when the Councils and Fathers made mention of the Lay-Communion the people did partake of both kinds it follows that this i.e. Lay-Communion is not participating of the Sacrament under one kind There are two remarkable places in Cardinal Bona lib. 2 c. 18. de Rebus Liturgicis to prove that the Communion in one kind was not practised till the year 1200. and that all the precedent ages had the contrary practice and gave both kinds to the people publickly He pretends besides but indeed without any considerable ground that the Half Communion was privately practised in those ages These are his sayings It is certain says he that all persons in all places Certum est quippe omnes passim Clericos Laicos viros mulieres sub utraque specie sacra mysteria antiquitùs sumpsisse cum solemni eorum Celebrationi aderant offerebant de Oblatis participabant Clergy and people men and women did anciently receive the holy mysteries in both kinds when they were present at the publick Celebration when they offered and did partake of the Offerings And a little after For always and every where Semper enim ubique ab Ecclesiae primordiis usque ad saeculum duodecimum sub specii Panis Vini communicârent fideles caepitque paulatim ejus saeculi initio usus calicis obsolescere from the infancy of the Church till the 12th age the faithful received the Communion under both kinds of Bread and Wine and the custom of the Cup in the beginning of that age began by little and little to be disused Thus we see by the Testimonies already produced that detaining the Cup from the people was no ancient practice but began about 460 years ago These Authors here cited being Papists are a sufficient proof of this and many more of the same Perswasion might be brought to confirm the same which at present I omit that I may shun tediousness But the thing which upon examination I found my self obliged principally to consider was not only what had been the ancient practice in this matter but also what the reason ground was which moved the holy Fathers and the primitive Church generally as well Laity as Clergy to believe themselves most strictly bound to receive both kinds For that they had such a Belief the Authorities which I shall hereafter alledge will convincingly demonstrate and the reason and ground of this their Perswasion was the Command and Institution of Christ He had ordered in the Gospel that all should drink of the Cup and they with great Piety and Reverence to his Command accounted themselves all obliged to do what he enjoyned them This certainly is nothing but what ought to be done And I heartily wish the Church of Rome had retained the like veneration and pious regard for the Command of Christ I should then have found no cause to blame her in this particular Now because I have here in effect asserted that the Command of Christ concerning the Sacrament was that which had influence upon the Christians of the eldest ages I shall in the first place produce the Precept and then subjoin immediately the Sense of Antiquity to it which will manifest that they thought the obligation arising from the Divine Precept did extend to all Believers without any discrimination and if this be effectually performed I suppose it will be unnecessary to advertise the Reader that the same apprehensions concerning the necessity of receiving in both kinds ought to take place at all times and in all Christian Societies The consequence of which is that the Roman Church is a notorious transgressor of Divine Law in this respect and that the pretended indifferency of giving the Cup to the people or withholding of it is a false supposition Our Saviour when he first appointed this Sacrament delivered a Command Matt. 26.27 that all should drink of the Cup and after his Resurrection he reinforced all the Precepts which he had given to his Disciples and consequently this amongst the rest Matth. 28.19 20. saying Go teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all

the Manichees would have gone undiscovered Hence I could not but conclude that Leo and all Orthodox believers of his time were of the same judgment in this point with the Reformed Church of England since that Reverend Bishop lookt upon receiving the Cup as a certain sign of an Orthodox and true Christian and esteemed the contrary practice an infallible marke of a detestable and sacrilegious Heretick And I am exceedingly confirmed in this Opinion because I find that Pope Gelasius one who sate in the Episcopal Chair of Rome about Thirty years after Leo's death hath in a most publick solemn and authentick manner declared the necessity of Receiving in both kinds and the contrary practice to be sacrilegious For he made a Canon against the corrupt custom of Receiving in one kind which some superstitious people were then endeavouring to introduce And this very Canon is to be found in Gratians Body of the Canon Law. De Consecrat dist 2. c. 12. It is in the Acts of the Councils It is also in the Annals of Cardinal Baronius ad annum 496. But in short there is no doubt of its being the true and genuine Canon of Gelasius and consequently no man can rationally deny this to be a very convincing proof that the judgment and practice of the ancient Bishops of Rome was directly contrary to that of the Modern Bishops and Church thereof I shall here produce the words of the Canon it self that the impertiall Reader may judge whether I had not reason to conclude that the present Roman Church is guilty of Novelties and that the Reformed Church of England does punctually follow the sense of Antiquity But we find says he that some who having received the portion of the Holy Body do abstain from the Cup of the Blood. Comperimus autem quod quidam-sumpta tantummodo Corpus sacri portione â Calice Cruoris abstineant qui proculdubio quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceautur quia divisio vnius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire Gratian. de consecrat dist 2. c. 12. Let these men without all controversy because they are informed against as persons possest with I know not what superstition either receive the whole Sacrament or abstaine from the whole for a division or parting of the one and the same mistery cannot come to passe without very great sacriledge This ancient Canon I find hath given very strange disturbance to the modern Church of Rome great stir hath been to avoid the force of it if it were possible to be done And because it cannot be denyed that this Canon or Decree was made by Gelasius almost 1200 years ago Therefore many interpretations have been devised to make it reconcilable and consistent with their present practice of detaining the Cup from the People The first device is to imagine and suppose without any manner of ground in the world that this Decree only respects the Priests consecrating the Host Thus we find the Author of the Annotations upon Gratian endeavouring to escape the difficulty But undoubtedly neither the Protestants nor any rational man hath any reason to regard this vain and idle supposition Especially when so eminent a man as Cardinal Baronius hath assured us that this is a senselesse and foolish solution He calls it frigidam solutionem ad annum 496 num 20. 21. And says he rejects it and hath no need of such foolery But there is another evasion which is commonly made use of by the Romanist in order to elude the force of this Canon and because this evasion is most in vogue amongst them therefore particularly I did consider it Many of their controvertists do pretend that the ancient Decree of Gelasius was only temporary and occasional built upon the condition of the times when it was made And therefore say they it might be abrogated without any violation of Divine law when the reason of it by the change of the times was removed Now it is pretended that the reason or cause of it was this In the age of Gelasius say they the Church was exceedingly pestered with a copious number of dissembling Manichees who had a mind to be accounted Catholicks yet out of a superstitious aversion to Wine abstained from the Cup in the Sacrament And this if we believe them was the cause and reason of the Decree against receiving in one kind and not any Divine Precept enjoyning both This I narrowly examined and found it to be more idle and insignificant than the former which Cardinal Baronius called senseless and foolish For whatever the condition of those times was the principal reason of the Canon is incorted into the Canon it self and it is this following Because a parting of one and the same mystery cannot come to pass without very great Sacriledge Now I must beg leave of my old Friends to tell them that this is no temporary or mutable reason certainly not to commit Sacriledge is a thing of unchangeable and perpetual obligation neither has it any dependence upon the condition of any Age or Time For let the Times change never so much it will never be lawsul to commit Sacriledge and such is communicating in one kind alone if Pope Gelasius may be believed Thus it is plain that this ancient Decree is directly contrary to the late constitutions of the Roman Church and these evasions invented in order to make it seem reconciliable have not any plausible colour of reason Therefore I doubt not but the judicious and impartial Reader will be satisfied that it is necessary for all Christians that come to the Lords Supper to partake of it in both kinds and that this necessity arises from the Command of our Saviour enjoining all to drink of the Cup. The ancient Fathers did so believe and teach as the Authorities already cited do clearly and satisfactorily manifest Herein I have Lindanus agreeing with me though he was a great Defender of Popery in these words when he had first shewn what the Opinion of the old Writers was said After this manner the ancient Fathers chiefly St. Leo Hunc igitur in modum illam ve tustissimam planéque Apostolicam utriusque speciei Communionem conservatam atque observatam populo Christiano cupiebant prisci Patres Divus Leo Gelasius Patres in Concilio Turonensi Gelasius and the Fathers in the Council of Tours did desire that that most ancient and altogether Apostolical Communion in both kinds might be preserved and observed by the Christian people Lastly That the Reader may the better compare this ancient Doctrine and Practice with the novel and late Rule set up by the Romanists it is necessary that I produce the Canon made by Pope Martin V. in the Council of Constance about 272 years ago which forbids administring the Cup to the people Because the Canon is long I shall only produce two clauses of it and any man