Selected quad for the lemma: head_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
head_n	year_n	young_a	youth_n	161	3	7.9887	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33378	The Catholick doctrine of the Eucharist in all ages in answer to what H. Arnaud, Doctor of the Sorbon alledges, touching the belief of the Greek, Moscovite, Armenian, Jacobite, Nestorian, Coptic, Maronite, and other eastern churches : whereunto is added an account of the Book of the body and blood of our Lord published under the name of Bertram : in six books.	Claude, Jean, 1619-1687.	1684 (1684)	Wing C4592; ESTC R25307	903,702	730

accomplishment and whatsoever Clouds have fallen on the Ministration of it by the mixture of mens Devices with Gods everlasting Truths yet has our Saviour taken care to preserve the Faithful and execute the Decree of his Election So that such a one has no need to perplex himself with History nor with reading over of three or four hundred Volums which will not yield him the least Satisfaction much less need he entangle himself in the Author of the Perpetuity's Method which is a fourth way the World hath yet never been acquainted with When such a Person hears of Mr. Aubertin's Book and the account he gives of the Change which hath hapned I doubt not but he is glad to hear that even by this way which is only proper to the Learned the Truth he believes has bin illustrated neither do I doubt but he believes with a humane Faith what is told him concerning it but we must not imagine that his Belief touching the Eucharist hath changed its Foundation and left its Relyance on the Word of God for it remaineth still where it was so that when he should be questioned concerning the solidity of Mr. Aubertin's Proofs or that of any other Minister relating to this Subject he will not be troubled about it nor farther concern himself in these Debates for he knows his Incapacity He will content himself with a favourable Opinion of the Fathers and with his Confidence in God leaving these Debates to those that have Skill to manage them NOW as to such as contemn Mr. Aubertins Book I know none in our Communion of that number and perhaps in the Church of Rome there will be found as few of that Mind if we except Mr. Arnaud and his Friends who have given their Judgments about it after a very slighting and peremptory manner But I shall not take any farther Notice of this here but continue my Observations I do affirm then I never yet had the Luck to meet with this wretched Calvinist whom he has described in such pittiful Strains I was never yet told That the Scripture fills the Mind with Doubts Lib. 1. C. ● P. 34. which it doth not resolve and that such a Person finds the Writings of the Fathers Obscure and that the Divines of either Party could not satisfy him and there was nothing but the Arguments of the Perpetuity which could win his Heart Is not this such a Model of Calvinism as Mr. Arnaud desires drawn from an Idea of his own Conceiving and offered to them who would henceforward be of the number of its Proselytes But what likelyhood is there that any man to become Mr. Arnaud or the Author of the Perpetuity's Proselyte would Sacrifice the Scriptures Fathers and Divines of both parties to them What Probability I say is there that their Pretention should so far prevail upon any man Howsoever it be it 's an idle Fancy to imagine that a Person who is really of our Communion can fall into this Condition and thereupon take up a Resolution of changing his Belief and the Proof which Mr. Arnaud gives us is entirely faulty for it can at farthest but conclude an Uncertainty touching the Fathers but not at all as it relates to the Word of God from which a good man will never depart even when he shall fall into Doubts touching the Opinions of the Fathers BUT let us see who these Persons are who are represented to us floating on Doubts and Scruples They are two sorts of Person the most knowing Ministers on one hand and all the unlearned Calvinists on the other It is Lib. 1. C. 5. P. 36. most False saith Mr. Arnaud that the most able Ministers are perswaded the Fathers are manifestly for them To which he addeth that all Protestants of mean Capacities who are not able to make this Search are rash in believing it and cannot be perswaded of it but by a fond Humor The former of these Points is grounded on slight Proofs Observe here the first of them Lewis Lavater relates that Oecolampadius began to doubt of the Truth of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in reading St. Austins Works that he was strengthened in his Doubtings by reading of the Evangelists that he immediately rejects his first Thoughts by considering these Doctrines were generally entertained yet being willing to overcome this weakness of Mind he applyed himself to the reading of the Fathers but could not be fully satisfied by them because he oftentimes met in their Writings with the Expressions of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Whereupon at length rejecting the Authority of men he wholly applied himself to the Word of God and then the Truth appeared more clearly unto him This Testimony concludes nothing unless it be this that it is not easy for a man that has imbibed the Principles of the Romish Church from his Infancy to discover immediately the Truth seeing that Oecolampadius who perceived the first Beams of it shining in St. Austins Works and afterwards received deeper Impressions by reading of the Holy Scriptures was puzled by reading the Fathers till such time as he wholly applyed himself to the studying of the Word of God by which he was put out of Doubt and afterwards came more easily to the Knowledg of the real Doctrine of the Fathers whose Writings from that time he vehemently urged against all opposers of the Truth This shews us the strength of Prejudice and how necessary it is for the Understanding of the Fathers to become first well exercised in the Holy Scriptures AS to the Centuriators of Magdebourg it is known they held the Ausbouyg Confession and taught the Doctrine of the Real Presence and consequently are not competent Judges in this Controversy For they have bin greatly concerned to have the Fathers on their side some of them choosing rather to impose the Sence of Transubstanciation on the indefinite general Expressions which import that the Bread is made the Body of Jesus Christ or that it is changed into the Body of Jesus Christ rather than to understand them in a mystical Sence which would overthrow their Doctrine Howsoever it be they are not of the number of our Ministers and Mr. Arnaud ought not to stray thus beyond the Bounds of this Controversy THAT Passage of Scaligers which he urgeth against us is taken out of one of the most impertinent Books as ever was written and Mr. Arnaud hath more Leasure than he pretends seeing he sets himself upon inquiring after such kind of Proofs This Book being a Collection of what Scaliger is pretended to have discoursed in a familiar Colloquy which is stuffed with all manners of Fooleries and Absurdities For the School Boyes from whose Memoirs these Exercitations were committed to the Press have inserted whatsoever came into their Heads after a childish and inconsiderate manner which shews us they had not yet arrived to years of Discretion Moreover Mr. Arnaud informs us himself that one of these Youths who helpt to

about fifty years since that they have wholly renounced this Fancy But this confession on which Breerewood grounds his supposal is at most only the private sentiment of this Catholick of Armenia and not that of this Church If Breerewood adds any thing of his own Head without any Proof his bare word is not to be preferred before the Testimony of other Authors whom we have already alledged that which we have seen of Cyril and his dispute against Barsabas in the presence of all the People and in the very Temple of Jerusalem is later than the confession he mentions And so is that also which Cottovic relates The Letter of Barbereau the Jesuit bears Date 1667. The Relation of the Bishop of Heliopolis which says as we have already seen That the Patriarch of the Armenians to whom he gave a visit resided near the City of Herivan in a famous Monastery of Eutychien Hereticks who are no less obstinate than ignorant and being desirous to confer with one of these Monks on the principal Point of the Heresie of Eutyches he cunningly shunned the occasion This Relation I say is Dated 1668. All these Testimonys shew us that the Armenians do still keep their Ancient error and have in no wise changed their belief BUT supposing they were changed within these fifty or sixty years as Breerewood imagins yet would what Euthymius Isaac and other Authors say be no less true on the contrary the change which Breerewood attributes to them would only more Authorize their Testimony For if it be true as Breerewood says that they have now renounced that Fancy they had it then heretofore for People are not wont to renounce those Opinions which they never held so that the Argument drawn from their Doctrine touching the unity of the Nature of Jesus Christ to shew they do not believe Transubstantiation do's still continue in full force as to the time past and all that Mr. Arnaud can conclude hence is that it is possible for the Body of a Church to change an Opinion and pass over to another which is quite Opposite without any noise or disturbance whence it follows that the pretensions of the Author of the Perpetuity touching the impossibility of a change are vain and groundless As to those other late Authors Mr. Arnaud speaks of when he pleases to give us a particular Account of them we will examine 'em but there 's no body but sees after what I have related that he ought not to speak so generally as he has done That other Modern Authors are agreed therein seeing John Cottovic Pietro Della Vallé Cyrillus Thomas a Jesu Barbereau the Bishop of Heliopolis are late Authors and yet assert the contrary of what Mr. Arnaud affirms NEITHER can Mr. Arnaud meliorate his cause by the Letter which was written by a Patriarch of Armenia and sent to the Emperour Emanuel nor by the conference which Theorien this Emperour's Deputy had with this Patriarch altho it were true that this Letter has these Expressions we hold there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ not in confounding it as Theorien Dial. advers Arm. Bibl. Patr. Graeco lat tom 1. Eutyches does nor in denying Christs humane Nature like Apollinairus but according to Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria in the Books he wrote against Nestorius in saying there was but one Nature of the Word which is Incarnate But we must not immediately Imagine that this was the sentiment of the Armenian Church It was the Patriarchs in particular as appears by the Dialogue of Theorien For after Theorien had for a long time disputed that our Saviour had two Natures two Wills and two Operations the Patriarch himself confessed this had been ever his Opinion since he read the sacred Writings Whereupon Theorien having demanded of him why he inserted in his Letter to the Emperour that there was but one only Nature in Jesus Christ The Patriarch answered that he had at that time in his thoughts the instance which is commonly made use of touching man who is made up of Body and Soul and yet is said to have but one Nature altho the two Natures of which he consists remain without confusion and change and that he believed St. Cyril meant the same In fine he told him he would shew him a secret which had not yet been Divulged amongst his People That there was a Patriarch of Armenia named John who was a bitter Enemy to the Monophysits which is to say to those that believe only one Nature in Jesus Christ and that he had the writings of this John together with the approbation of another of his Predecessors named Gregory who added thereunto these words I believe likewise what the holy Patriarch has here written and Anathematise those that do not believe it It is evident by all these circumstances that the belief of the two Natures in Jesus Christ thus united to make thereof but one was not the publick sentiment of the Armenian Church but the private Opinion of the Patriarch who disputed with Theorien and that he had taken this Opinion from the secret writings of this John and Gregory BUT it will be perhaps here demanded how this person could in conscience continue a Patriarch in the Armenian Church being of a contrary judgment To answer this Objection I need only give the Character of this person such as it appears to be in this same conference and this will more confirm the truth of what I now said This says he do I intend to do I will immediately write to all the Armenian Bishops whithersoever they be to assemble in Council And when met I will produce all the Arguments alledged by the Armenians and which in effect do seem to favour them Then will I propose on the other hand all the contrary proofs which you have now offered me and at first will take the Armenians part and dispute against you But insensibly and by degrees and with great caution will begin to discover the Error of the Armenians which has hitherto so greatly obtained amongst them I will convince them by John the Patriarchs Book and all the other Proofs you have furnished me with In fine I will declare my self openly for the Greeks or to speak better I will contend for the truth against the Armenians I hope by Gods assistance my sheep will hear my voice and follow me so that there will be but one Flock and one Shepherd If all the Bishops shall be for me nothing will be more welcome to me But if not I will notwithstanding confirm the true Doctrine together with those on my side and send to the Emperour and your Patriarch a writing under my Hand and Seal and signed by my Bishops containing the Orthodox Faith Now this writing shall contain amongst other Articles this same That we receive the Holy and universal Council of Chalcedon and all the Holy Fathers which that Council has receiv'd That we Anathematise all those Anathematised by that Council espcially

make this Rhapsody turned Roman Catholick which might well transport him by a Zeal common to young Converts to make his Master speak a word or two in favour of Transubstantiation Mr. Arnaud seems moreover to speak of Ministers but it is known by every one that Scaliger was none WITEMBOGARD was one of the chief of the Arminian Party interessed against the French Ministers neither is he a Witness to be fully believed in what he tells us concerning Casaubon yet if what Spondanus has written of Casaubon be true we must acknowledge that this Person who altho otherwise was extraordinarily learned did not excel in Judgment He was a man saith he of a fickle Mind and ever wavering in maters of Religion Annals Eccl. ad An. 1600 art 12. he was willing to please both Parties and by that means pleased neither It is very likely that near Familiarity he had with Cardinal Perron drew him into this ambiguos Humour which ought not to be made use of against us much less to be proposed as an Example for the regulating of our Conduct And besides he may more justly be said to be Critick than a Minister I shall not here trouble my self with what is alleaged concerning Socinus and his Followers for there is a great deal of Passion and Injustice shewed in Confronting them with us seeing the Point here in Question is what our most knowing Ministers hold about this matter I confess the Socinians reject Transubstantiation and the Real Presence but it is moreover so much their interest to decry the Doctrine of the Fathers that 't is no marvel if they speak so unjustly of them They have built on the antient Heresies of Photinus Macedonius and Pelagius and seeing themselves opposed by Councils and by the writings of the Fathers this hath moved them not only to have no respect for them but likewise to lay to their charge things which they never believed to the end they might render them odious and marr their Credit So that Mr. Arnaud imposes on us when he tells us that the Socinians have no interest in acknowledging that the Writings of the Lib. 1. C. 5. Pag. 41. Fathers favour the Catholicks and that it would have bin more to their Advantage to deny this The contrary of which is apparent WHEN he should produce some of our Ministers who doubted whether the Writings of the Fathers favour us in the point of the Eucharist or who even believed they were against us should this appear so strange to us It is not an easy matter for a man to disentangle himself out of all the corrupt passages which are fasly attributed to the Fathers and set forth under their Names and from all the Artifices made use of to disguise their Doctrines I have written a Chapter on purpose in my Answer to Father Noiiet wherein I produce several Examples of this which the Readers may peruse at their Leasure Even Casaubon himself whom I now mentioned is one of them who hath fallen into this Snare for he hath taken two preparatory Prayers for the Mass to be the true and undoubted Works of St. Ambrose altho that in effect they are composed by Anselme Bishop of Canterbury Now if any Person has bin deceived like Casaubon and doubted whither the Fathers were for us must this be used as a Proof against us ought such a ones Mistakes to be the Rule of our Thoghts this certainly is contrary to reason BUT for one Minister or two whom Mr. Arnaud can bring against us we can produce a great number who have not hesitated in this matter Calvin himself who lived in a time when these Fopperies were scarely discovered yet asserts that the Fathers have retained the pious and orthodox Sence of this Mystery and affirms that not having found them at all to derogate Inst Lib. 4. C. 18. from the only Sacrifice of Jesus Christ he could not therefore consent to the charging of them with Impiety altho he doth not think them wholly excusable in the form of the Action To Calvin we may add Cook who was Tutour to King Edward of England and supposed to be Author of a Book intit'led Diallacticon Thomas Crammer Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Bp. Jewel Peter Martyr the Author of the Orthodox Treatise Andrew Volan the Divines of the University of Heydelberg Du Moulin Chamier Rivet Faucheur Mestresat and Blondel not to mention Du Plessis and Mr. De Saumaise nor several others who have written on this Subject by the Testimony of the Fathers which sheweth with how great precipitation Mr. Arnaud hath asserted that it is most false the most knowing Ministers are perswaded the Fathers are manifestly for them and the Solutions they give their Passages are good and Solid WHAT he mentions concerning Mr. Daillé is taken in a contrary Sence for he never designed to deny the Advantage we have in the Fathers touching the Eucharist nor leave it to be questioned His Book against Mr. Adam and Cottiby is an authentick Proof of this and being as yet thro Gods Grace in a Capacity to declare his own Thoughts there needs no more but to ask his opinion touching this Point and see what Answer he will make There will appear no Difference betwixt his Opinion and mine provided his Words are understood as he meant them Mr. Daillé sais 't is a hard matter to gather from the Writings of the Fathers De usu Pat. C. 2 their Opinions touching those Articles in Religion about which we differ because the matters they treat of are for the most part very remote His meaning is that it is a hard matter to find a formal and express Declaration of their Sence in these matters which should be declared in such Terms as these I deny or affirm I approve or condemn I reject or receive and the Reason he alleages do's sufficiently confirm this for he saies That the Matters they treat of are remote from our Controversies and that they thought not of us when they wrote MY Sence differs not from his and therefore I shall not fear to say with Ibid. him that they that expect to find the Belief of the Fathers clearly set down in their Writings are generally mistaken even as he who thinks to meet with the Affections and Desires of his Mind amongst the sound of Bells And indeed if we expect to find a positive and precise Rejection of the Romish Doctrine in the Writings of the Fathers like unto that which is at this day amongst us we shall be much mistaken and the Reason is apparent in as much as the Doctrine of the Church of Rome being not extant in the time of the Fathers they have not expresly condemned it for men are not wont to condemn Opinions before they appear Yet do's not this hinder but that the Fathers are against Transubstantiation by way of Negation that is to say by their Silence because they never inserted it amongst the Articles of their Faith they never