Selected quad for the lemma: saint_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
saint_n bishop_n church_n presbyter_n 1,570 5 10.2756 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A00597 The grand sacrilege of the Church of Rome, in taking away the sacred cup from the laiety at the Lords Table: detected, and conuinced by the euidence of holy Scripture, and testimonies of all ages successiuely from the first propagation of the catholike Christian faith to this present: together with two conferences; the former at Paris with D. Smith, now stiled by the Romanists B of Calcedon; the later at London with M Euerard, priest: by Dan. Featly, Doctor in Diuinity. Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645. 1630 (1630) STC 10733; ESTC S120664 185,925 360

There are 3 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

you to eate his flesh and drinke his blood and he no where commands you to drinke his flesh and bones Who euer heard of flesh and bones to be drunke and that properly without any figure M. Euerard In Mummie the flesh of man may be drunke D. Featly Peraduenture the flesh of man may bee so handled and altered and the bones also grounded to so small a powder that in some Liquor they may be drunke but the flesh of man and bones without an alteration of qualitie or quantitie cannot be drunke And I hope you will not say that the flesh and bones of Christ in the Sacrament receiue any alteration at all At these words Doctor Featly and Master Euerard were intreated to desist from any further dispute till after supper And so this point was not further pursued After supper Doctor Featly calling for Saint Cyprian besides the places aboue alleaged for Communion in both kinds shewed Master Euerard the speach of Saint Cyprian in the Councell of Carthage Wherein he expresly denieth the Bishop of Romes Supremacy The words are these Super est vt de hac ipsa re quid singuli sentiamus proferamus neminem iudicantes aut à iure communionis aliquem si diuersum senserit remouentes neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporū constituit aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit Quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis potestatis sua arbitriū propriū tanquā iudicari ab alio non possit cum nec ipse possit alterū iudicare Sed expectemus vniuersi iudicium Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui vnus solus habet potestatē praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione de hoc actu nostro iudicandi i. e. It remaineth that euery one of vs deliuer his opinion of this matter iudging no man or remouing him from Communion with vs if he differ frō vs in iudgment For none of vs makes himselfe a Bishop of Bishops nor compells by tyrannicall terror his Colleagues to a necessitie of following him seeing that euery Bishop within his liberty and iurisdiction hath free power of himselfe and as he can iudge no other so neither can he be iudged by any other But let vs all waite for the iudgment of our Lord Iesus Christ who onely and alone hath power to preferre vs in the gouernment of his Church and to iudge of this act of ours M. Euerard Saint Cyprian speakes this in a Councell that is condemned by the Church for defining an error to wit that those that were baptized by heretikes ought to be rebaptized Secondly Saint Cyprian in these words Christ one and alone excludeth not his Vicar generall the Bishop of Rome D. Featly Your first exception is not to the purpose For albeit the sentence of this Councell be not approued touching the rebaptization of those who had been baptized by heretikes yet this speech of Saint Cyprian vttered by him at the first meeting of the Bishop of Carthage sitting in Councell was neuer disliked by any of the ancients Neither S. Augustine nor any other Father who impugned the sentence of this Councell did any way impeach or dislike much lesse refute this sentence of Saint Cyprian wherein he denieth all manner of submission to Stephen then Bishop of Rome Nay by a Sarcasme he glance that him and checketh him for making himselfe a Bishop of Bishops and goeing about to compel other Bishops to subscribe to his iudgement Your second answer is controwled by the direct words of Saint Cyprian If any besides Christ to wit his supposed Vicar the Bishop of Rome haue powre to place Bishops in the Church and censure their Synodical Acts then it is false which Saint Cyprian heere saith that Christus vnus solus that Christ alone hath this power The Pope with Christ is not Christus vnus much lesse Christus solus But Saint Cyprian saith Christus vnus solus one and onely Christ hath this power therefore not the Pope Lady Faulkland If Christ alone haue power to preferre Bishops in the gouernment of the Church and to censure their acts made in their Councells how can you then maintaine the Kings Supremacy doth not the King place and displace Bishops D. Featly In Saint Cyprians time there were no Christian Kings or Emperors and therefore this exception could not bee taken against the blessed Martyrs words Secondly That which Saint Cyprian here reproueth in Pope Stephen no Christian King or Emperor assumed to himselfe to be a Bishop of all Bishops and to censure the acts of Bishops and their determinations deliuered in point of Faith in Councels lawfully assembled Thirdly Christian Kings within there owne Dominions grant Conge de-lires to Deanes and Chapters and confirme their Elections and giue Mandates to Metrapolitans to consecrate but they take not vpon them to bee Bishops of all Bishops through the world as the Bishop of Rome doth nor as Bishops or Archbishops to consecrate any Bishops but vpon persons ordained and to bee consecrated by order of the Church they conferre and collate such Bishopricks as lye within there owne dominion M. Euerard Before I answer you any further I require you to answer a place of Cyprian touching the mingling of water with the wine in the Sacrament Mingling the Cup of Christ let vs not depart from the diuine Mandate If any man offer wine onely Christs blood begins to be without vs if water be alone the people begin to be without Christ. When both are mingled then the spirituall and heauenly Sacrament is perfect D. Featly It doth not appeare by scripture that Christ or his Apostles mingled water with wine onely because it was the manner of those hot Countries to temper their wine with water many of the ancients and amongst them Saint Cyprian conceiued that Christ at his last Supper did so Which if he did yet seing he commandeth vs not to follow his example any further then to doe that which hee did that is to take bread and breake it to take the Cup and distribute it we transgresse not Christs Institution whether we communicate in leauen or vnleauened bread whether in pure wine or in wine mingled with water The commandement lyes vpon the substance to eate of the bread and drinke of the Cup and therein of the fruit of the vine but not on the circumstances which are left free and indifferent Secondly Saint Cyprian in this epistle mainly bendeth this discourse against the Aquarij certaine heretikes who contended that the Sacrament ought to be receiued in water onely Against these he proues most strongly that we ought to receiue in wine This is his maine drift and thus farre we hold with him On the by he speaketh of mingling wine with water which was the vse in his time and we dislike it not only wee hold the Church is free in this kind to receiue it in pure
faithfull wife was like to be debarred of the comfort of receiuing the Sacrament and drinking of the Lords Cup. Tert. then is cleere for the Laietie communicating in both kinds And so is Origen Anno. 230. Origen in 16. Hom. on Numb maketh this question What people is it that is accustomed to drinke blood and he answereth the faithfull people the Christian people heareth these things and embraceth him who saith vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed Marke the ingemination The people the faithfull people heareth these things c. Therefore in Origens time it was the peoples vse and custome to drinke the blood of Christ. Papists answer Bellarmine loc sup cita saith to this testimonie of Origen that the people did drinke but they had no command so to doe It was their vse it was not Christs precept Secondly hee saith the people might haue such a vse or custome to drinke at the Lords supper though euery one dranke not but some onely The Refutation I need not refell this answer because Bellarmine granteth all that for which I produce this testimonie that the practise of the Church in Origens time goeth for vs and his mincing the matter that some of the people might drinke not all and that they dranke it by custome not by law no way healpeth his bad cause For first Origen in this very place alleageth Christs precept for this practise of the faithfull people Iohn 6. vnlesse ye drinke my blood you haue no life in you Secondly in the end of this homily he turneth his speech not to some of this people but to his audience and thus concludeth Thou therefore art the true people of Israel who knowest to drink the blood and hast learned to eat the flesh of the Word of God and to take a draught of the blood of that grape which is of the true vine those branches of which the father purgeth The euidence of this truth is like the light of the morning it groweth cleerer and cleerer For Origen is cleerer in this point then Tertullian and Cyprian is yet cleerer then Origen Anno. 250. Cyprian that learned Bishop of Carthage and blessed Martyr of Christ Iesus not onely deliuereth but propugneth our assertion by a forcible argument epist. 54. How doe wee inuite them Gods people to shed their blood for Christ in the confession of his name if when they set forth to fight for him we denie them his blood how shall wee fit them for the Cup of Martyrdome if before we admit them not by right of Communion to drinke of the Lords Cup in his Church in his 63. epistle Because some men out of ignorance or simplicitie in sanctifying the Cup of the Lord and ministring it to the people doe not that which Iesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Institutor of this Sacrifice did and taught I thought it both a matter of religion and necessity to acquaint you herewith by letters that if any yet bee held in that error the light of truth being now discouered vnto him hee might returne vnto the roote and beginning of our Lords institution Papists answere Bellarmine in his answere to Saint Cyprian makes good the Poets obseruation Qui semel verecundiae limites transiuerit hunc grauiter impudentem esse oportet he that hath once passed the bounds of modesty he must be stoutely impudent and arme his forehead with brasse for here he is not content to slight this allegation as he did the former but is bold to challenge it for an euidence on his owne side This place saith hee rather maketh for our opinion then against it for Saint Cyprian speaketh of certaine Christians that fell in time of persecution from the profession of the true faith and were therefore excommunicated by the Bishops whom Saint Cyprian exhorteth in regard of the eminent persecution to restore these weake Christians to their former right and interest which they had in the Lords body The right therefore of the Laietie to Communicate is giuen by the Priests and taken away by them Now if the Priests or Prelates may for certaine crimes take the right of Communicating from the Laietie they may also dispose of the manner of Communicating vnder one kinde To the second testimony he answereth that Cyprian in that place handleth not the poynt whether the Cup ought to bee deliuered to the people or no but if it bee deliuered vnto them hee will haue it deliuered not in water onely but wine mingled with water And this he saith Christ taught vs. The Refutation Neither of these answeres will beare scale both of them are to light by many graines the first of these is liable to these exceptions First it is impertinent for we bring the testimony to prooue the practise of the Primitiue Church concerning the Laieties participating the Cup But Bellarmine craftily waues that poynt and questioneth by what right the people did Communicate Admit that which is most falfe that the Bishop or Priest gaue the people all the right they had to the Cup yet they had it and vsed it their practise therefore maketh for vs. Secondly it is inconsequent for first when a'man is Excommunicated and hath lost his right to the Lords Table a Bishop vpon the parties submission and sorrow for his sin and humble intreatie may restore him to his right againe and set him where he was yet this prooueth not that the Laietie had their originall right of Communicating from them as a Bishop may vpon iust cause suspend a Lay man or Cleargie from the Communion so he may also exclude him from hearing of the word and publike prayer yet no man will hence conclude that the Laietie or Priest haue no right at all to come into the Church and to pray and to heare Gods word but from the Bishop Albeit Cyprian in his owne Church and any other Bishop in his Diocesse may admit or reiect some particular persons vpon iust cause from the Communion yet it will not from hence follow that the Bishop of Rome may take away either the Cup or the Bread from Gods people in all Churches Thirdly it is no good inference that because the Bishop may depriue a man of the whole Sacrament vpon some causes viz. for a great crime or high misdemeanor that therefore he may depriue him of a part of it without any fault at all as the Romanists doe the Laietie in generall Fourthly a Bishop may dispence with his owne censures or reuoke them but he cannot dispence with Gods law To suspend a man from the whole Communion if the delinquent deserue it is agreeable to Christs and the Apostles discipline but to admit him to one part of the Sacrament and not to the other is a manifest violation of Christs ordinance who instituted this Sacrament in two kinds and
generall Councell are confirmed and the rest not M. Euerard There may bee such a confirmation of a Councell and it was so in that Councell For the Pope neuer confirmed this article touching a general Councels authoritie aboue the Pope D. Featly Had I knowne that I should haue met with you here at this time or that there should haue been any disputation about points of Religion I would haue brought my bookes with me and produced the Acts of the Councell For the present sith we haue not here the Tomes of the Councells all that I wil reply shall be this that as the Councell of Constance defined that a Generall Councell was aboue the Pope so they exercised their power and made good that decree by deposing three Popes in that Councell and setting vp a fourth by name this Martin the fifth whom it much concerned to confirme this Councell euen in that point M. Euerard Those three Popes I say deposed that Councell D. Featly Resolutely spoken and brauely but yet by your fauour the three Popes deposed by that Councell sate downe by the losse and the Fathers that deposed them stil held there Bishopricks and the fourth Pope chosen in that Councell held the Papacy during life This point being thus put off for the present vntill the Tomes of the Councels might be had and the Popes confirmation extant in them explained the Lady asked Doctor Featly Lady Faulkland Whether hee thought the ancient Fathers prayed not for the dead D. Featly Questionlesse they did and Aërius is condemned by them for simply and absolutely condemning the practise of the Church in naming the dead in their publike prayers and celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist that is of thanksgiuing for them Wee condemne not all commemoration of or prayers for the dead but the Popish manner of praying for the release of their soules out of Purgatory M. Euerard To what end should the Fathers pray for the dead if not for the release of their soules out of Purgatory D. Featly To what end doth the Church of Rome pray for the soule of blessed Leo and other Saints in heauen I trow not to release their soules out of Purgatorie M. Euerard The Church of Rome prayeth not for the soule of blessed Leo or any Saint now in heauen D. Featly Bellarmine saith she did and yet doth and proueth it out of Innocentius the Pope M. Euarard Will you put this vnder your hand D. Featly I will let it bee written Bellarmine saith that the Church of Rome prayed for the Soule of Saint Leo and other Saints Dan. Featly About this time Master Euerard hauing gotten the Councell of Trent called vpon Doctor Featly to acknowledge his error in denying that the Councell of Trent had defined it as a matter of Faith that a Bishop is in order aboue a Presbyter by the Law of God Looke heere saith he in the 23. Sess. Canon 6. expresly it defines this point g If any man shall say that in the Catholike Church there is not an Hierarchie instituted by Diuine ordination consisting of Bishops Presbyters and Ministers let him be accursed Can. 7. * If any man shall say that Bishops are not superiours to Priests or Presbyters let him be accursed D. Featly This Canon of the Trent Councell defineth not that Bishops Priests differ ordine sedgradu not that Bishops are in Ecclesiasticall order essentially different from Priests but that they haue a degree of superioritie in the same order Secondly the Councel defineth this as a truth but not as a matter of saluation for the Laietie to beleeue vpon paine of damnation And therfore I say as before that this point might haue bin forborne Thirdly the Councell defineth Bishops to be superiors to priests but sayth not iure diuino Here diuers of the auditors desired Doctor Featly and Master Euerard to disscusse the point touching Communion in one kinde which they conceiued to bee a point of great moment because if the Laietie as well as the Clergie ought to haue the Cup the Church of Rome doth them great wrong in debarring them of it and shee violateth Christs institution D. Featly If Master Euerard like well of it we will confine our selues to this point But first I desire a Bible For I will neuer dispute of point of Faith without Scripture the Ground of Faith M. Euerard What Bible will you haue For I allow not of the English Translation D. Featly The originall if it may be had especially the new Testament in Greeke M. Euerard I desire the Vulgar Latine Translation D. Featly What rather then the originall That is strange M. Euerard Not so For the Vulgar Latine is purer then the Greek of the new or the Hebrew of the old Testament D. Featly Will you set your hand to it M. Euerard I will The vulgar Latine Translation is purer then the Greeke of the new or the Hebrew of the olde Testament Ita est Euerard p. D. Featly This is a new and erroneous assertion if not blasphemous M. Euerard Neither erroneous nor new Other Catholikes haue held the same before me and namely Bellarmine De verbo dei lib. 2. cap. 11. Truely it can scarse be doubted but as the Latine Church hath beene more constant in retayning the Faith then the Greek so also that she hath been more vigilant in preseruing her bookes from corruption D. Featly 1. Although Bellarmine had come home to your assertion yet it followeth not but that it is new and erroneous Secondly the reason Cardinall Bellarmine vseth is not found that because the Latine Church hath preserued the Faith purer then the Greeke therefore the Latine Bibles kept by them are freer from corruption then the Greeke Originall For it is not true that the Latine that is as he meaneth the Romane Church hath kept the Faith more sincerely then the Greeke Beside the originall Greeke hath not oenly beene kept by the Greeke Church but also by the Latine Church which Latine Church no doubt had as great or greater care to preserue the Originall from corruption then the Latine Translation Thirdly Bellarmine affirmeth not so much as you doe For he speaketh not a word of the Hebrew of the old Testament in this place but onely of the Greeke of the new Whereas you preferre the Vulgar Latine not onely before the Greeke of the new but also the Hebrew of the old Neither doth Bellarmine say that the Vulgar Latine is simply to be preferred before the Greeke of the new but that the Latines were more carefullin keeping their Latine then the Greekes in keeping their Greeke This might be Bellarmines Iudgement without preferring the Latine absolutely before the Greek For albeit the Latine for a Translation were better kept then the Greeke for the Originall yet he might say still that the Translation must needs come behind the Originall simply A Translation be it neuer so good cannot come neere the Originall in authoritie though it be kept