Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostle_n	believe_v	tradition_n	2,485	5	9.1706	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34012	Missa triumphans, or, The triumph of the mass wherein all the sophistical and wily arguments of Mr de Rodon against that thrice venerable sacrifice in his funestuous tract by him called, The funeral of the Mass, are fully, formally, and clearly answered : together with an appendix by way of answer to the translators preface / by F.P.M.O.P. Hib.	Collins, William, 17th cent.; F. P. M. O. P.	1675 (1675)	Wing C5389; ESTC R5065	231,046	593

whole one body But this which we do is done for a commemoration of that which was done for we offer not another Sacrifice as the High-Priest of the old Law but alwaies the self-same c. with S. Chrysostom hom 17. in Epist. ad Heb. and after him with Theophylact. Oecumenius with Haymo Paschasuis Remigius and others who object to themselves thus Do not we also offer every day we offer surely But this sacrifice is an exemplar of that for we offer alwaies the self-same and not now one lamb and to morrow another but the self-same therefore this is one sacrifice otherwise because it is offered in many places there would be many Christs and a little after Not another sacrifice as the High-Priest of the old Law but the self-same we do alwaies offer rather working a remembrance or commemoration of the sacrifice With Primasuis S. Augustines Scholar who preoccupates the Mounsieurs oblections thus What shall we say then do not our Priests daily offer sacrifice they offer surely becaus we sin daily daily have need to be cleansed and because he cannot die he hath given us the Sacrament of his body and bloud that as his Passion was the redemption and absolution of all the world so also this oblation may be a redemption and cleansing to all that offer it in truth and verity in which sense also venerable Bede calleth the Mass Redemtionem corporis animaesempiternam the everlasting redemption of body and soul lib. 4. c. 22. histor To these above mentioned holy doctors who not only unanimously agree that the Sacrament of the Altar is an host and sacrifice but also that it is the self ●…ame sacrifice which was offered upon the Altar of the Cross for our Salvation I add these ensuing General Councils and holy fathers of the primitive Church whereof some were the Apostles contemporaneans and Disciples The first holy Council of Nice chap. 14. in fine tonc ex graeco the Council of Ephesus Anathematis 11. the Chalcedon Council art 3. pag. 112. the Ancyran Council chap. 1. 5. the Neacaesarean Council Can. 13. Laodic can 19. Carthaginian 2. c. 8. Carthag 3. cha 24. and Carthag 4. chap 33. 41. S. Denyse cha 3. Eccles. hierarch S. Andrew in hist. Passionis S. Ignatius Epist. ad Smyrn S. Martialis Epist ad Burdegal S. Iustine dial cum Tryphone S. Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 23 24. Tertullian de eult●… feeminarum corona militum Origen hom 13. in Levit. S. Cypr epist. ad Cecilium num 2. de coena Domini num 13. and Euseb. demonstrat Evangel lib. 1. c. 10. Let us now compare all these holy Councils Fathers and Doctors unanimous authorities with M. de Rodons bare word without any text of Scripture contradicting them let us I say compare all their affirmative votes to his no mention no foot step and judge which of these two parties deserves to be counted hereticks for they cannot be both counted orthodox because they contradict one another in point of faith what man then unlesse he were willfully prodigall of his salvation would adhere to de Rodons crack-brain'd obstinate self-opinion and forsake for him the whole torrent of General Councils Fathers and Doctors of Christs Church Neither are S. Gregory and Bellarmine for him too but rather point-blank against him as to the main point of this question which is that at the first Institution of this Sacrament Christ offered and sacrificed his body and bloud to his father for Bellarmine in the place alledged by the Mounsieur viz. out of his first book of the Mass chap. 27. speaks only thus that this sacrifice consists not precisely in the consummation of the host nor in any other part of the Mass but only in the words of consecration because S. Gregory said that the Apostles used no other ceremonies at the Mass when they first practised it but only the Lords prayer and immediatly after they consumed the consecrated host But neither he nor S. Gregory ever said that Christ and his Apostles never offered sacrifice to God the father in the Mass for Bellermine says positively in that very chapter that Christ offered sacrifice to his heavenly father and that the Apostles and their successors do the like dayly But he holds that the sacrifice consists precisely in the words of Consecration and not in the oblations before or after nor in the consumption of the host all which makes nothing for Mr. de Rodon who is not ashamed confidently to say that S. Gregory and Bellarmine are of his side whereas there is no such thing to be seen in them but the quite contrary as may be evidently seen in the alledged chapter of Bellarmines said book As for learned Salmeron the Jesuits commentary and Cardinal Baronius his free confession concerning an unwritten Tradition of the Sacrament of the Eucharist any man of reason or belief would sconer believe the Traditions of the whole Church then admire or stand in doubt of them and much less would they harken against them to Mr. de Rodons bare word or to his srivolous no mention no footstep for Gods Church had no other rule to follow from Adams time until Moses who was the first that ever writ of the old Testament concerning what she was to believe but Tradition And from the time of our Saviours Assension untill some of the Apostles and the Evangelists set their penns to paper what else had the faithful to trust unto but only unwritten Tradition what Scripture have we for changing the Sabaoth day or for the twelve articles of our Creed made by the twelve Apostles which be the Principles and foundation of our faith without which none can be saved only Tradition finally doth not the Apostle in his 2. Epist. to the Thessal 2. chap. command us to hold the Traditions which we have learned whether it be by his word or by his Epistle wherefore then should it be a strange thing that the Mass which is the dayly practise and sacrifice of the whole Church from the Apostles time until ours suppose there were nothing left written concerning it wherefore I say ought it not be held and believed as well as the changing of the Sabaoth day or as the twelve articles of the Apostles creed Moreover being the Mass as we hold and is evidently proved by the testimonies of the General Councils and holy fathers above-mentioned doth chiefly and essentially consist in the words of consecration and that Christ himself was the first that ever consecrated we consequently hold that he was the first and chief Priest that ever said Mass And whereas we find that after he consecrated he commanded his Apostles that as often as they did this that 's to say consecrated they should do it in remembrance of him we find I say that the Mass was instituted and commanded expresly by Christ himself Therefore in my opinion it is a thing far more wonderful and strange that any man of common reason

these other two Qui Ecclesiam non audit sit tibi tanqnam Ethnicus Publicanus He that hears not the Church let him be unto thee as a heathen and Publican S. Math. 18 and to this Qui vos audit m●… audit qui vos spernit me spernit he that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me S. Luke 10. where note that in the first passage is said that all power in heaven and earth is given to Christ and in the second is said that Christ bequeathed the Power he received from his father unto his Church representative for what else do these words as you my father sent me so I send them into the world import but that they had I mean his Apostles and disciples who were his Church Representative the same spiritual power delegated unto them by him as he received from his heavenly father the difference being only this that his power from his father was absolute and Principal in him the Power he gave to his Church if compared to his power is but a subordinat or delegat power Now then if we consider that Christ having cel●…ated and bequeathed his power on earth to his Church and commanded us to hear her if we will not be counted as heathens and publicans and tells us also that by despising her we despise himself what I pray good Mounsieur consequence follows or flows from these evident passages of Scripture and all uttered by Christs own sacred mouth but that we are to hear and obey the Church representative which were the Apostles and his disciples in their time and the general Councils ever since their time concerning her canons and statutes and her other direction and guiding of our souls So that until Mr. de Rodon can prove that the Council of Constance was ●…n unlawful or Acephal Council and no Church Representative which he undertakes not in this Tract he hath no reason to exclaim against her Canons and statutes nor to make them so horrible to the world neither have we any reason to be terrified at it because as I shall now shew you it is in effect nothing but a meer s●…are-crow For what Christian of any understanding or belief can judge or think that Christ who is verity it self and his heavenly fathers wisdom should contradict his own commandments and yet if the Canons and statutes made by his Church in her General Councils were opposit and contradictory to his commandments it would necessary follow that he contradicted himself Because he and his holy spirit is the self same thing and so by contradicting his spirit he must needs contradict himself But he promised his Church militant that he would be with her all days unto the Consumation of the world and in another place he tells her That his spirit which is in her and his words which he put in her mouth shall not recede from her mouth nor from the mouth of her seed nor of her seeds seed from that time and for ever which is as much as to say that his spirit should be alwaies her directour and guide in all her conciliary definitions and decrees Yet if notwithstanding this reason deduced out of clear Scripture Mr. de Rodon will still persist in his fearful exclamations and object against us that nothing can be more evident and clear then that this Constantian Canon or Law is contradictory to Christs institution and command concerning the Cup we deny that Law to have at all opposed Christs commandment because of the difference of time that interceded betwi●… the commandment and that Law Christ told his disciples or Church Representative that he had many things to say to them but they could not bear them at that time Iohn 16. whence follows that Christ by his holy spirit might have revealed some things to his Church which he would have observed by her children whereof he made no express mention to his disciples while he was conversant with them If the Constantian Canon or Law had been made just at the same time when Christ instituted this Sacrament and ●…ommanded it should be received under both species something might be said in the matter But who knows that Christ in future times would not have something altered concerning this Institution by his Church to whom he promised his holy spirit should be her directour and guide in all her statutes and ordinances unto the consummation of the world All divines hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is of greater necessity because without it no body can be saved then that of the Eucharist is And was it not one of the last commandments our Saviour left his Apostles that they should go preach the Gospel and Baptize in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy Ghost Math. 28. however the Church of her own proper authority even in the very Apostles times changed this form for a time for some certain reasons and Baptized in the name of Jesu as may be seen in the Acts of the Apostles 19. chap. was not the keeping of the Sabbath-day commanded by God in the first table of his commandements written by his own holy finger But by whose authority was the day altered we have no scripture for it we have no other but the authority of the Church This was an express commandment of God no Christian nay no Jew will deny it all Christians know that the Church altered the day for certain grave reasons viz. that we shold not communicate with the Jews because our Savior rose again upon our Sabath because the Holy Ghost descended upon our B. Lady and the Apostles upon our sabath and for sundry others which the holy Ghost inspired her with wherefore then may not the Mounsieur exclaim and cry out against her as well for this as for her constantian Canon may not he say that she contradicted Gods expresse commandement of keeping the Jewish sabath when by her Canons or ordinations she commanded our sunday should be observed and their sabaoth slighted yes truly that he may and yet as we nay and the Protestants themselves I hope will deny any transgression to have been done by the Church against Gods commandement by her statutes or Canons for not keeping the Jewish Sabaoth so we also deny that by her Constantian Canon she contradicted Gods commandement concerning denying the cup to the Lay-people and the reason is because the commandements and the Canons were not made the same time and because the holy Ghost for sundry reasons inspired the Church to alter some things concerning the former commandement Christ left her but for a certain time as he himself told her before that he had many things to say to her but she could not bear them at that time which is not to contradict but rather to dispense with Christs former commandements To this I add the Apostles command concerning not eating bloud nor strangled meat which notwithstanding is not observed even by those of the Reformed

or sense should join in opinion with Mr. de Rodon against the Mass which has the Tradition and practise of the whole Catholick Church from the Apostles time unto ours of its side and the Mounsieur not a tittle out of Scripture Council or holy father that makes for him but his silly negative no mention no footstep And as the Mounsieur is impudent and obstinate in opposing the universal Church so is he also shamless in believing of her for he says that her doctours require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass which is an arrant lye for although it be true that our holy Mother the Church commands all her children if they have no lawful impediment viz. of sickness or some other very urgent affayrs of consequence to the contrary to be personally present and assist at the oblation of this divine sacrifice on sundays and holy-days of obligation for to hear Mass on workingdays is only of counsel not of precept or command yet she never taught them that by only hearing Mass they should be saved But she rather teaches them the contrary viz. that if they hear never so many Masses while they are in mortal sin they shall reap no benefit by them in order as to any the least jott of merit or reward unless they believe as the Church believes go to confession and do penance for their sinns and firmly resolve to keep Gods commandments and the commandments of his Church for the future and finally do some satisfactory works for the transgressions of their ill life past And far from truth is it also what de Rodon saith viz. that if Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist hath offered unto God his father a sacrifice of his body and bloud propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead then there had been no need that he should be again sacrificed on the Cross farr I say is that from truth Because as all the sacrifices of the old Law were but types and derived all their force and vertue from Christs bloody sacrifice upon the Cross so also this incruent or unbloudy sacrifice hath its reference or relation to the said bloudy sacrifice and the difference between the old sacrifices and this our sacrifice of the new Law is this that they were but mediate types and meer shadows of the bloudy sacrifice But our sacrifice is not only an immediate type but also a true Idaea and dayly express real commemoration of it Nay as all the holy fathers do generally accord it is the very self same sacrifice as that of the Cross was though not offered in the same manner for that was bloudy and this is unbloudy and the reason is because Christ as I said before having a desire to be amongst the children of men and promising his Church to be with her alwaise unto the consummation of the world since he is to be in heaven in his humane and glorious shape until the time of the restitution of all things he found out in the infinite abyss of his wisdom this other admirable and ineffable way of being really and personally present with his Church militant in the most blessed Sacrament for to encourage seed strengthen her wirh the manifold graces that flow from his real presence in her into the souls of his elect servants To his farther addition out of S. Paul Eph. 4. 11. 1 Tim. being he inferrs all from negatives he can never conclude However since the Apostle makes mention unto Tymothy of Presbyters that is to say Priests and since betwixt Priest and sacrifice there is a correlation it follows that the Apostle at least virtually made mention of sacrificers Rodon 3. The second argument is drawn from the definition of a sacrifice as it is given us by our adversaries Card. Bellarmine in Book 1. of the Mass. chap. 2. defines it thus sacrifice is an external oblation made to God alone whereby in acknowledgment of humane infirmity and the divine Majesty the lawful Minister consecrates by a mistical ceremony destroys something that is sensible permanent from those last words viz. that the lawful Minister destroys something that is sensible I form 2. arguments which destroy the sacrifice of the Mass. The first is this In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses for our adversaries say it is a sensible thing but the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the mass under the accidents of the bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we finde by experience therefore the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be under the accidents of the bread and wine are not the thing Sacrificed Answ. From these last words viz. that the lawful minister destroys something that is sensible drawn out of Bellarmines definition of a sacrifice Mr. de Rodon forms two arguments like two huge milstones that will crush and destroy the sacrifice of the Mass consequently poor Diana●…s head too To his first crusher which begins thus In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses I grant its major and its minor which is this But the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the Mass under the accidents of bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we finde by experience I distinguish thus but the body and bloud of Christ c. do not fall under our senses in their connatural and proper shape I confess the minor do not fall under our senses in a sacramental shape or in the form and shape of bread and wine which by experience we know falls under our senses I deny the minor and consequence also for we never say that Christ is in the Sacrament in his proper humane shape but only sacramentally that 's to say in the shape of bread and wine and yet we hold that he is really and personally there because he himself said so in most express terms These sacramental species then being obvious to our senses and Christ being really in them they being destroyed although Christs body according to its natural and human shape be not destroyed for he is not reduplicatively so in the Sacrament but only specificatively his sacramental presence is also destroyed in them and consequently we say that by destroying the sacramental species which are palpably obvious to our senses a true and proper sacrifice though an unbloudy one is offered to God the father in remembrance of Christs once-bloudy sacrifice upon the Cross Rodon 4. Against this answer Mr. de Rodon hath these two replies The first is that Christs body is not visible by the species of bread because as his adversaries say that hides it from us and hinders us from seeing it and he says moreover that although a substance may be said to be visible and cognizible by its accidents yet it is never so by the accidents of another substance and consequently he infers

filled with his pretious bloud and consequently vessels full of operative Grace for otherwise the Sacraments of the old law would be of as much value and worth as those of the new and so Christs new Sacraments would be instituted in vain which would be a great derogation to to his infinite wisdom and consequently Blasphemous to assert Therefore although circumcision the Passover and all the rest of the old Sacraments were but meer tokens or signes yet it follows not that Baptism the rest of Christs Sacraments and especially the Eucharist which was particularised and pointed at with the Pronoune demonstrative hoc are but meer signes for as Baptism and so I say of all the rest of Christs Sacraments is not only a signe of the washing of Regeneration as the Mounsieur calls it but also the instrumental cause of Regeneration so the Eucharist or that which is in the Eucharistical cup is not only a Sacrament or signe of Christ sacrificed but also his reall body and bloud as he himself said it is in most plain and express terms without using any figurative expression especially concerning the consecration of the bread where there was no need of a figure and consequently the Mounsieurs sly and sophistical Illatives viz. because it is the Sacrament of it and because it is the signe seal and Sacrament of it are sufficiently answered and quasht for his becauses are not the entire and adequate causes that constitutes Sacraments of the new law for besides their significations or being signes of Grace they are also real causers of it and the Eucharist principally because it is both Sacramentum res the Sacrament and the thing it self Rodon 5. Thirdly I answer that in holy Scripture Testaments are not always expressed in proper terms without a figure for the Testament of Jacob Gen. 49. and that of Moses Deut. 33. are nothing else but a chain of Metaphors and other figures ●…nd civilians will have it that in Testaments we should not regard the proper significati●…n of the words but th●… inte●…ion of the Testator To this I add that Iesus Christ did not make the new Testament and the new covenant but only instituted the seal Sacrament of them for the covenant w●… made with all mankind in the Person of Adam after the fall when God promised him that the seed of the woman should break the serpents head This was afterwards renewe●… with Abraham when God promised him that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed viz. in Christ the blessed s●…ed who hath destroyed the Kingdom of Sathan After this it was confirmed by the bloud of Chris●… shedd on the Cross then it was published through all the world when the Apostles had recei●…ved the holy Ghost and lastly Baptism and the Eucharist are the signes seals and Sacraments of it Answ. We grant that for the better expression of things in Testaments and covenants figures may be used and for that reason they are sometimes nay often used in holy Scripture yet to use Amphibologies and figures in Testaments covenants or Sacraments without necessity and when they can be otherwise as clearly or better exprest in plain and proper words we hold neither convenient or lawfull for else how can the Civilians themselves whose great Patron de Rodon is penetrate or dive into the Testators intention sure this were the high way to set all the world together by the ●…ars this is the way to wrong and undo poor widdows and orphans the way to break and distract haman society and to fill Mr. de Rodons favorits the civilians pockets with ill-gott-gold Gods laws and Testaments would be so enveloped and folded up in obscure figures and Tropes that scarce any body could have a glimpse of them even in our time of the Evangelical Law which is called the Law of Grace De Rodon then must of necessity make way for this weapon as I have ordered it or else by enriching his dear Civilians he will quite ruine and destroy not only thousands of poor honest people but also human society and all Christian souls But if neither he nor the Translator his surviver be able to break this thrust as I am sure they are not then will they be forced to submit to the Romish doctors mercy As to the Mounsieurs additionate reason viz. that Jesus Christ did not then make the new Testament and the new covenant but only instituted the seal and Sacrament of them for the covenant was made with all mankinde in the Person of Adam after the fall when God promised that the seed of the woman should break the serpents head c. to this additionate reason which is but one of Mr de Rodons start-holes to save himself I answer that whatever the Testament or Covenant between God and Adam was Christ himself called the Eucharist Novum Testamentum in meo sanguine this is the New Testament in my bloud if it be a New Testament or Covenant how can it be the Testament or Covenant made with Adam or did Christ make any Testament or Covenant with any body else before Adam that his Covenant or Testament with Adam may be called the New Testament in Christs bloud Christ said not this is the signe or seal of my new Testament or covenant as Mr. de Rodon glosseth him But perhaps de Rodon the great Civilian understood the Testators intention better then he was able to express himself for Christ the Testatour spoke but plainly and ordinarily and he understood him figuratively elegantly and Rhetorically who then can say but that this grand Civilian received his fee I am sure he deserved it and a good one too Rodon 6. Fourthly I answer that if by these words to speak clearly and plainly be understood to speak intelligibly s●… that the Apostles might and ought understand what he said to them then it is certain that Iesus Christ did speak clearly for to speak Sacramentally and according to the stile used in all Sacraments was to speak clearly and not obscurely But if by these words to speak clearly be understood to speak without a figure then it is false that he always sp●…ke to his disciples wittness the calling his disciples to whom he said Math. 4. follow me and I will make you fishers of men And when he saith elsewhere ye are the salt of the earth and the lights of the world c. To this I add the Apostles did ask Iesus Christ the meaning of Parables and other things which they did not understand and therefore certainly they had much more reason to ask the meaning of so many strange things as follow from the Mass from Transubstantiation and from the pretended presence of Christs body in the host viz. how a human body can be in a point and in divers places at once how the head of Iesus Christ and his whole body could be in his mouth how accidents can be without a subject c. Answ. I do not