Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostolical_a	church_n	tradition_n	4,989	5	9.5918	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33770	Theophilus and Philodoxus, or, Several conferences between two friends the one a true son of the Church of England, the other faln off to the Church of Rome, concerning 1. praier in an unknown tongue, 2. the half communion, 3. the worshipping of images, 4. the invocation of saints / by Gilbert Coles.	Coles, Gilbert, 1617-1676.	1674 (1674)	Wing C5085; ESTC R27900	233,018	224

not doubt but stedfastly believe That whole Christ his Body and Blood is contain'd under either Species of the Sacrament And therefore such a custom of giving the Sacrament in one kind introduc'd by the Church and the Holy Fathers and observ'd for a most long time let it be taken for a Law Theoph. The first part is warily penn'd c Tam sub Specie panis quam sub specie vini veraciter contineri We must stedfastly believe that whole Christ is verily contain'd as well under one Species as the other So it may be if it be in neither and so we hold Christ is contain'd in neither singly but he is signified and Sacramentally represented and really and spiritually exhibited by the Sacrament in both kinds unto the Faithful Receiver His Body that was broken for us is signified by breaking of Bread and his Blood shed by the Wine poured out of the Cup and separated from the Bread in the Sacrament and therefore at present we will dismiss this School nicety and by the Councils leave not take it for granted That whole Christ Body and Soul is in either Species Quod nullus Presbyter sub poena Excommunicat communicet Populum sub utraque Specie But the principal motive follows Seeing such a custom of giving the Sacrament in one kind hath been introduc'd and most long observ'd by the Church and Fathers we Decree it shall be taken for a Law which shall not be changed or reprobated without the Autority of the Church b Bin. Tom. 8. Concil Basil Sess 30. Sub qualibet Specie est integer totus Christus landab quoque consuet commun Laices c. The Council of Basil makes and confirms the same Decree upon the same Motives Whole and intire Christ is under either kind and the laudable custom of Communicating the Laity under one kind induc'd by Church and Fathers and hither to most long observ'd and approv'd by Doctors skilful in Gods Law and in the Holy Scripture and in Church Canons long since Let it be a Law c. Phil. Yes The Custom and Practice of the Church should prevail with sober Men not given to Faction especially when confirm'd by General Conncils Theoph. Why should not then the Custom and Practice of the Church which we have prov'd for so many Ages prevail for administring the Sacrament in both kinds especially being exactly conformable unto Christs Institution and Command and Apostolical Tradition Phil. Stay there We absolutely deny any command of Christ or of his Apostles or of the Church representative in a General Council to administer the Sacrament in both kinds and we shew two Councils forbidding it Theoph. You deny but the Scriptures affirm And the reason why no General Council determin'd the Sacrament to be in both kinds was because the Institution of Christ and the Tradition of the Apostles and the practice of the whole Church was so full and express for it It was never put to the Question as I can find until the 13 th Century and from that time when the School-men began to swarm most of them being sworn Champions of the See of Rome The laudable Custom as the Council speaks approv'd by Holy Fathers viz. Monks and Friers crept insensibly into the Church And this must be made a ground of Canons to establish the Communion in one kind and forbid the Cup and declare a Curse upon all those that shall dispute it And now when I shall declare the reason I hope your goodness will excuse that great trouble to my self and you in those numerous Quotations and Testimonies I have brought to prove the practice of the Church for 1200 Years in giving the Sacrament unto the People in both kinds It was chiefly upon this design to manifest the gross absurdity of those two Councils Constance and Basil who as you have heard do ground their Decree for one kind upon the laudable custom of the Church taken up not above 100 Years before against the Institution of Christ and the conformable practice of the Church for 1200 Years And withal to manifest their impudence in calling that a custom rationally introduc'd when such a Diutissime obs trifling Motives are brought to establish it And in saying it was diutissime observata for a long time observ'd when they cannot shew one clear Instance save in the Age immediatly before That the Sacrament was administred in public in one kind in any Christian Church Phil. It doth not become your Prudence and Moderation so to undervalue General Councils Theoph. Alass Those two pitiful Councils of Constance and Easil you may call them Oecumenical but you give no more Autority to them then you think fit As far as their Decrees suit the Genius of the Court of Rome they are confirm'd and no farther a Part. 2. Tom. 7. pag. 1134. Exparte Approbatum in iis quae consra Wicclesum c. Binius in his Notes upon the Council of Constance tells us It was approv'd in part in those Decrees against Wicliff Husse and Jerome of Prague But in the determination of the Autority of a General Council above the Pope it was abrogated by two General Councils of Florence and the Lateran b Bin. Tom. 8. S●ss 34. C●n● Basil Tan suum Sim●niacum perjurum incorig Scismaticum fide devium injurium bonarum Ecclesi●e p●●ditor●m So the Council of Basil deposing Eugenius the 4 th from his Papacy As a Simoniacal and per● jur'd Man an incorrigible Schismatic erring from the Faith injurious and betraying the Goods of the Church And choosing Amadeus Duke of Savoy Pope called Felix the fifth and Declaring That a Council is above the Pope and hath its Power immediatly from Christ Alas for these things this poor Council is hist off the Stage of the World c Sess 11. Bin in notis in Concil ●asil p. 526. Conciliabulum Schismat c. And in the Lateran General Council under Leo the 10 th It is call'd a Schismatical and Seditious Conventicle and altogether of no Autority And yet these are the Councils upon whose Aurority you so much depend to establish your half Communion and pronounce us all Heretical and Contumacious for not submitting our Reason and our Consciences thereunto even against the Scripture and against the Fathers of the Church Phil. But the General Council of Trent hath no Exception being held 18 years and confirm'd by Pope Pius the fourth and subscrib'd by his Cardinals as appears by the Bull of Confirmation See the Council of Trent set forth in Latin by John Gallemart D. D. and Professor at Douey Theoph. Of the Council of Trent read the History of Father Paul a Frier at Venice a Man of Learning Judgment and Piety beyond compare and there you will find what just cause the World ●ath to decline the Autority and Decrees of that Cabal That great Ecclesiastical Body whose Soul and Spirit was at Rome receiving day by day Orders and Directions and

Holy Scripture or Fathers speak of receiving Christs pretious Body and Blood for remission of Sins and the nurishment of our Souls you answer In one kind whole Christ is received and all his Benefits by a Concomitancy If we go further and prove the Elements were receiv'd distinctly by the People in the Apostles time and for so many Ages after You answer Vsu non praecepto they receiv'd it so by Custom and not by Precept Phil. Yes And upon this account we are not troubled with all your proofs of both kinds administred to the People so many Ages of the Church seeing afterwards that Custom generally ceas'd in the Western Church and the contrary Custom was introduc'd and confirm'd by three General Councils Constance Basil and Trent Theoph. 'T is truth in the 13 th Century giving the Cup unto the Laity began to grow out of use a Part. 3. Quaest 80. Art 12. Ex parte Sacramenti convenit ut utrumque sumutur c. Aquinas moves the Question Whether it be lawful to receive Christs Body without the Blood And concludes That in regard unto the Sacrament it self it was convenient that both kinds should be received because the perfection of the Sacrament consists in both but in regard unto the Receivers reverence and caution was required and that therefore in some Churches it was well observ'd not to give the Cup unto the People And yet before the same Aquinas had determin'd b Quaest 74. Art 1. Quantum ad effect in unoquoque sumentium Sae●●mentum hoc vales ad tuicionem c. As to the effect of every Receiver the Sacrament secures both Body and Soul and therefore the Body of Christ is offer'd for the salvation of the Body and the Blood under the Species of Wine for the Soul Phil. He saith 't is offer'd to wit by the Priest but not communicated to the People Theoph. Put the Proposition together it is this Bread and Wine are the Materials of the Sacrament requir'd in regard of the benefit and effect in every Communicate for the preservation of his Body and Soul by the Body and Blood of Christ Well Aquinas he starts the Question Whether it was lawful to receive in one kind and determins the Point very tenderly But after this Angelical Doctor as they call him the School-men follow the Cry with full Mouth That there is no Precept to receive in both and no prohibition to receive in one kind That upon many Considerations it is expedient to with-hold the Cup from the Laity That the Church hath power to order things of this nature and That after the express determination of the Church in some General Councils it is even become necessary to with-hold the Cup and an Heresie to dispute against it Now to prepare the World for this new practice of receiving only in one kind that so it might be entertain'd in some places and get ground and afford some plea of a Custom in the Church the School-men started some preliminary Questions and concluded That whole Christ was received under each kind and he that received only the Body of Christ received likewise his Blood and Soul and Divinity by a concomitancy 2 sy That the whole intent of the Sacrament as to the People all the Essentials thereof were communicated under the Species of Bread with the Body of Christ. 3 sy That he who received in both kinds had no advantage of those who receiv'd only in one kind Altho we find this last Thesis not so generally admitted among themselves yet such as oppose must not be peremtory least the People should be sensible of some injury don them in being depriv'd of that benefit which should be exhibited more in both kinds then in one Phil. By your own relation you give us opportunity to observe how they proceeded upon good grounds and in a rational way to make good their Thesis and their practice of the Communion in one kind Theoph. It was necessary they should say somthing to endere the People unto a compliance designing to cheat them of one half of the Sacrament they would impose upon their credulity and tell them the other half which they receiv'd was as beneficial as the whole Phil. You are not ignorant how they shew many good Causes and Considerations for their with-holding the Cup and notwithstanding your pretensions and claim to the practice of the Church for so many Ages on your side our Doctors shew it was always free to communicate in one kind or in both and shew the early practice of the Church for this half Communion as you call it and I hope you will now give me leave to put in their Plea Theoph. Content And if you can ballance those Autorities which I have brought I will yield the Cause Phil. I am glad to see in you some hopes of Moderation and that you will be rul'd by Reason and Autority Theoph. Taking Christs Institution and the Holy Scripture along with us Phil. 'T is suppos'd there is no express Precept of Christ to determine the Church in all Ages to give the Communion in both kinds and where the Church is left free she may use her liberty and determin as occasion serves Theoph. You beg the Question and we have urg'd Christs Institution and Example in giving the Sacrament in both kinds and his Command to them to do likewise We have urg'd the Traditions of St. Paul the practice of the Apostolical Tunes Phil. You have urged and we have answered and let the impartial Reader judg between us but besides these Instances of the Sacrament in one kind out of the Holy Scripture Luke 24. Acts 2. 42. and 20. 7. we have also Testimonies of the Primitive Church which speak on our side Theoph. We have prov'd our way abundantly by the practice of so many Ages do you so yours and then I will grant we are left free in this case every one to do as seemeth good in his eyes Phil. Not so neither when the Church hath restrain'd this liberty and forbid the Cup. Theoph. Whether your Church hath done better in the restraint then the Church for so many Ages before in allowing that Christian Liberty which you pretend for to receive in one or both kinds let the World judg but we deny any such liberty taken by the Church or allow'd by Christ to communicate in one or both kinds as the Church should please and we desire your proof Phil. First Bellarmin proves it lawful to communicate in one kind because the Church never condemn'd it Theoph. You should prove that they allow'd it But how should they condemn that which was not practic'd Could they divine a new Generation of Monks and Fryars should arise and perswade the People by subtlety and craft to lose their Spiritual Birth-right half the Legacy of Christ or rather the whole in a maim'd and undue Administration And moreover you have heard when the Manichees and other Heretics would have brought up this

horns hath little strength but could he have added to them this fifth Horn That the Word of God approveth the Invocation of the dead as of the living we must have fled before it But alas all the attemts to confirm this Doctrine of your Church out of Holy Writ have prov'd so unsuccessful that some of your own Doctors have had so much Ingenuity as to acknowledg That it is not expresly delivered in Holy Scripture So a Invocatio Sanctorum non expresse traditur in Script Eccius in his Enchiridion of Catholic Confession and therefore it must pass for an unwritten Tradition whereof Martin Peresius confesseth we have b De Trad. p. 3. consid 7. Ne vestigium ante divum Cyprianum no footsteps before Cyprian Phil. Peresius gives a rational account together with others why the Holy Apostles did not lay the foundation of this Doctrine It was say they c Causa erat humilitas mod Apostolorum nese Deos facerent out of their great humility and modesty least they should appear to establish in the Church their own Apotheosis make themselves as Gods by directing the People of God to put up their Supplications after their decease to them Theoph. Methinks That which prevail'd with the Apostles not to deliver this Doctrine of the Invocation of Saints should likewise have prevail'd with the Church never to have establish'd it and without doubt had it bin according to the will of God and profitable to the Church the Holy Apostles would never have concel'd it out of modesty and humility S t Paul declares expresly to the Church of Ephesus Acts 20. 19 20. That serving God with all humility of mind he had kept back nothing that was profitable unto them And doubtless it was presumtion and pride which introduc'd this Error tho under shew of voluntary humility for if the Apostles were afraid to recommend themselves as Gods unto the People by giving them directions to pray to them after their decease the Pope who undertakes to Canonize Saints and to encourage the People of God to pray to them in spight of the Apostles humility and fear takes the boldness upon him to make them as God Phil. You make so many Excursions that you come not to the Point How do you answer the four Particulars of Bellarmins Argument Theoph. I have already cut off the four Horns with one blow He saith That if we may not pray to the Saints departed as well as desire their Praiers when living it must be for one of those four causes fore-mentioned either they are not willing or are not able to pray for us or they cannot hear our Praiers or their Intercession would be injurious unto Christs Intercession but I say is enumeration is lame and imperfect for I have shew'd a fifth reason why not because the Word of God obligeth not to one as to the other It requires that we should desire the mutual assistance of one anothers Praiers living but not after our decease all civil commerce being intercepted by the will of God between the living and the dead Phil. Do you reckon our Invocation of the Saints departed a part of civil commerce I thought it had bin a Religious act and duty Theoph. I grant Praier to be such and therefore a part of Divine Worship to be given only to God But that Invocation of Holy Men living as you call it or as I term it That pious desire and request which one Christian makes unto another that he may enjoy the benefit of his Praiers from whence you draw an Argument for Invocation after their decease that doubtless is a civil Request wherewith Christians mutually call upon and oblige one another to remember them in their Praiers So likewise the honor which Subjects yield unto their Prince presenting their Petitions with bended knees is civil And so Children begging the Blessing of their Parents these are formally Civil not Religious Acts. A good Christian indeed gives honor to his Prince and to his Parents not only upon a civil account but also Religious it being a duty requir'd in the Word of God yet the honor it self is civil the motive unto us wherefore we give it is Religious the will and command of God Phil. You are willing to involve the Discourse with subtle Notions and nice Distinctions Such honor as you give to Princes and Parents vouchsafe to the Saints in Glory begging the assistance of their Praiers upon your knees and it shall suffice Theoph. Your self caus'd this Digression You suppos'd the Invocation of Saints departed to be a Religious act and so in truth you generally make it a great part of your Religion I have shewed how the desire and request which Christians make to one another whilst they are in the Flesh mutually to be remembred in their Praiers is a civil request and therefore no sufficient ground for your Religious Invocation of the Saints in glory But at length you are content we should make the same civil Requests to the Saints in Heaven for their Praiers as to the Faithful who are living You may observe it generally such as are in the wrong will accept of any composition But we cannot grant it for this reason because Death intercepts all civil Obligations and Commerce between Persons Parents when they are dead cease to be provident for their deer Children and these expect it not from them The rich Man departed cannot relieve the poor nor lend him Money at his need You formerly did urge there was a communion between the Church Militant and Triumphant but that is mystical as Fellow-members of Christs Body But the civil communion between Brethren and Neighbors and the relation of Parents and Children Masters and Servants Princes and Subjects Husband and Wife is interrupted altogether by death and so by consequence all those acts which depend upon or flow from that communion That Children should ask their Fathers Blessing after his decease I never yet did read your Doctors have asserted Phil. I am well confirm'd by these your Digressions That notwithstanding you would appear to slight Bellarmins Argument and pretend to cut off all the four Horns at one blow by giving a general answer yet in truth you do warily decline the force of it and are not willing to come to the four Particulars whereupon he hath insisted That seeing the Saints departed are as willing and as able to help us now with their Praiers as when they were living amongst us and seeing they know our state and can hear and receive our Addresses to them and seeing their Intercession now for us is not injurious to the Intercession of Christ therefore we have as much and more reason to Invocate them now in Heaven then when they were conversant with us upon Earth Theoph. Not excluding the confutation already given I will now take these four Particulars into consideration The two first may easily be granted if there could be mutual communion between them and us