Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A53499
|
An answer to the challenge of Mr. Henry Jennings (Protestant Arch-Deacon of Dromore) which evidently makes-out the present Church of Romes doctrine to have been maintain'd in the first five ages, & the adversarys principles to be only a heap of heresies lawfully condemn'd by the primitive Church. To which is annexed An answer to one Whealy. Set forth by James O Shiell reader of Divinity.
|
O'Sheill, James.
|
1699
(1699)
|
Wing O530A; ESTC R214539
|
82,791
|
345
|
nâ—r â—alf the Nations by them converted and it was also in the same languages those of the primitive Câ—urch had their own publick lâ—turgies afâ—er the Apostles death as all the following Fathers doe openly declare St â—iprian who liv'd in the 3 Century expounding the Lords Prayer affiâ—ms that then the publick liturgie was in Latin and St. Augustâ—â—â— in his bookde Dono peâ—â—eâ— chap 13 in his â— book de Doctâ—in Châ—istiana chap. 13 and also expounding the 123. Psal and in his 173. Epistle declares that all the western Churches had their Masse in Latin and St. Hierome 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 affirms that all the â—â—stern Churches had their Masse in Greek and vs'd St. Basils Greek liturgie but then the Latin and Greek were not the vulgar languages of all Nations for before those times there were several other languages as is manifest by the acts of the Apostleâ— Chap 2. V. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. where we read the following words and they were all fill'd with the holy Ghost and began to speake with other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance â—nd there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews devout men out of every Nation under heaven Now when this was nois'd abroad the multâ—â—ude came togeather and were confounded because that every man heaâ—d them speake in his own language and they were all amaz'd and marvell'd saying one to an other behold are not all these who speak Galileans and how hear we every man in our tongue wherein we were born Whereby it plainly appears that neither the Apostles or the Fathers of the Primitive Church ever judg'd it to be expedient or necessary to translate the publick liturgie into the mother tongue of every Nation nor consequently that it was Requisite that it shuld be immediatly and expressly understood by every one of the hearers for they knew too well that the end for which the publick liturgie has been first instituted does not require this for the drift which the Church had in appoinâ—ing liturgies is that thereby a continual tribute or homage of prayers and thanksgivings might be publickly offer'd to God by the Priest also that the Christians by their personal assistance at this publick service might unanimously exercise exterior acts of Religion agreeiÌ„g With the whole Church represented by the Ecclesiastical meeting of every pious congregation moreover that every Christian by his presence at this service might consent to the publick Prayers and thanksgiving of the Church in order to be made partaker of the graces fruits and benefits which the Church commonly obtaines by its liturgies and publick oblation for when the Priest celebrats Masse or sayes any publck prayers belonging to it he offers them to God for the people present for the whole Church or for any other necessity of the people who are absent so that it matters not whether the people understands him or no because they have as much benefit by his prayers and oblation as if they had understood what he sayes for if they hear him not speaking aword they might be partakers of his prayers and intercession being God to whom they are offer'd hears and understands him for in Sacrifices Prayers and thanksgivings the Priest speaks not to the Congregation but to God according to that of St. Paul's first Epist to the Corinth c 14. v 2 which is Confirm'd by the following example when any man layes sick or in distress at home he sends to the Church to be pray'd for by the Priest and Congregation now shall we believe because he neither hears or understands the prayers offer'd for him that he obtains no benefit thereby no the Lord forbid for if so the Prayers of the Righteous wou'd avail nothing which is against that of St James c. 5. v. 15 16 and wâ—ich is more we wou'd never be the better for our Saviours intercession for us to his heavenly Father because we neither heare nor understand him or know when he interceds for us yet we Receive innumerable benefits by his intercession and also by the Priests intercession when he Celebrats Masse or sayes any other publick office or prayers institâ—ted by the Church for in this Common office he represents our Saviours place one earth and we are certain that the fervent Prayers of a Righteous man availeth much according to that of St. James c. â— v. 15. 16. whether we understand them or noâ— for their effects doe not depend of our intelligence but rather of the acceptation of God Almighty to whom they are offer'd But now â—o discover the folly of those who do uncharitably censure thâ— Church of Rome for having her Common Prayâ—rs in an unknown tongue let them know that there are many Millions of the said Church who doe understand it in Latin and those who doe not that they are so well instructed by the Câ—ergy that they know when to kneel when to stand when to Pray when to give thanks and when to do reverence and when not besides they have the most part of the Masse if not the whole in their English Italian French Dutch and Spanish prayer bookâ— which also was formerly in the Irish prayer books and would continue so still but that the pennaâ— lawes of that Kingdom in Qeen Elizabeth's raign prohibited any Irish Schooles which oblig'd them to use their Prayers in Latin and English exceptsome of the vulgar who were not able to alow their Children Schooling to learn either of them yet they have traditionaly from their Clergy and parents their prayers and other necessary instructions in Irish taught them by word of mouth and also that part of the Masse wherein they might have any doubt or scrouple So that it is not said in Latin by the Priest to the intent that the people might not understand him or to the intent that the flock might be keept in darkness as some of the pretended Reformers doe falsly reporte but to the intent that the holy Catholick Church in her Liturgies might vse one generall Common language wherein all Nations doe indisputably agree which is more practis'd than any other langauge by the whole world so that if one travâ—ls thro' all Europe he shall alwayes find the same liturgie us'd in all Catholick Churches which conformity is a manifest sign of good Goverment which is in the Church of Rome Chap 4 Proving the Pope of Rome's Supremacy in the Premitive Church Christ's promise to St. Peter and the charge which he committed unto him after his resurrection requires some châ—ef and Universal Pastor in the Church whom all the rest ought to obey but it was alwayes beliv'd in the Primitive Church St. Peter and his successor the Pope of Rome to have been that chief and Universal Pastor therefore it was alwayes believ'd in the Primitive Church St. Peter and his successor the Pope of Rome to have been the chief and Universal Pastor whom all the rest ought to obey the minor and consequence are manifest as shall appear hereafter In the
use of the Chalice that the Manichees might be discover'd who lurking amoÌ„ghst the Catholicks alwayes Receiv'd the Communion under the forme of bread but never the Chalice whosoever then during that Heresie wou'd not at the publicke Communion of Easter Receive the Chalice was suspected to be a Manichean whereby the reader may plainly see that the Church has reason to forbid at one time what it permits at an other Christ having left unto it a dispensing power to alter all matters of indifferency in the discipline thereof as the time place and circumstances wou'd require which St Augustin in his 118 Epistle openly declares and it may be confirm'd by St. Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians c. 11 v. 34. but the Manichean heresie being smothered the Receiving of the â—ommunion under one kind was afterwards CommoÌ„ly practis'd in the Church as Hugo de sancto Victore who liv'd about the year 1130 relates in his book Now before I shall proceed further in my Answer let the reader observe those four points which Commonly have been in practice in the Primitive Church viz. that then the people wou'd bring the Eucharist home to their houses under the forme of bread for private Communion Secondly that the Communion was sent and given to the sick under the same forme Thirdly that infants children Receiv'd the Communion under the forme of wine only Fourthly that the Primitive Christians Receiv'd publickly in the Churches the Communion either under one or both species as they pleas'd untill the Fathers of the Council of Constance about the year 1414. order'd the layties to Receive in one sole species not decreeing that the ReceiviÌ„g thereof in both species was unlawfull or ever prohibited before by the Churâ—h but for several other weighty reasons of which I shall produce only two First that thereby they might supresse and smother the Heresie of certain Germans Bohemiâ—ns who then obstinatly deny'd thâ— integrety of the Sacrement to be contain'd in one sole species Secondly that for the future they might preveÌ„t several abuses prophanations which formerly happen'd when the Chalice was given to the laity who thro their weak zeal and cold Devotion permitted very offteÌ„ drops of the holy blood to be spilt as St. Chrys ostome in his first Epistleto Innocentius Eneas Silviusin his dialogue de utraque specie relateâ— which is against the subâ—ime Reverenâ—e due to this most excellâ—t Sacrament Wherefore it evidently appears that neither the Gâ—â—câ—aÌ„ or Latâ—nes ever believ'd that all which is written in the Gospel touching the Communion under two species is to be so universaly understood that it â—on prehends all Christians but that they alwayes suppos'd and believ'd from the very begining of Christianity that one sole speâ—â—es was sâ—fficient for a true lawfull Communion so that the Council of Constance did but follow the tradition and Doctrine of all precedent ages when it defin'd that the Communion under one sole species was as good and as sufficient as under both species and that those who wou'd Receive it under one kind wou'd neither contradict the institution of Christ or deprive themselves of the fruit of this holy Sacrament for whether we eat or whether we drink or whether we do both togeather we alwayes apply the same Death of Jesus Christ alwayes Receive the same substance of the blessed Sacrament and the same effecâ— of grace for the true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ are whoely and â—ntirly contain'd in everâ— drop of the blessed blood anâ— in every particle of the blesseâ— Host 〈◊〉 as well as he is coÌ„taiÌ„d the whole cup or in the whole Host or in both therefore let no bodie foolishly belive that more benefit is Receiv'd by taking the Communion in two species than in taking it in one alone for being that every drop of the blessed blood and every particle of the divided Host is a maine Ocean of spiritual Blessings many of them by the same moral action Receiv'd affords no more grace then one alone being that one alone contains the whole fountaine intirly therefore it appears that it was never our Saviours intention to oblige all Christians to Receive the Sacrament in both species for if this had been his intention he wou'd certainly institute iâ— in a materia more common to all nations as he did in the institution of the Sacrament of baptism knowing the wine to be so scarce in several parts of the world that the poor inhabitants tâ—ereof couâ—d but very seldom or perhaps never Receive the Communion for the want of wine therefore our Saviours intention was when he said Drinke â—e all of this â—o oblige the Discâ—ples who only then were present and also their successors wâ—o are the Priests that daâ—â—y offer this most holy Sacrifice under both species and when he said to his Disciples John c 6. v. 63. that the flesh profitteth nothing his meaning was that it profitteth nothing â—o believe his bodie to be only human flesh excluding the divine nature as the Jews beliv'd who deny'd Châ—ist to be the son of God Câ—ap 3 proviâ—g â—hat tâ—e Coâ—mâ—n Prayers were 〈…〉 genâ—â—ally undeâ—stood by all â—hose of the Prâ—mitive Chuâ—ch The holy scripture encouragâ—s us to pâ—ay tho' we â—â—deâ—stand â—oâ— what is said theâ—efâ—re â—â—is lawfull and expedient for us â—o prâ—y tho' we understâ—nd no◠〈…〉 is saâ—â— the anâ—â—cedent is manifest by Sâ— Paulâ— fiâ—st Epist to â—â—e Corâ—nthiâ—ns chap. â—4 v. â— wheâ—â—â—e sayes thu◠〈…〉 â—peaâ—eth â—n 〈◊〉 unknown tongâ—â— â—â—eakâ—â—h not 〈◊〉 men but unto God for no man understandeth him Nay some times the speaker did not understand what himself said for the gift of languages and the gift of interpreting languages are two distinct gifts as is evident by the 11. v. and did not alwayes meet togeather as may be seen by the 13. v. of the aforsaid chapter for there the Apostle exhorts him who speaketh in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret which is a sign that ordinarilâ— he cou'd not as is manifest by the 14. v where he sayes thus â—â— I pray in an unknown 〈…〉 spirit pâ—ayâ—eth but 〈◊〉 understâ—nâ—â—â—g is unfruitfull where 〈…〉 see that St. Paul 〈…〉 unâ—erstanding to be unfruitfull and not our prayers when we pray in an unknown tongue moreover you see that St Paul gives to understand that it is lawfull and not prohibited to pray in an unknown tongue Now let us prove the consequenâ—e what the Apostles did and practis'd is lawfull and expedient for us to practice but the Apostles publick liturgies have been in languages which were not Generally understood by all the nations they Converted therefore t is lawfull and expedient for our liturgies to be in a language not generally understood by all nations 〈◊〉 use them the major is evident and I shall prove the Minor â—he Apostles publick liturgies were all in Hebrew Greecâ— Syriack or Latine as is manifest by all Ancient writters which were not generally known languages to all