Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	according_a	church_n	word_n	2,678	5	4.0797	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61213	The unreasonableness of the Romanists, requiring our communion with present Romish church, or, A discourse drawn from the perplexity and uncertainty of the principles, and from the contradictions betwixt the prayers and doctrine of the present Romish church to prove that 'tis unreasonable to require us to joyn in commmunion with it.	Squire, William, d. 1677.	1670 (1670)	Wing S5102; ESTC R15456	70,903	210

consent of the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal the Approbation of the Universities the determination of the Convocation Thus it was carried on in the reign of his successor Edward 6 th When it was re-established under Queen Elizabeth it was in a regular way by a legal abrogation of those Statutes made in Queen Maryes time and the Revival of the Lawes made by King Edward with Synodical consent All which things are fully and Satisfactorily handled by Sir Roger Twisden and Dr. Heylin after the Re. establishment of the Reformation by Queen Elizabeth there were few or no Recusants known in England for many years as is constantly avouched by our Writers who lived near those times few of the Romish perswasion if at any time they went to Mass refused to be present at our service * Lord Cokes ●barge as Norwich 1606. and when afterwards Pius Quintus by his Bull had forbid those whom he called Catholicks to resort to our Prayers there appeared only few who adhered to the Romish Religion the Popes laboured hard to keep up their party here by founding Seminaries for the instructing of the English youth abroad and by frequent Missions of Priests hither to propagate and Defend the Romish Doctrine yet during the reign of Queen Elizabeth King James and King Charles the first Popery decayed till the troubles of our late warrs gave the Romish emissaries opportunity to pervert many unstable persons who either discontented with their sufferings at home or pinched with necessity or offended with the many Sects which the licentiousnesse of Warr had begot or couzened with pretenses of the Antiquity unity glory and splendor of the Romish Church or perhaps allured with the pleasing Doctrine and Opinions whereby many Romish Casuists gratifie Sinners revolted from us and whether the restauration of Peace and Order may reclaim those whose Sufferings and troubles alienated from us God only knowes There is great talk still of the increase of Popery the Papists striving to credit their cause by these reports of numerous Proselites though I hope it is not so as I see no reasonable ground that it should be so yet the reports of Enemies should at least alarum us to be as Active in maintaining our ground as they are in striving to gain it and unless we are weary of our Religion to shew as much zeal in defending as they do earnestness in assaulting This hath Occasioned the ensuing Discourse in which my des●gn is from the doubtfulness and perp'exity of the Romish Doctrine the Superstitious vanity of many allowed prastises in their Church the absurdities in their publique Offices and the contradictions betwixt their Prayers and Doctrins to disswade the fond Admirers of the Romish Religion and to endeavour to reclaim them who are ready to embrace their Errors for Catholick truth ●●SSIVS MOLNA S. IGNATIVS LOYOLA SOCIETATIS IESV FVNDATOR VASQUEZ ESCOBAR Optabilir est Fur qua'm Mendax assiduus vtrique veró Perditionis hareditatem consequentur Eccles. 20 vers 25. Pa●● CHAP. I. The first Consideration I propose shall be from the doubtfulnesse and Vncertainty of many Doctrines in the Church of Rome IT is not Reasonable to Adhere to that Church which Commands us to believe under pain of damnation Doctrines which are uncertiane and dubious But the Church of Rome doth Require such things pro. In the Creed of Pius 4th * Bulla Pij 4th Super form Juram Profess fid There are several things Required as Conditions of Communion with that Church and which their Clergy are bound to swear that they truly Believe and will constantly defend and that they will take Care that they be taught to and Believed by those who are under their Charge and this also they Acknowledge to be the Catholick faith without which there is no Salvation But now many of these things which they are bound to hold according to the Letter of the Decree are Uncertain and Doubtfull and from their own Principles and Confessions will apear so 1. I instance in the Artic●e that they acknowledge the holy Catholick Apostolick Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistrisse of all Churches But there is no Certainty of the truth of this Article for it is either meant of the Churches united under the Obedience of the Roman Bishop or else of the Particular Diocess of Rome It cannot be meant of the Universal Church which obeyes the Universal Vicar of Christ as Suarez phraseth it for all Churches are supposed by them members of that Universal Church and the Universal Church to be the Collection of all Churches Now it is improper to call the Universal Church A Mother of all Churches for all Churches are the same with the Vniversal Church and nothing can be called a Mother to it selfe Again it cannot be a Mistrisse of all Churches for it is only a Society of all Churches United together and Suppose all those Churches throughout the world of which this Universal Church is made I aske what is the Mistrisse to all these Churches either t is the Roman particular Church which I shall shew to be otherwise or else they must say that all these Churches United are a Mistrisse to all Churches when yet they suppose no other can be a Church but what is United with these which is absurd If they mean the particular Roman Church then first that cannot be a Mother of all Churches which in order of time was founded after some Churches unlesse wee could say the Mother might be born after the Daughter but the Roman Church was founded after the Church of Jerusalem and therefore St. Hierome * Com. in Iss 2. sayes the Church founded in Jerusalem begat the Churches of the whole world Ecclesia in Hierusalem fundata totius orbis Ecclesias seminavit and the Synodical Letter * Theodoret Eccl Hist. l. 5. 6. 9. from the Council of Constantinople to Damasus and the Western Bishops calls Cyril the Bishop of Jerusalem the Mother of all Churches Again the Roman Church was founded after the Church of Antioch where the Disciples were first called Christians Acts II. 26. Quae prima omnium ausa est proferre Christianum nomen atque Nascentis Evangelij gloriam praedicare saith Polidor Virgil * De Invent rerum l. 4. c. 2. I may ad after the Church of Britaine for Suarez * Defens Fidei Cathol l. 1. c. 1. confesseth it was from the first Rising of the Gospel and Baronius from some manuscripts in the Vatican affixeth it to the 35th year of our Lord which was near nine years before the founding of the Roman Church If then the Roman Church was founded after some other Churches it is then uncertain and doubtful how we can acknowledg it to be the Mother of all Churches and prosesse this as an Article of Faith without which there is no Salvation Secondly If it be not de fide that the Roman particular Church shall never err in matters of Faith then it

in the prayer concerning St. Peter in the commemoration of St. Paul June 30. where it was anciently said qui B. Petro animas ligandi solvendi pontificium dedisti this he saies he saw in Breviaries which had been written above 200 yeares and which had been printed about an hundred and yet the Reformers of the Roman breviary have left out the word animas will you see Bellarmines answer in his reply to Marsillius he saies forsi la divina providentia ha inspirato li reformatori c. Perhaps the Divine Providence hath inspired the reformers to take it away but why must it be taken away because as Marsilius states the case the Pope designing the advancement of his Power that he might Challinge as St Peters successor a power in temporals saw that this restriction was no way consistent with his design for if the binding and loosing be properly of Souls it must be a meerly Spiritual Power and so no way consistent with that supereminent power in temporals which the Pope and his Courtiers claimed a good reason then to take this away and a fine excuse to justifie it Gods providence must inspire these reformers such an inspiration indeed as the Trent Fathers had when if we believe the Proverb the Holy Ghost came from Rome in a cloke-bag Secondly I will give that Instance which the Arch Bishop of Spalato * De. Rep. Eccles. 〈◊〉 c. 5. n. 164. had observed in Bertram's book when Bertram would prove that the bread and wine are figuratively the body and blood of Christ and though they are call'd the body and blood of Christ yet there are such things said of them which are Celebrated by the Church in a mistery as cannot be said according to that manner they are known to exist and ꝑo they must be understood to be the body and blood of Christ in a figure he proves this by two prayers in the Missal which were said after the Communion the first is Pignus aeternae vitae capientes humiliter imploramus ut quod imagine contingimus Sacramenti manifestâ participatione sumamus taking the pledg of eternal life we humbly beseech that what we touch in the Image of the Sacrament we may also receive by manifest participation from hence Bertram gather'd that a pledge and an Image only signifying the things which they belong to but not manifestly shewing them ꝑo that which is now made in the Sacrament is different from that which shall be afterwards manifested ꝑo that which the Church Celebrates is the body and blood of Christ but yet as a pledge as an Image and when there is no more pledge or Image the truth it self i. e the body of Christ will apear now this Prayer is not to be found in the Missal saies Sspalato Another he mentions Per ficiant in nobis Domine quaesumus tua Sacramenta quod continent ut quae nunc specie geramus rei veritate capiamus let thy Sacraments O Lord effects in us what they contain that what we now hold in shew we may receive in truth from this he argues there being a difference betwixt species and veritas i. e betwixt what is in shew and what is according to it's true nature ꝑo that body blood of Christ which is here held by the Church differs from that which shall be glorified in the resurrection this prayer is clipt saies Spalato instead of specie they read spe yet since that is opposed to truth in this place it shews that we do not receive that which is truly the body of Christ according to its proper nature and so it was read in their reformed Missals in Antiquitates Liturgicae * Sabbato 4. tempotum per Balthas Beller 1605. printed at Doway 1605. which the author saies he took à capite ad calcem out of the Roman Misal the prayer runs ut quae nunc spe geramus c. but I wave this latter for the word specie is now restored in the Paris edition of the Missal 1631. Many more alterations in their Offices might be produced which will evidence the innovations in the Doctrine of their Church and which I hope will be effected by by some industrious person who hath the opportunity of variety of choice Missals and Breviaries and their other books of devotion whereby to discover those alterations of their present from their ancient Offices Secondly I will rather instance in those passages yet retained and are not reconcileable with the grounds of their present Doctrine As First I instance in the private Masses when the Priest communicates alone for many are bound by the Statutes of their foundation as the Chantry Priests to say Mass for the Souls of their founders many persons for affection some by agreement and the highest ordinary rate in these Countries saies Fitz-Simon * Of the Mass 1 book 2 part 12 chapt is a shilling say a Mass and ꝑo whether there be any to Communicate or no yea though but one to answer the Priest and sometime none † Gavant part 2. tit 2. n. 1. yet he saies Mass and the Council of Trent though it wishes all who stand by would not only communicate by spiritual affection but Sacramental participation of the Eucharist yet it doth not condemn those Masses in which the Priest communicates alone but approves them and commends them now the prayers and rules of the Mass are no way reconcileable with this Doctrine and practice for First If there be none to communicate how can the Priest use this exhortation which is in the Ordo Missae after the prayer suscipe Sancta Trinitas Orate fratres ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium fit acceptabile c. pray bretheren that my Sacrifice and yours may be acceptable this exhortation saies the Rubrick must be said by the Priest with his voice toward the people and his Tone a little raised and in their private Mass all this is done though there be none present the exhortation supposes some communicating or at least some present why must he say Brethren if he supposes there needs be none or at least but one why should he raise his voice when he can expect none to answer unless the stones say Amen why must he turne to the people if it suppose a Mass where there are none or but one present Lastly why must he say my Sacrifice and yours if it did not suppose some joyning in the sacrifice Secondly I instance in that exhortation lift up your hearts with the response habemus ad dominum if we lift them up to the Lord c. so the Priest saies dominus vobiscum the Lord be with you the answer is and with thy Spirit now if in the framing this Office it were not supposed that others were present to whom the Priest might direct the exhortation and that they should return the answer it had been foolish to have appointed the use of these words for it s altogether vain

are so many intricacies about the species themselves where they are subjected what Vnion betwixt the body of Christ and those accidents whether this body be an Organical body or no when it ceases to be under the species if there be no substance of bread what then is broken what chewed what digested what is it which nourishes what is it which breeds worms c there are so many intricacies that those who stifly maintain this Doctrine of Transubstantiation know not how to winde themselves out I instance in some few things First what is it that is broken either the body or the species it cannot be the body for the body cannot be divided into parts and first to say that the body is broken and chewed by the teeth unless they be understood in a sound sense in majorem incides haeresin quam ipse habuit Berengarius saies the Gloss * Gloss in Can. Bereng de Consecr dist 2. and yet in these words Berengarius was forced to recant panem vinum non solum esse Sacramentum sed verum corpus c. in veritate manibus Sacerdotum frangi fidelium dentibus atteri † Can. ego Bereng● ibi that the body was in truth held in the Priest hands broken and chewed with the teeth which words saies Serenus Cressy are far from being justifiable unless they be understood Sacramentally i. e. for the outward species which yet he sees cannot be for it 's said not only is a Sacrament but the body c. and is in truth held in the Priests hand broken and chewed and if it be so then Pope Nicholas and the Council erred which prescribed this recantation and how will he swallow that it cannot be the species for no man can break or chew colour or savour or figure c. but only some substance Secondly what is it that nourishes it is either the body or the species First it cannot be the body for the body of Christ cannot be turned into our bodies otherwise Christs body could not be whole for thousands of men must have part of his body It is nourishment to us saies Cressy but not after a Carnall manner ●ut how can this be for if it be not nourishment after a Carnal manner then it must be after a Spiritual and how can our bodies be nourished Spiritually If there be nourishment there must be something digested but Christs body is not turned into our bodies by digestion saies he If there be nourishment then something must be added to our bodies but Christs body is not added to our bodies Let him first either shew how bodies can be nourished Spiritually or confess that he speaks what he doth not understand Some first among them say The body ceases to be under the species when it comes into the belly others say while it is in the mouth others that while the species remains the body remains and first while the species are in the belly the body of Christ is there * Lindwood in Con● prov de sum trin c. altiss p. glutiant but the Gloss on the Canon non iste de consecrat distinct 2. saies the body doth not come down into the belly quousque verò pergulam procedat nescio how far it goeth into the Throat I know not yet he concludeth 't is not digested as other meats are nor passes into the nourishment of the body for it is the food of the Soul and not of the body Well can it be the species Secondly that also is uncertain for nourishing is the reparation of a substance not of accidents and first must be by a substance and not barely by accidents in nourishing the food must be transmuted into the body and how can accidents be so to salve all this God must afford some matter either restore the former matter of bread or produce some new matter or which is most miraculous to me all this must be done without a miracle saies Bellarmine * L. 3. de Euchar. c. 24. resp ad arg 6. for the Naturall Order of things require it i. e. when the dispositions requisite for introducing the form are made after the previous alteration of the species then the order of things requiring it God must substitute matter but what assurance hath Bellarmine that all these things shall be as he fancies that the accidents shall be disposed without matter in which they should be subjected that when these material dispositions are perfected God will substitute matter many such things there are which will trouble him to resolve All this shews that this is a most perplexed Doctrine for if the substance of bread be gone what can nourish it must either be the body or the species and yet neither of these can they certainly fix on Thirdly what is it that is corrupted as when worms are generated of the Host it cannot be the body for God will not suffer his holy one to see Corruption If they say the species neither can that be for Corruption is properly of substance neither can the worms be generated of bare accidents as of colour figure or the like there must be then some new matter created into which the form of worms must be introduced and how strange must this be that men to free themselves from these perplexities are forced to shelter themselves under pretence of multitude of miracles of which not one can be perceived by our senses Durand mentions eleven miracles in Transubstantiation * Rationale div offic l. 4. c. 12. and yet there is not the least appearance to our senses that there is one yea to clear themselves from the perplexities which attend this Doctrine they are forced to fly to more Thomas Aquinas † Part. 3. q. 75. art 8. arg 3. saies there are plura difficiliora c. more difficulties than in the creation And Scotus * In 4. lib. sentent dist 11. q. 3. objects to himself that this one opinion is the occasion of turning all Philosophers and those that follow Natural reason from the faith for they would think that there are greater inconveniencies supposing there be no substance of bread remaining than in the article of the Incarnation propter haec fidem patere contemptui omnium sequentium rationem this exposes Religion to the contempt of all that follow reason for to believe that which seems so much both against sense and reason and so little appearance of revelation to defend it is strange to wise and rational men who know not how to digest such uncertain doubtful and absur'd opinions unless they can bring their faith to believe what they judge impossible The sum of this second argument to prove the perplexities of the Romish Church in the Doctrines she hath defined is taken from the uncertainties intricacies and perplexities in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Thirdly I instance in the Doctrine of Invocation of Saints the Council of Trent * Sess 25. de Invocatione c.