Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	blood_n	body_n	figure_n	2,133	5	8.7987	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30977	The genuine remains of that learned prelate Dr. Thomas Barlow, late Lord Bishop of Lincoln containing divers discourses theological, philosophical, historical, &c., in letters to several persons of honour and quality : to which is added the resolution of many abstruse points published from Dr. Barlow's original papers.	Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691.	1693 (1693)	Wing B832; ESTC R3532	293,515	707

utterly denying the picturing of God the Father and yet they of Rome approve and practise it This Doctrine of Anti-transubstantiatio● is no new Doctrine crept into the World since Luther's time but the Antient Faith of the English and indeed of all Christendom long before the Conquest in the time of our Saxon Progenitors And so we find it in an Antient Homily writ originally in Latine but among many others translated into Saxon by Aelfricus Abbot of St. Albans in King Edgar's time Vid. Saxon. Homil die Sancto Paschae p. 35. That Homily was no private thing but commanded by Authority to be read in Churches on Easter-day where speaking of the Sacred Symbols in the Eucharist we are told that it is naturally corruptible Bread and Wine and is by might of God's Word truly Christ's Body and Blood yet not so bodily but ghostly And then there are divers differences put between Christ's Body in which he suffered and his Body in the Sacrament As first That was born of the Virgin Mary had flesh and blood But his ghostly or spiritual Body is gathered of many Corns without Bones Blood or Limb and without Soul therefore nothing to be understood therein bodily but all ghostly And a little after This Mystery speaking of the sacred Host is a pledge and figure Christ's Body is Truth it self This was the Antient Faith of the Church of England seven hundred years ago and 't is ours still If at or after the Lateran Council Transubstantiation and another new Doctrine was broach'd by the Tyranny of Rome and the slavish Credulity of some of our Predecessors let Roman Catholicks ingenuously tell us who are the Innovators But suppose a few persons believed so suppose any Fathers quoted for it were uncorrupt yet it doth not follow that because they believed so therefore the Christian World believed so And again suppose that the Major part of Fathers and Doctors of the Church were for such an Opinion I ask if this doth bind Posterity to be of their Faith I shall here shew you that tho' none pretend more to Antiquity than the Papists or make a greater noise with Fathers and Councils yet they slight them as much as any when they speak any thing against the sense of the present Church As for instance what I partly before hinted Cardinal Cajetan a very Learned Man in the beginning of his Commentaries on Genesis hath this passage Si quando occurrit novus sensus textui consonus quamvis à torrente Doctorum alienus ●quum se praebeat lector Censorem And a little after he adds Nullus detestetur novum Sacrae Scripturae sensum ex hoc quod dissonat à priscis Doctoribus Maldonat in cap. 6. Johannis that he might oppose Calvin confesseth which no Witness but my own Eyes could make me believe that he chose a new Interpretation on the place against all the Antients But in the next place to prove that Papists have sometimes gone against General Councils since you give me occasion further to dilate on what I before referr'd to by way of hint I shall tell you that the Canon of the great Council of (b) Concil Chalced. Can. 2. in Collect. Can. Graec. Lat. per Eliam Elingerum 29. In Cod. Can. Ecclesiae Vnivers per Christoph Justellum Chalcedon one of the four which Pope Gregory would have receiv'd tanquam quatuor Evangelia made by 630 Bishops confirm'd by the 6th General Council held at Constantinople And by that of (c) Conc. Constant in T●ullo Can. 36. for so it is acknowledged tho' Binius and some o her● would fain deny it in the b●dy of the Canon Law C. r●nova●●es Dist 22. in the last and best Editions of it See Greg. 13. his Bull given at Rome July 1. 1580. Gratiano praefixum Constance too Sess 39. fol. 39. Edit Antiquae Mediolani 1511. is yet every where slighted by Popish Authors For Canon the 28th or as in some Editions the 29th Canon of Chalcedon is quite left out in that Edition of the Councils by P. Crab and in that of Dionysius Exiguus in the Vetus Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Romanae in Caranza c. And tho' Franciscus Longus (d) Summa Concillor per Francisc Longum à Coriolano p. 402. apud illum Can. 27. a Coriolano hath that Canon yet in his Annotations he flatly denies it and goes about to prove it false in divers particulars So that the Canonical determinations of 360 Fathers met in a General Council whose Constitutions their own (e) Extra De Renuntiation● cap. post Translationem Pope Gregory would have receiv'd as Evangelical Truths when they make against them signifie nothing but are flatly denied And if it be said that this was no Canon of the Council the contrary is manifestly true for it is in all the Original Greek Copies Printed and Manuscript (f) Videsis Cod. Canonum per Christoph Justellum Ecclesiae Vniversae Can. 206. p 25. Zonaram in Canon Concil p. 118. Theodorum Balsamon in Can. 28. Concil Chalcedon Can. Concilior Graec. Lat. Quarto An. 1560. per Andr. Gesnerum p. 48. Vid. Caranzam in Notis ad Marginem c. 36. Concil Constantinop p. 635. where he tells us that Canon is in the Greek Copies sed deest in Latinis exemplaribus and expresly confirm'd by the 36th Canon of the Sixth General Council at Constantinople Registred by Gratian Can. Renovantes Dist 22. tho' with insufferable falshood and corruption of the Canon as will manifestly appear to any who will compare Gratians reading with the Ori●inal (g) Vid. Vetus ●●sc Sy●●●icum in Bi●l B ●le●● i●●er M●c G●●●ca è M●s o Barociano I know they of Rome sli●ht this of ●onstantinople as much as that ●f Cha●cedon For first Binius tells us it smells more of ambition than truth and (h) Caranza in A●not ad Can. 36. Conc ●ii 6. Gen. p. 635. Caranza ●rroneus a quibusdam existi ●●ur hic Canon And Indeed i● is ●ecess●ry for them to deny that Canon for it positively asserts and determines such truths as utterly overthrow their Popes pretended Supremacy which they so much and so irrationally contend ●●r For First that great General Council gives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not s●● lia only as Gratian falsely reads it (a) Gratian Can. Renovantes dist 22. even in the last and best Edition of their Canon-●aw equal Priviledges to New and Old Rome that is declared and pronounced Constantinople or the Patriarch of that Imperial City to have equal Priviledges with the Pope or Patriarch of old Rome Secondly That the Roman Bishop had not those Priviledges among other Bishops by any Divine right or succession from St. Peter as now they would pretend but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were given by ecclesiastical and positive constitution of the Fathers Thirdly And they to make this manifest tell us that Rome had those antient prerogatives not as its Bishop was St. Peter's Successor or with

Apparitors to bring me a List of those who publickly or privately teach School in this Diocess which so soon as they have finish'd I shall send to your Lordship and in the mean time I shall inquire and know who have and who have not legal Licences to teach School and then give your Lordship an account of it When your Lordship shall be pleas'd to communicate any further commands though many have more discretion and ability to execute them than I do or can pretend to yet your Lordship may be assured of this that none shall with more honour and respect to your place and person or with more diligence and fidelity indeavour it Having said this I humbly crave leave to speak freely as to my Spiritual Father and my Friend Your Lordship seems to be displeas'd with the questions a resolution of which I desired in my last as being such as had not been put to any Bishop nor fit to be answered by your Lordship They were put to me by as learned and pious persons as any in the Diocess men who are ready to do their Duty but they desire as in reason they ought to know of their Guides and Governours the bounds and measures of that Duty they would have done This they cannot know or any way learn out of the Letters sent down in which there is no command which concerns the Duty of the Inferiour Clergy in any Diocess His Majesties command in my Lord of Canterbury's Letter concerns my Lords the Bishops only That they should injoin Catechizing according to the Laws and Constitutions which inable them so to do Those Constitutions whatever they be are the Rule of the Bishops Power who is to injoin them and the Clergies Duty who are to obey But what those Constitutions are the Letters mention not that is left to my Lords the Bishops As they best know what Canons and Constitutions inable them to injoin Catechizing so they ought to signify to their inferiour Clergy what Canons they are which they would have put in execution that by them they may first know their Duty and then do it It being impossible that they or any should obey Constitutions before they be made known to them by those who injoin and expect obedience As the inferiour Clergy in dubious cases are in Prudence and Conscience bound to desire the directions of their Superiours their Guides and Governours so their Superiours are by the same obligations bound to give them directions We have several Laws and Constitutions Ecclesiastical concerning Catechizing which in some things clash and contradict one another It is not probable that every one of the Inferiour Clergy should know all those Constitutions and less probable that every one should be able to reconcile the real or seeming Contradictions and so certainly know what remains as a Duty to be done without directions from his Superiours I humbly beg your Lordships pardon for this tedious and I fear impertinent scribble and your Paternal Benediction for My Lord Your Lordships most obliged faithful Servant Tho. Barlow Q. Coll. Oxon. May 29. 1673. Sir J. B. having sent to Bishop Barlow a Lecture before the Royal Society on the 26th of Novemb. 1674. Printed in Twelves his Lordship sent him the following answer Sir I thank you for the Discourse you sent me but am sorry so ingenious a person should write or others should approve it for that I may freely and sub sigillo to you say what I think and know though there be several things in it ingeniously said yet there be too several things highly irrational and indeed most metaphysical Non-sense and some things I fear impious if not plainly Atheistical we are told pag. 15. That place is the IMAGE or PHANCY of Matter or Matter considered If this be true then 1. Seeing all such Phancies are only in the Soul Therefore to be in a place is to be in a Phansy and therefore in the Soul where all such Phansies are and cannot possibly be elsewhere 2. Motion he says page 26. is change of place Now if Place be Phansy then if the Sun change its place it is only a change of phansy and a change of phansy will be a motion or change of place and then if men change their Phansies who only have Phansies to change the Sun may stand still and the Earth move For you know there have been and still are who strongly phansy the Sun to stand still and the Earth to move and others who as strongly phansy the contrary Now I would fain know which of their phansies is the place of Sun or Earth and if either why the one more than the other and if neither then place is not a phansy as is pretended and therefore the definition it self is but a phansy and a wild one too 3. We are told also pag. 15. that a place is Matter considered Ergo If matter be not considered it is in no place Ergo Horse or Man Sun and Moon and the World when not considered are in no place and therefore no where for quod nusquam est non est 4. He tells us there pag. 15. That quantity is the phansy of place and therefore all quantity must be where the phansy is and phansies can be no where but in the Soul which being a Spirit is capable of none and therefore no quantity can be extra animam in any body whatever 5. To say that place is matter considered is to say that the place of a Dog is a Dog considered and then all those things in the World which are unknown to Vs and therefore cannot be consider'd must therefore be in no place and therefore not in the World 5. He says pag. 17 18. That ALL the FIRST matter of the World are Atom's immutable in magnitude and figure 2. That many of them join'd make a Visible object 3. That this juncture is made by their own INNATE Motion Now 1. How well this agrees with Moses Gen. 1. do you judge 2. If such Atomes be the first matter of all things and by meeting of them all visible bodies be made and they meet and are join'd by their own innate motion then 't is evident Adam was made of such Atomes and they met in him not by Gods appointment and Divine-creating-power but by their own innate power and so Epicurus a Pagan Philosopher and his Hypothesis shall have more truth and credit than the Divine History of the Creation by Moses And how far this if believed may make for Atheism a denying of Scripture and the Divine Power and Providence of our infinitely good and gracious God do you judge certainly if Atomes or matter immutable in magnitude and figure as he says be the first matter of the World they must of necessity be either 1. Eternal without or 2. Temporal with a beginning To say that those Atomes are Eternal is to deny the Christians (a) Symbolum Athanasii in our Liturgy and all Christian Churches received and in our Articles