Selected quad for the lemma: word_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A60249
|
An answer to Doctor Piercie's sermon preached before His Majesty at White-Hall, Feb. 1, 1663 by J.S.
|
Simons, Joseph, 1593-1671.
|
1663
(1663)
|
Wing S3805; ESTC R34245
|
67,126
|
128
|
But the first is true because the submission of Berengarius satisfied the Roman Council of 113. Bishops without Transubstantiation Therefore the Second A masculine proofe That in the time of Nicholas the second Transubstantiation was not hammer'd out as it is now believed we easily grant because it is as ancient as the time of Christs last Supper But that Pope Nicholas did not understand the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a meere forgery indeed without a syllable of proofe Berengarius was held an Heretick for denying not the word but what is signified by Transubstantiation in that quality written against by the prime Divines of those dayes In so much that Fox confesseth that about the year of our Lord 1060. the denying of Transubstantiation began to be accounted heresy and in that number was put one Berengarius who lived about the year 1060. that is 200. years before the Council of Lateran And Ioachim Camerarius in his Book Intituled Historiae Narratio pag. 161. Transubstantionis dogma de evanescentia panis post annum 850. tanquam in quieta posessione mansit usque ad Berengarii tempora annum Christi 1050. The doctrine of Transubstantiation of the vanishing of the Bread after the year 850. remained as it were in quiet possession untill the time of Berengarius and the â—…ear of Christ 1050 80. This Berengarius twice recanted his errour first in a Roman Council under Pope Nicholas the second anno Dom. 1059. in which recantation there is not a word of Consubstantiation for there he acknowledgeth that after Consecration the Bread and Wine are not only a Sacrament in regard of the species remaining but also the true Body and Bloud of Christ our Saviour into which the substance of Bread and Wine is changed for the substance of Bread and Wine remaining cannot identically be affirmed of the Body and Bloud of Christ. 81. This to have been Berengarius his meaning is evident by the words of his second recantation under Pope Gregory the seventh Ego Berengarius corde credo ore confiteor panem vinum quae ponuntur in Altari per mysterium sacrae Orationis verba nostri Redemptoris substantialiter converti in veram propriam vivificam carnem sanguinem Iesu Christi Domini nostri post Consecrationem esse verum Corpus Christi quod natum est de Virgine c. I Berengarius do believe with my heart and onfesse with my mouth that the Bread and Wine that are put upon the Altar by the Mystery of the holy prayer the words of our Redeemer are substantially converted into the true proper and vivifying Flesh and Bloud of Iesus Christ our Lord and that after Consecration are the true Body of Christ that was borne of the Virgin 82. Note that he sayes the Bread and Wine are substantially converted into the true Body and Bloud of Christ which Conversion the Council of Lateran 136. years after exprest by the word Transubstantiation So false it is that the Doctrine it self began only then The Council of Lateran was the greatest that ever was held in the Church of God whereat were besides the Pope the two Patriarchs of Constantinople and Ierusalem in person the two of Alexandria and Antioch by their Substitutes the first being hindered by sicknesse the second by the Turk 70. Metropolitans or Primates 400. Bishops 800. Abbots Priors The Embassadours of the two Emperours of the East and West and of the Kings of England France Arragon and Huâ—… 83. Now that so many â—…ed grave and judicious men of several Nations from all parts of the Church should unanimously conspire to forge a Novelty no man contradicting nay that after the Canons of this Council publish'd all Christians in the world should come to their respective Churches and fall down to adore upon their knees what they before believed to be only Bread and Wine and a meer figure of Christs Body and Bloud as Protestants do is a most desperate phansie 84. Truly the ancient Fathers sayings in this matter are so plain using the words Transmutation Transelementation Transfaction Creation and the like that divers Learned Protestants themselves cited in the Protestants Apology confesse a far greater antiquity of Transubstantiation then the Council of Lateran There you shall read that Gregory the great and Austin brought into England Transubstantiation that Chrysostome doth seem to confirm Transubstantiation that Eusebius Emissenus did speak unprofitably of Transubstantiation that in Cyprian there are many things that seem to affirm Transubstantiation that Damascen taught Transubstantiation The reason is clear because those expressions of the Fathers import some reall change not in the species or outward accidents of the Bread and Wine which still remain and appear the same therefore in the inward substance rightly termed Transubstantiation Those words of Berengarius in your Margin taken out of Floriacensis if truly cited speak no intrinsecall impâ—…ession upon Christs Body but onely an extrinsecall denomination derived from the outward formes of Bread as S. Chrysostome exprest himself Thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him So Abraham was truly said to see touch and entertain Angels for the shape they appear'd in Against the denying the Cup to the Laiety The sixteenth Demonstration 85. Whatsoever our Saviour Christ in the institution of the Eucharist commanded all his Apostles to doe was likewise a command to all Christians But our Saviour commanded all his Apostles to drink of that Cup he had newly Consecrated Therefore to drink of that Cup newly Consecrated was a command to all Christians Therefore the withdrawing the Cup from the Laiety neither was nor could be from the beginning 86. The Argument to conclude must run thus and yet it halts extreamly of one Leg for our Lord by those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Drink you all of it intended onely that all the twelve Apostles then present should drink of that individuall Cup he had blessed without powring in and consecrating more Wine This intention of Christ is manifest for he said not onely drink you all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but having consecrated the Cup he said Drink ye all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it Secondly out of St. Mark who addes and they all drank of it Could all present and future Christians drink of that individuall Cup Thirdly out of St. Luke Take this divide it amongst your selves Were all Christians commanded to take that very Cup and divide it amongst themselves Fourthly Christ said to his Apostles take eat and divide Were all Christians commanded to take both kindes with their own hands as Priests doe 87. True it is that St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. mentions both kinds and exhorts to receive not unworthily but commands not both kinds nay rather insinuates an indifferency when he maketh this inference wherefore whosoever shall eat of this Bread or drink this Cup of our Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord.
AN ANSWER To Doctor PIERCIE'S SERMON Preached before His MAJESTY at WHITE-HALL Feb. 1 1663. By J. S. Non in persnasibilibus humanae sapientiae verbis sed in ostensione spiritûs virtutis 1. Cor. 2. 4. Printed in the year 1663. To the Queen-Mother MADAM THere appeared of late at White-hall a Philistin in black defying the Armies of the living God His strength was in his Tongue not in his Arme His weapons Breath and his combat an houres Boast Yet as to his own conceit a huge Goliah he blew down Mount Sion at a puffe and split in pieces the Rock against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevaile In that conjuncture because no adversary could securely be seen the applause flew high victory and triumph rebounding from all the hills of great Britany Yet God knowes all was but wind Flaverunt venti The windes blew Sion stands still immoveable and the Rock unshaken The blasts vanisht to nothing at the first jossle against the House of God because it was founded upon a Rock This hath lately been demonstrated by the excellent Pen of S. C. clearly evincing the no lesse ancient then unchangeable truths of our Doctrines But indeed there needed no such Gyant to defeat that Goliah the least of Iesse's Family the Church supported by the power of his Cause may hope for successe in such a Duell Upon which account I was encouraged to trace out another way of answer tending to disable his proofs by stripping his arguments and shewing them in cuerpo Now the Doctor 's Sermon having been both Preached and published under a Royall shadow I come with an humble suit prostrate at your Majesties feet that I may shelter this Answer under your gracious protection whose name as it is most renowned in the Christian world for zeal of Religion so upon your Royall assent 't will render all-secure the Author of this slender work Madam Your Majesties most humble and ever devoted Servant I. S. June 1. 1663. Gentle Reader I Am onely to advertise thee of three things in the perusall of this Treatise First that Doctor Pierce having in his Dedicatory to the King pretended to the publick confessions of our ablâ—…st Doctors in favour of his erronrs clogs both Margin and Text with our profest enemies as Goldastus Armacanus John Hus Hierome Prague Chemnitius Bishop Hall Cook Nilus Balsamon and others or with Authors of suspected faith whose works are forbidden by the Church as Erasmus Cassander Thuanus and Polidor Virgil de inventione rerum enlarged and corrupted by Protestants or if he cites any Orthodox VVriters they differ not in point of faith but in things indifferent or practises alterable upon just occasion Secondly that we alledge against them in our behalf the very prime Pillars of their pretended Church as Luther Calvin Jewell Whitaker and the like and that not onely in matters of indifferency but of the very substance of Faith Thirdly that Doctor Pierce knowing that we for our belief rest onely upon the Churches definition or interpretation of Scripture as an infallible ground and not upon this or that Schooleman Historian or Grammarians speeches yet he hath wearied his sides in declaiming against us upon the fancied credit of a few private mens words which were they truly cited would weigh nothing with us to the main cause of Religion Finally I professe my intent in this short work to be not so much a proof of our Catholick Doctrines as to shew the unconvincivg weaknesse of the Preacher's Arguments which he mistakes for Demonstrations An Answer to Doctor Pierce's Sermon Preached before His Majestie at White-hall Feb. 1. 1662. SIR 1. GIve me leave in the first place to tell you that your application of our Saviours words From the beginning it was not so is no less confus'd then unconcluding Confus'd as speaking in generall of a beginning and not distinguishing what beginning whether of time order institution or what Unconcluding because it either overshoots or falls short of the marke proving too much or nothing at all For neither were all truths revealed or all good practises in use from the beginning nor all heresies or corruptions since the beginning 2. You say our Saviour was sent to reform the Iewes that is not to found a new Law but to renew the old and that he made known the rule of his reformation From the beginning it was not so Well then if you take the beginning from the birth of the World as in Marriage then the whole Leviticus will be either superstition or profanation for from the beginning it was not so The Devils denying God's veracity You shall not die and Adam's eating the forbidden fruit or Cain's murdering his Brother Abel was not heresie or corruption for from the beginning it was so 3. If the rule begin with the Law it self why should the adoring of the Golden Calf be superstition since 't is as old as the self same Law why all that follow'd as David's Psalmes and Musick the adding seven dayes to the Passeover by King Ezâ—…chias 2 Chron. 30. 22. the Encaenia or Feast of Dedication instituted by Iudas Machabaeus kept and honoured by our Saviour Ioan. 10. 22. the reading of Scripture to the people every Sabbath day Act. 13. 22. no superstition since from the beginning it was not so 4. If to reform Christian Churches you set up your Pharos with the precise beginning of the new Law then since nothing with you in point of Religion was from the beginning but what is exprest in the Written word the leaving to abstain from blood and strangled things commanded by the Apostles as necessary the use of the Crosse in Baptisme the change of the Sabbath into Sunday the Baptisme of Infants the non-Rebaptization of Hereticks the verball pronouncing the words in the form of Baptisme as necessary to the validity of the Sacrament the Degrees and Titles of Primates Arch-Bishops Bishops Deanes c. will be superstition errour and profanation for from the beginning it was not so Then on the contrary the Saduces Cerinthians Nicolaits Ebionits will not be Hereticks because they were from the beginning nay nor the Papists neither if as some Learned Protestants affirm Popery began under the Apostles Therefore S. Paul saith Doctor Willet calleth Papistry a mystery of iniquity which began even to work in his dayes And Mr. Middleton No marvel though perusing Councils Fathers and Stories from the Apostles forward we finde the print of the Pope's feet And Mr. Perkins Our Church ever hath been since the dayes of the Apostles and that in the very midst of Papacy Insomuch that Urbanus Rhegius a Learned Protestant being press'd to shew a change in the Roman Church since the Apostles time gives this desperate answer Though it were true that the Roman Church had changed nothing in Religion would it therefore presently follow that she were a true Church I think not A learned thought indeed supposing what S. Paul writes