Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
life_n bless_a jesus_n lord_n 4,865 5 3.3913 3 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A64146 An answer to a book entituled An account of the Church Catholike where it was before the Reformation; and whether Rome were or be the Church Catholike. Wherein is proved, that the Catholike Church never was, nor can be distinct from that which is now called, the Church of Rome. By R.T. Esquire. R. T. 1654 (1654) Wing T42; ESTC R221978 68,689 169

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

tenerent Wee thought fit c. that all our fellow bishops might stedfastly approve of and imbrace you and your communion that is the Catholique Churches unity and charity Is it not plaine by these words that the unity of the Catholique Church consists in the communion with the Bishop of Rome And if there be no Catholique unity but in communion with the Bishop of Rome it is apparently impossible that any one can be united to the Catholique Church that is not in communion with the Bishop and the Church of Rome Besides that the Church is built upon S. Peter and his Successors I have already fully proved Sect. 25. and Sect. 58. to which I will add one testimonie more out of S. Cyprian Epist ad Quintinum Nam nec Petrus quem primum elegit super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam c. For neither Peter whom our Lord chose to be the first and upon whom he built his Church c. The like words he has Ser. 3. de bon pat whosoever then forsakes the foundation cannot be part of the house or building The whole building rests upon the foundation wherfore he that is separated from the foundation is separated also from the building which is the house the Church of God And you must remember Doctor that S. Cyprian liv'd in the yeare of Christ 250. and therefore long within the first 500. yeares to which you have appeal'd Sect. 27. so that you must either confesse the Prorestants to be out of the communion of the Catholique Church and consequently schismaticall at the least or else you must revoke and renounce your appeale If you will say that the sense of the whole Church appeares not fully in the writings of particular Fathers you shall heare the confession and acknowledgment of 520. Fathers assembled in the fourth Generall Councell at Calcedon in the yeare of Christ 451. who all unanimously acknowledge Pope Leo their head Their words are Quibus tu quidem sicut membris caput praeras Over whom that is the Fathers assembled in the Councell thou wert as the Head over the members And it is to be observ'd that this Councell was held in the Easterne Church and consisted for the most part of the Fathers of that Church wherein notwithstanding Pope Leo's Delegates sate in the uppermost Seat and took place of the Patriarch of Constant inople himself even in his own Patriarchate which would never have been permited had not the Pope's Jurisdiction extended to the Eastern as wel as the Western Churches About 50. yeares after the Councell did not the Eastern bishops acknowledge that it was necessary for all Christians to communicate with the bishop and Church of Rome you have heard Sect. 58. that Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople excluded al from the communion of the Catholique Church that were divided from the Apostolique sea of Rome which doubtlesse the great Patriarch of the East would never have acknowledged had it not descended by universall Tradition that the Bishop of Rome was appointed by Christ to be the supreme Pastor and Governour of the whole Church Examine all this Patriarch's letters written to Pope Hormisda and you shall find them all directed to the Pope after this manner Domino m●o per omnia sanctissimo And can any reasonable man imagine that so great a Patriarch would have stiled the Pope his Lord if his power in the Easterne Church had been absolute and independent on the sea of Rome In like manner Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica in the Eastern Church in his Epistle to the same Pope has these words Ista nunc scripsi Beato Capiti nostro per Patricium c. These things have I now written by Patricius to our Blessed Head By this it plainly appeares that in those dayes within the first 600. yeares of Christ the Bishop of Rome was acknowledg'd the Head of the Eastern Churches as well as of the Western and that by the Eastern Bishops themselves even by their cheife and Head-Bishop the Patriarch of the East who likewise as you have already heard confest that all Catholique Communion flowes from the Apostolique sea of Rome as the Head and Fountain thereof And what better interpreter of Scripture or more faithful preserver of Apostolique Traditions can therebe then the antient and universal practise of the Church To the practise of former Ages and Declarations of antient Councels let us joyn the defini●ions of later times viz. of the Councel of Florence in the year 1439. where the Patriarch of Constantinople was present in person and all the other Patriarchs either personally or by their Delegates Let us then hear the whole Church speaking in that Councel Item definimus Sanctam Apostolicam sedem Romanum Pontificem in universum Orbem tenere primatum c. Concil Florent Act. ult Also we declare that the holy Apostolique Sea and Bishop of Rome hath the primacy over the whole world and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters Successor who was chief of the Apostles and that he is Christ's true Vicar and Head of the whole Church the Father and Doctor of all Christians and that in S. Peter full power was given to him the Bishop of Rome by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed rule and govern the whole Church To this definition subscribed all the Patriarchs of the Church and amongst the rest the Patriarch of Constantinople himself You shall have his subscription as it is set down in the Acts of the Councel Joseph miserations divinâ Constantinopolis c. Florent An. 1439. I Joseph by the mercy of God Arch-bishop of Constantinople and new Rome and universal Patriarch because my life is almost at an end do therefore by the goodness of God according to my duty publish this my opinion to my beloved sons in this writing For all those things which our Lord Jesus Christs Catholique and Apostolique Church of Old Rome believes and imbraces I profess that I also do hold and believe and fully consent unto them And I grant that the blessed Father of Fathers and chief Priest the Pope of Old Rome is our Lord Iesus Christs Vcar and I deny not that there is a Purgatory for souls And note that this is the profession of a dying man past hope of life Here you see a concurrence of the later ages with the former Here you see all the churches of the world consenting to the Primacy and Jurisdiction of the Church of Rome Here you have seen the practise of the antient church the Declarations of former Councels and the Definitions of later then which nothing can better interpret Scripture or more faithfully preserve divine truths and Apostolical Doctrines to posterity Since then the Church of Rome is the Head and Mother-church of the world and consequently the Fountain of Unity whosoever shall separate himself from her communion cannot possibly be a member of the Catholique Church And since the Church of Rome by her power and Jurisdiction diffuses her self
this real presence of Christ's body must be either by a change of one substance into another and so consequently by that which the Church calls Transubstantiation and then you will not accuse that Doctrine for being repugnant to the plain words of Scripture or else by consubstantiation and then why do you not adore it and why do you charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry for adoring Christ wheresover he is corporally present since his Humanity is inseparably and Hypostatically united to his Divinity 40. Let us now hear what Eusebius Emissenus sayes Invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis sanguinis sui verbo suo secretâ potestate convertit These words are cited out of the Author by Gratian. de consecrat dist 2. c. quia corpus The invisible Priest Christ converts the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud by his word by his secret power How can Transubstantiation be more plainly exprss't then in these words Or what is Transubstantiation but a change of creatures into another substance Many more testimonies might be brought both from the antient and modern Fathers in confirmation of this Doctrine which to avoid prolixity I have omitted 41. This Doctrine of Transubstantiation being proved as it hath been both by Scripture and Fathers is a sufficient justification of the administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind the blessed Sacrament being integrally as well as essentially contain'd under either kind which is the second Doctrine repugnant as you say to the plain words of Scripture But where is it said in Scripture You shall not administer the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind onely Or where is it said You shall administer the blessed Sacrament to the Laity under both kinds If any such precept be contain'd in plain words of Scripture why has it never yet been discovered and if there be no such plain precept there then the administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind cannot be repugnant to plain words of Scripture the unlawfulness thereof c●n b● but at the most deducible from some places of the Scripture● which being obscur● and a●biguous cannot be better interpreted then by the antient and universal practise of the church which in former ages esteemed the administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity under one or both kinds a thing indifferent and upon several occasions practised both as when the Mani●hees abstaining from wine as a thing unlawful condemned the use of the Chalice in the blessed Sacrament divers Catholique Bishops in opposition to those Herctiques commended the practise of communicating under both kinds and afterwards when this errour was exploded and a contrary succeeded viz. an opinion of certain Heretiques who maintain'd the necessity of communicating under both kinds because as they said Christ was not wholly and entirely comtain'd under either Then the church to prevent a farther Schism declared the lawfulness and sufficiency of communicating in one kind only and did withall forbid the administration of the blessed Sacrament under both The indifferency of communicating in one or both kinds and the antien● practise of the church in relation therunto I have els where shown Sect. 20 wherefore here I will only add those words of our blessed Saviour in confi●mation thereof Jo. 6. 59. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever If then the end of the institution of the blessed Sacrament which is eternal life may be obtain'd by eating only the body of Christ it cannot be necessary for salvation to communicate in both kinds since salvation may be obtain'd by communicating under the Species of Bread only and these words are a plain exposition of those words precedent so often alledg'd against the Church of Rome by Heretiques Jo. 6. 54. Vnless ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye shall not have life in you whereby it appeares that the conjunctive And is to be taken disjunctively for Or as it is in those words of the Apostle Act. 3. 6. Silver and gold have I none where the sense is Silver or gold have I none Besides Christs body and bloud being entirely contain'd under either Species whosoever receives his body must also receive his bloud and since Bloud is properly the subject of drinking not of eating he that any way receives Christs bloud may be said to drink it drinking being as properly refer'd to the subject as to the action Wh●●●fore though that word And were to be taken conjunctively as it is not yet were it sufficient to communicate under one Species only because whosoever eats Christs body must also necessarily drink his bloud Those other Texts so much urged by Protestants Mat. 26. 27. Drink ye all of this And Luc. 22. 19. Do this in remembrance of me are very impertinent those words being spoken to the Apostles only and to them as Priests and Bishops not in relation to the Sacrament only but to the Sacrifice which the Apostles and their Successors the Priests were to offer up for a continual commemoration of Christs Passion Besides it is to be observ'd that ou● blessed Saviour used not those words absolutely Do this in remembrance of me but only when he gave his Body under the Species of Bread and when he administred the Cup then he used them conditionally Do this as often as ye shall drink in remembrance of me 42. The third fond Doctrine and repugnant to the plain words of Scripture is invocation of Saints But where are those plain words of Scripture I have read the Old and New Testament yet never could find any such precept as this Thou shalt not or no man shall invocate Saints Or Thou shalt not desire the Saints to offer up thy prayers to God Or Thou shalt not pray to the Saints to pray for thee and if no such precept can be found in Scripture in plain terms as never any such was yet discovered there then doubtless this Doctrine is not repugnant to the plain words of Scripture But on the contrary I find this Doctrine viz. That the blessed Saints may be invocated very probably if not necessarily deducible from Scripture For if Angels may be invocated why may not Saints who see God as well as the Angels and are in the same state of bliss and glory with those blessed Spirits but that the Angels may be invocated is most plain in divers places of Scripture As from the examples of Abraham Gen. 18. who in that one chapter prayed six times to the Angel Of Lot Gen. 19. Of Jacob Gen. 32. and Gen. 48. 15. where Jacob blessing the sons of Joseph after he had invocated his Angel Guardian useth these words And let my name and the name of my Fathers Abraham and Isaac be invocated on them Which words are far more plain for Inv●cation of Saints then any place of Scripture that you or any other can alledg can make against it And