Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
religion_n authority_n church_n scripture_n 4,231 5 6.1426 4 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
A61802 A discourse concerning the necessity of reformation with respect to the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome : the first part. Stratford, Nicholas, 1633-1707. 1685 (1685) Wing S5930; ESTC R10160 55,727 60

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

nor Evangelist no nor Apostle and therefore not S. Peter himself was exempt from subjection to him (t) S. Chrysost ad Rom. c. 13. v. 1. And such as their Doctrine was such was their Practice tho their Emperors were Idolaters and implacable Enemies to the name of Christ yet they thought it not in the Popes Power to set them loose from subjection to them Nor did any Pope in those days pretend to such a Power And therefore they chose rather to dye when they had the greatest Provocations to resist and when the number of the Christians was so great that they were able with ease to have vanquish'd their Enemies (u) Cyprian ad Demetrianum 'T is a Doctrine that is contrary to the Confessions and Practice of the antient Bishops of Rome who took the Emperor for their Lord and Master and yielded themselves his most humble and obedient Servants and Subjects So did Pope Gregory the Great (w) Greg. M. Ep. 2. 62. and before Pope Gelasius I. (x) Gelasii Ep. 8. and after him Pope Agatho † Epist ad Constantinum Imp. Actione 4. Syn. 6. Vide etiam Richerium Hist Concil General l. 1. c. 10 S. ● 6. In short 't is a Doctrine that involves the highest Impiety against God the greatest Injustice toward men that subverts the Foundations of Government and is inconsistent with humane Society No man can recount the Usurpations and Rapines the Perjuries and Murders the Treasons and Rebellions the Confusions and Desolations it hath caus'd in the World 4. The next Instance shall be that which was likewise decreed by the Fourth Lateran Council * Cap. 1. viz. the monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation For the belief of which there is no better ground in Scripture than that the Church is transubstantiated or that the Rock in the Wilderness was substantially chang'd into Christ because the Church is call'd Christ's Body (y) Ephes 1. 23. and 't is said that the Rock which follow'd the Israelites was Christ (z) 1 Corinth 10. 4. But because 't is confess'd by many of their own learned Writers we may therefore take it for granted that this Doctrine cannot be prov'd by Scripture Yea that it is contrary to it is manifest because we find in Scripture that the Sacramental Elements after the words of Consecration were pass'd are call'd the Bread and the Cup as they were before (a) 1 Corinth 11. 26 27 28. And if we may believe our Saviour the Wine after it was consecrated and made the Blood of the New Testament was no other for substance than the Fruit of the Vine for after he had said This is my Blood of the New Testament he adds But I say unto you that I will not henceforth drink of the Fruit of the Vine c. (b) Matth. 26. 29. That the Fathers for seven hundred years after Christ believ'd the Elements after Consecration to remain the same for substance is beyond all contradiction prov'd by many Protestant Writers particularly in two short Discourses lately written upon this Subject (i) Letter to Lady T. Discourse against Transubstantiation And that the Popes themselves were of the same Belief in the fifth Century is evident For surely says Pope Gelasius the Sacraments we receive of the Body and Blood of Christ are a divine thing for which we are also by them made Partakers of a divine Nature and yet the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine does not cease to be (k) Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus Corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per tadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non definit substantia vel natura panis vini De duab nat in Christo Biblioth Patr. Tom. 4. Yea so far was Transubstantiation from being the Doctrine of the Primitive Church that we can meet with nothing like it till near the end of the eighth Century and tho as soon as it was started it was vigorously oppos'd by the most learned men of that time yet by the help of the deplorable Ignorance and Superstition of that and the two next succeeding Ages it was by slow degrees nurs'd up and brought to its full growth till at length it came to be establish'd for an Article of Faith in the Lateran Council under Pope Innocent III. in the year 1215. Nor is it only destitute of the Authority of Scripture and the ancient Church but plainly destructive of our whole Religion by subverting the main Foundation upon which it stands For if that be indeed the Flesh of a Man which we see and feel and taste to be Bread what assurance can we have that there ever was any such Man in the World as Jesus of Nazareth or that he ever wrought one Miracle in it The cerrainty of which depends upon the certainty of our Senses and therefore S. John appeals to them as the great unquestionable Proofs of the Truth of our Religion (a) 1 Epist John 1. 1 2 3. We have therefore the same Assurance that Transubstantiation is False as that the Gospel of Christ is True Nor is it more opposite to Sense than Reason the belief of it implying ten thousand Contradictions To which we may add the horrible Impieties it involves That the glorified Body of our Saviour should be contracted to the crum of a Wafer that he should be perfectly depriv'd of Sense and Reason that he should not be able to defend himself against the Assaults of the most contemptible Vermin that he should be swallow'd down whole and if the Stomach of the Communicant chance to be foul or over-charg'd with Wine that he should be vomited up again Good God! what man who is not quite forsaken of Religion Reason and Sense who is not himself transubstantiated into something below either Man or Beast can believe these things 5. That the Marriage of Priests is unlawful This Doctrine the Church of Rome borrow'd from the antient Hereticks especially from the Manichees who allow'd Marriage to their Hearers as the Church of Rome doth to Lay-men but forbad it to their Elect (a) Hic non dubito ves esse clamaturos invidiamque facturos castitatem perfectam vos vehementer commendare atqui laudare non tamen nuptias prohibere quandoquidem Auditores vestri quorum apud vos secundus est gradus ducere atque habere non prohibentur uxores Aug. de moribus Manichaeorum l. 2. c. 18. as that Church doth to her Priests The first Pope we read of that condemned the marriage of Priests was Siricius almost four hundred Years after Christ though he seems by his Epistles if they are indeed his rather to disswade Priests from it than peremptorily to forbid it (b) Epist 1 4. apud Binium Pope Calixtus II. absolutely forbad Priests Marriage and in case they were married commanded them to be separated (c) Presby●eris Diaconis Subdiaconis Monachis concubinas