Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	believe_v	faith_n	true_a	5,505	5	5.0466	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79524	Catholike history, collected and gathered out of Scripture, councels, ancient Fathers, and modern authentick writers, both ecclesiastical and civil; for the satisfaction of such as doubt, and the confirmation of such as believe, the Reformed Church of England. Occasioned by a book written by Dr. Thomas Vane, intituled, The lost sheep returned home. / By Edward Chisenhale, Esquire.	Chisenhale, Edward, d. 1654.	1653 (1653)	Wing C3899; Thomason E1273_1; ESTC R210487	201,728	571

practice of the Church That the Sacrifice upon the Altar is superstitious and The authority of the Church no excuse to change the administration of the Lords Supper into one kinde THe Church of Rome having thus gained a general consent though at first forced upon many by the power and domineering of the Popes to her doctrine of Transubstantiation she stuck not long in this station but partly to make good what she had introduced into the Church and partly to shew to the world the divine Legislative power of her Head she soared a pitch higher whereas before this she but maintained an opinion which but to some weak capacities did convince all not being satisfied with the sincerity of her doctrine concerning the nature and quality of this Sacrament of the Lords Supper which Christ himself instituted and by his last Will and Testament left it as a Legacie to his faithful servants her Popes now take upon them after their former opinion was confirmed by Councel and generally received and believed as an Article of Faith to dispense with that Sacrament of Christ Jesus and have in stead thereof instituted one of their own making administring in one kinde and denying the Cup to the Lay-people which is a novel trick of Papal invention and never practised in the Churches upon earth till they forced it upon some over which the Popes did without controul rule at will and pleasure Christ Jesus did institute this Sacrament in both kindes Paul enjoyns both the whole Church did administer in both and the Fathers teach that as well the wine as the bread is to be received and did think wine so necessary that it could not be administred in water much less in the cake alone in which there is no liquid element to represent the shedding of Christs blood for which end it was ordained Cyprian who wrote 260 yeers after Christ in his 3 Epist ad Cecilium lib. 2. Forasmuch saith he as Christ said I am the true vine and the Cup is his blood it cannot be thought that his blood is in the cup if wine be not in the cup whereby the blood is signified unto us Chrysost in Matth. cap. 26. Hom. 83. Christ used wine as well before his Resurrection as after S. Hierome in Sophon cap. 3. doth witness that in his time the Priest did administer the Eucharist and divide the blood unto the people In the Canon of Pope Gelasius and in the Popes Decrees de Consecrat a strict Injunction is laid that all receive in both kindes for that the dividing of that Sacrament is sacriledge I need not instance in this any more particulars in respect that none can deny but that anciently it was in both kindes administred I will therefore examine the reasons the Church of Rome gives for her alteration from this antient way and for administring in one kind and in so doing I shall plainly lay open her errors in this point The Councel of Constance held 1414. Councel of Constance Ses 13. decreed Quod nullus Presbyter sub conditione excommunicationis communicet populo sub utroque specie Panis Vini Which notwithstanding the Councel of Basil did after restore to the people again Anno 1431. So that in this new doctrine of hers Rome has met with much controversie even in her self Gelasius the Pope decreeing it to be sacrilegious to omit either kind by which it is evident that the Church of Rome has erred de fide For Gelasius taught that judicially as Pope and the Council of Constance was approved by Pope John 23. and this Councel of Basil by Eugenius the 4. Which proceedings wound the infallibility of the Church of Rome and spoiles her unity one Pope being against another and one Council against another To decide which strivings the late Prerogative Royal of the Popes being above Councels was therefore decreed which notwithstanding by that means the Church of Rome is made infallible yet it spoiles her of her marks of antiquity and constant visibility and therefore absolutely spoiles her for being taken to be the onely Catholick Church for if so then the Catholick Church was once utterly extinguished from off the earth which is against Gods promise and impious to imagine The Pope being thus grown above Councels he now as he pleases declares this Councel void the other to be of force and by vertue of this his Prerogative he has approved the Councel of Constance and yet but in part for he onely takes as much out of that Councel as makes for his turn he onely confirmes their Decree prohibiting the Cup to the Laity but their other Decree of the power of Councels to be above the Pope that 's abominable and his Holiness commands that Decree to be believed to be Heretical By this is to be noted that the Popish Religion is a nose of wax as pleaseth his Holiness to set it forth it must be received upon the score of his infallibility though it be never so destructive to former Christian principles to the ruine of Councels and overthrowing of the true antient Catholick Faith yet such is the condition of the Pope that his will can guide him into no tenent though never so contrary to truth but his faithful Papal servants the Jesuites will dawb over his rotten Doctrine with the smooth plaisters of humane reason and think with subtile Sophistry to beguile the simple the deluding of whom doth not in their uneven hands counterpoise the pleasing of their Master the Pope and therefore did they strive to varnish over this new point of Communion in one kind with some counterfeit Paint Will you please to take a view thereof and I hope I shall so far convince their reasons that the case will meerly stand upon the Popes will and if so I presume none will be so irreverent to their Master Christ to forsake his institution and to adhere to the Popes institution lest they may be said with the Jewes to reject Christ and chuse Barabbas The Doctor would perswade that it was no precept to receive in both kindes but onely being of institution and not precept the Church has power to alter it as occasion may serve To which I answer 2. It was christs precept to receive in both kinds It was injoyned us by way of command to receive in both kinds for Christ in the 6 of John v. 53 sayes Except ye eat the flesh 〈◊〉 ●rink the blood of the Son of man ye have no life in you Christ took the Bread and said Take eat And also he took the Cup and said Drink ye all of it Matth. 26. This is an absolute precept as well for the Cup as the Bread and Saint Paul delivered it so to the Corinthians according as he had received of the Lord he likewise enjoyning it to them as a precept probet seipsum let a man examine himself let him eat let him drink the Commandment extending to the one as well as to the other which