Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	authority_n	church_n	scripture_n	3,566	5	6.5669	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00597	The grand sacrilege of the Church of Rome, in taking away the sacred cup from the laiety at the Lords Table: detected, and conuinced by the euidence of holy Scripture, and testimonies of all ages successiuely from the first propagation of the catholike Christian faith to this present: together with two conferences; the former at Paris with D. Smith, now stiled by the Romanists B of Calcedon; the later at London with M Euerard, priest: by Dan. Featly, Doctor in Diuinity.	Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.	1630 (1630)	STC 10733; ESTC S120664	185,925	360

hand to the true Relation thereof long agoe sent you Nihil veritas erubescit nisi solumodo abscondi Truth neuer blusheth but when she is hid She feareth nothing but not to bee brought to her tryall Hee who knoweth his coyne is pure gold will neuer refuse to offer it to the Goldsmiths Test because he can loose nothing by it but shal haue allowance for it Besides your friends boasting at the Conference your owne promise in the Conference deepely ingageth you to assoyle the arguments then vrged against your halfe Communion whereunto at the present you returned not so much as half an answer pleading for your selfe the short scantling of time which gaue you not space to wield yonr Catholike buckler Scitum est enim culpam conijcere intempus cum vltra addere si maximèvelis non possis The Romane Oratour told you it is a handsome put-off to lay the blame vpon the time when an aduocate hath neuer a word more to say for his Clyent But veritas temporis filia Truth is Times Daughter she will iustifie her Mother If in so long a tract of time as hath run since our meeting in Noble-street you had fully and punctually satisfied those arguments then left vntouched you had salued your cause and credit and made it appeare you were not wanting to time but time then to you But now sith you haue broken so often day after day and moneth after moneth and by this time yeere after yeere being fo oft challenged of your promise yea vpbraided also by S. P. L. and the Lord T. and others and in fine your resolution is to giue no resolution of those doubts I will be bold to tell you that time will now no more beare your blame but you and your cause must beare it off with head and shoulders You cannot now goe backe Lis contestata est praelium condictum The field is pitched the weapons are chosen The question agreed vpon is the Communion in one kind the proofes must bee Scripture and the perpetuall custome of the Church If by both your Romish practise be conuinced to be sacrilege in the highest degree then write hereafter your braggs in redinke and let your lines blush for shame and do you your selfe ingeniously confesse concerning sacrilege as Papinian did concerning fatricide that it is as difficult and dangerous a matter to defend the murder of a brother as to commit it But on the contrarie if by the euidence of Scripture and coustant practise of the Catholike Christian Church you can iustifie your Romish dry communions you shal not only gaine your pretended Catholicke cause but me also your Proselyte D. F. THE PARTICVLAR CONTENTS OF THE SEVERALL Chapters of this Booke Chap. 1. THe state of the question concerning the Communion in both kinds is set downe out of the Harmony of Protestant Confessions on the one sida and out of the Canons of the Councels of Constance Basil and Trent on the otherside Chap. 2. The first Argument for the Tenent of the Reformed Churches drawne from Christs Precept and example in the celebration of the Sacrament confirmed by the testimony of Pope Iulius the first Chap. 3. The second Argument for the Communion in both kinds drawne from the essence and perfection of this Sacrament confirmed by Vasquez the Iesuite Chap 4. The third argument drawne from the Analogie of the signe to the thing signified confirmed by Gratian the Canonist Chap. 5. The fourth argument drawne from the nature of a banket or supper confirmed by Aquinas and Vasquez Chap. 6. The fift argument drawne from the expresse precept of drinking at the Lords Table confirmed by the testimonie of Pope Innocen the 3. Chap. 7. The sixt argument drawne à Pari confirmed by Bonauenture the Schoole Diuine and others Chap. 8. The seuenth argument drawne from the condition and propriety of a Will or Legacie confirmed by Iansonius c. Chap. 9. The eight argument drawne from the end of the Sacrament confirmed by Iac. Rehing being then a Iesuite Chap. 10. The ninth argument drawne from the example of Saint Paul and the Corinthians confirmed by Becanus the Iesuite Chap. 11. The tenth argument drawne from the vniforme and constant practice of the Christian Catholicke Church in all Ages Sect. 1. The testimonies of the practice of the Church from Christs assention to 100. yeeres Sect. 2. Testimonies in the second Age from 100. to 200. Sect. 3. Testimonies in the third age from 200. to 300. Sect. 4. Testimonies in the fourth Age from 300. to 400. Sect. 5. Testimonies in the fifth Age from 400. to 500. Sect. 6. Testimonies in the sixth Age from 500. to 600. Sect. 7. Testimonies in the seuenth Age from 600. to 700. Sect. 8. Testimonies in the eighth Age from 700. to 800. Sect. 9. Testimonies in the ninth Age from 800. to 900. Sect. 10. Testimonies in the tenth Age from 900. to 1000. Sect. 11. Testimonies in the eleuenth Age from 1000. to 1100. Sect. 12. Testimonies in the tewelfth Age from 1100. to 1200. Sect. 13. Testimonies in the thirteenth Age from 1200. to 1300. Sect. 14. Testimonies in the fourteenth Age from 1300. to 1400. Sect. 15. Testimonies in the fifteenth Age from 1400. to 1500. Sect. 16. Testimonies in the sixteenth Age from 1500. to 1600. Sect. vltima The confirmation of this argument by the confession of Papists of eminent learning and worth Thom. Aquin. Dionysius Carthousianus Ioh. Eccius Cassander Soto Ioh. Arborius Ruardus Tapperus Alsonsus a Castro Slotanus Salmeron Gregorie de Valentia and Suarez Chap. 12. Papists obiections for their halfe communion from Scripture answered and retorted Chap. 13. Papists obiections from Councels answered and retorted Chap. 14. Papists obiections from sundry pretended rites and customes of the Church answered and retorted Chap. 15. Papists obiections from reason answered and retorted Chap. 16. The Contradictions of Papists in this question noted and the whole truth for vs deliuered out of their owne mouthes The Contens of the Conference Of the necessitie of Episcopall gouernment Of ordination by Presbyters or Priests in case of necessitie Of the distinction of Bishops and Priests iure diuino Of differences amongst Papists in matter of faith Of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Marie Of the authoritie of Generall Councels aboue the Pope ècont Of prayer for the dead Of the authoritie of originall Scripture Of the Communion in both kinds Of the Popes Supremacy Of mingling water with wine in the Sacrament Of the perfection of Scripture AN ADVERTISEMENT to the Reader IT falleth out often with Students in controuersies as with people in the market who taking money with them at their going from home and espying in the fayre some Merchandize they like when they haue driuen the Price and are drawing out their purse they find it either pickt or the strings cut In like maner these Students meeting with some pregnāt testimonies alleaged out of the ancient Fathers or later Writers in Apologies for

cut of the rugged knobs not grate or weare out the heart of it Volo nasutum non polyposum Fourthly because the testimonies I cite out of these authors were neuer questioned much lesse proued to be taken for good by the aduersarie vntill he can disproue them according to the rule of the Ciuill law supponitur esse bonus qui non probatur esse malus he is supposed to be an honest man who was neuer proued otherwise To cal in then these ancients in that order as commonly they go First Anno 70. Dionysius Areopagita in his booke of Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie chap. 5. relateth the practise of the Church in his time on this manner z After the Priest hath prayed that he may holyly distribute and that they that are to partake of the Sacraments may receiue it worthily discouering the bread that before was couered and breaking it into many pieces and diuiding one Cup among all he multiplieth that in the signes which is but one and distributeth it Anno. 80. The second Martialis Lenoricensis who stileth himselfe a seruant of God and an Apostle of Iesus Christ in his epistle ad Burdigal writeth thus You heretofore honored the priests which deceiued you with their sacrifices which they offered to dumbe and deafe images that neither could helpe you nor themselues but now much more you ought to honour the Priests of Almighty God who minister life vnto you in the Cup and liuing Bread By this argument of Martials the Romish Priests that giue the people but an halfe Communion should lose halfe of the honour due vnto Gods Priests if not the whole For thus out of Martials premises I conclude Those and none but those Priests are to be honoured and reuerenced who administer life to the people in the Cup The Romish Priests administer not life to the people in the Cup Therefore they are not to bee reuerenced or honoured Anno 92. Thirdly Clemens in his second booke of Constitutions 57. chap. thus enioyneth after the offering of the sacrifice let euery order a part receiue the body of our Lord and his pretious blood Anno 100. Fourthly Ignatius the Scholer of Saint Iohn the Euangelist Bishop of Antioch and Martyr in his Epistle to the Philadelphians enforceth an argument to vnity from the Communion I exhort you to imbrace one faith one manner of preaching and vse of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper for the flesh of our Lord Iesus is one and his blood one that was shed for vs there is one bread also broken for all and one Cup distributed vnto all Bellarmine his first Answer Bellarmine is put to a miserable plunge in his answer to this allegation First he saith in the Latine copies the words of Ignatius are not as we cite them There is one Cup distributed vnto all but there is one Cup of the whole Church and though the Greeke copies reade as we do yet he saith that much credit is not to be giuen to them The Refutation Against this answer I reply First that if we may not trust the Greeke editions of Ignatius much lesse may we trust the Latine translations especially since of late they are come into hucksters hands To appeale from a translation to the originall is vsuall but to appeale from the originall to a translation is a thing vnheard of This is to make the brooke or streame to bee purer then the fountaine or spring The Poet teacheth Bellarmine another lesson Dulciùs ex ipso fonte bibuntur aquae Ignatius as it is well knowne wrote in Greeke and therefore vnlesse Bellarmine can proue that other Greeke copies agree with his Latine translation and not with ours he speaketh nothing to the purpose for a translation is of no credit further then it agrees with the originall Secondly euen Bellarmines corrupt translation maketh against the Church of Rome and prooueth that the practice in Ignatius his time was for the whole Church to communicate in both kinds for why else calleth he it Calicem totius Ecclesiae The Cup of the whole Church Ignatius there speakes not of the possession but of the vse of the Cup and if the Priests onely had dranke of it hee would haue called it the Priests Cup but in terming it the Cup of the whole Church he plainely signifieth that the whole Church vsed it in the celebration of the Lords Supper Bellarmine his second answere Secondly Bellarmine saith that the force of Ignatius his argument consisteth in the vnitie of the Cup and not in the vniuersalitie of them that drinke for he exhorteth there to vnitie The Refutation First Ignatius exhorts there all to vnitie because all eate of one bread and drinke of one cup. His argument therefore standeth both in the vniuersalitie of them that drinke and the vnitie of the Cup and it may be thus reduced into forme All that eate of one bread and drinke of one holy Cup in remembrance of one body offered and one blood shed for all ought to embrace vnitie But all you of the Church of Philadelphia people as well as Priests eate of one bread and drinke of one holy Cup in memory of one body offered and one blood of Christ shed for you all Therefore all you of the Church of Philadelphia ought to embrace vnitie and godly loue If the pinch or straine of the argument were in vnitie only it would not hold for if some onely dranke of this Cup and not others this should rather make more for a diuision then for vnitie it is the communion of more in one that Ignatius layeth for the ground of his argument enforcing vnitie Secondly howsoeuer the argument stands it makes no great matter sith we insist not so much vpon the argument it selfe as vpon that his expresse affirmation That one Cup in his time was giuen vnto all This assertion alone sufficiently prooueth the practise of the Church in his time Bellarmine his third answere Thirdly Bellarmine saith that nothing can be inforced from these words of Ignatius but that it was the vse in that time when there were but few Christians to giue the Cup vnto all but this is an example it is no precept so the Cardinall The Refutation First it is not true which he here affirmeth that there were but few Christians in Ignatius his time for all histories of those times and the Epistles of Ignatius testifie the contrary and in this very Church of Philadelphia the holy Ghost testifieth Apoc. 3. 8. That there were many Christians Behold I haue set before thee an open dore and no man shall shut it c. Secondly though the Primitiue Church were not of that large extent as the Church in suceeding ages yet the authoritie of the Church in that age in which the Apostles liued and their immediate successors is farre greater then in any later age Thirdly in this last answere the Cardinall yeeldeth vs the cause for we cite these words of

will admit them As some Lay men cannot brook wine so at some times the Priests through some disease after drinking of the Cup may be enforced to cast it vp And as the peoples hands may shake in taking of the Cup and so spill a drop so may the Priests also And as some Countries haue no wine so if we may beleeue Strabo and Arianus and many later Geographers also some Countries haue no bread Yet the Church of Rome her selfe neuer thought it fit in regard of such few Instances and rare accidents to make a generall law either to depriue the Priests of the vse of the Cup or the Laietie of the vse of the bread Fourthly for the matter of irreuerence if any through carelesnesse or contempt spill a drop of the consecrated wine or let fall a crum of bread he ought to bee punished for it And if hee amend not his fault to bee denyed the Communion But if such a thing fall out through infirmitie or by some casualtie against a mans will it is no irreuerence at all And for the difficulty of getting wine in the Northerne parts especially where Vines grow not we answer that wine is easier to be gotten thē Balsamum which the Romish Church vseth in confirmation For Vines grow in many Countries and that in great aboundance True Balsamum but in one Yet the Church of Rome in regard of this difficulty in getting it will by no meanes suffer that their Sacrament to be administred without it Yet their Chrisme is a meere humane inuention but wine in the Lords Supper is Christs ordniance But what do they pretend impediments that are not and surmise difficulties against common experience He is but a stranger in Geography who knoweth not that by the benefit of Nauigation store of wines are brought into those parts where no vines grow In the reformed Churches in England Scotland Denmarke Norway and the other regions situated neerer the North-Pole the Sacrament is administred in both kindes and neuer yet any complaint was heard of the difficulty much lesse of the impossibility of prouiding wine for the Communiō Surely if there may be had wine for the Priest their may be had also for the people Who euer heard of Merchants that transported wine in so smal quātity that there might be a draught for the Priest and none for the people If there be none for the Priests how can they consecrate without facrilege according to their owne Canon Lastly this argument as all the former may be thus retorted vpon them The Councell of Basil yeelded the vse of the Cup to the Bohemians and the whole Councell of Trent reserued it to the Pope to grant the vse of the Cup to all the Germanes and the Pope assented thereunto vpon certaine conditions notwithstanding all the former inconueniences Therefore it is not inconueniency they stand vpon But the true cause why they at this day with hold the Cup is either obstinacy lest they should seeme to yeeld any thing to the Reformed Churches and acknowledge their former error or pride to maintaine a prerogatiue of their Priests aboue the people Which as I shewed before out of Saint Chrysostome ought to be none in partaking the dreadfull mysteries To conclude howsoeuer they pretend in this their erroneous practise like u Aesop to remoue that stone at which all that came into the Bath stumbled at yet in truth they rather resemble Aesop in some thing of another nature For as he was accused to haue stolne away a piece of holy plate that was found among his carriages from the Temple of Apollo at Delphi so these grand Aesops and Coyners of Fables whereby they delude the simple people are clearely conuinced of sacrilege in taking away the Chalice from the Lords Supper For they haue taken away the Cup of blessing from the people and in stead thereof offer the Whore of Babylons cup of abomination CHAP. XVI The contradictions of our aduersaries in this Question noted and the whole Truth for vs deliuered out of their owne mouthes IT was the manner of the Roman Emperors in their Triumphs amongst other spectacles to exhibite to the people ludos gladiatorios Fencers playing their Prizes fighting not with foiles but at sharpe till they had killed one another In like manner in the conclusion of this Discourse for the better adorning and setting forth of the Tryumph of Truth I haue thought not vnfitting to present vnto the Readers view Quaedam Gladiatorū paria some certaine couples of the professed Champions and defenders of the Romane cause bickering one with another in such manner that by their sharpe weapons of euident contradictions they must needes wound on another euen to the death of their cause SCRIPTVRES The first Combate Whether the Scriptures make for or against the halfe Communion The Antagonists Thom. Harding and Gerardus Lorichius Ioan. Maldonate Iesuit and Widford Stanislaus Hosius and Laur. Iustinianus Ioan. Cochlaeus and Ioan. Lorinus Iesuita Ioan. Gerson and Ruardus Tapperus Harding the Assaylant THE wordes of Christ Drinke yee all of this pertaine to the Apostles and their successors For to them onely hee gaue commandement to do that which hee did saying Doe this in remembrance of me By which words hee ordained them Priests of the new Testament Wherefore this commandement belongeth not at all to the Lay people neither can it be iustly gathered by this place that they are bound of necessity to receiue the Sacrament vnder both kinds Lorichius the Defendant THey bee false Catholikes who say that Christ said onely to his Apostles Drinke yee all of this For the words of the Canon be these Take and eate yee all of this Here I beseech them to tell me whether they wil haue these words also onely to appertaine to the Apostles then must the Laiety abstaine from the other kind of bread also which thing to say is heresie wherefore it followeth that each of the words are spoken to the whole Church Gerard. Loric de missa part 7. in praef Maldonate Assaylant I doubt not and I maruell that any other doubt but that this place where Christ tooke bread blest it and brake it and gaue it to the two Disciples of whom hee was knowne in the breaking of bread must bee vnderstood of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I am induced hereunto by the whole forme of the action which I know not what Christian can deny to bee the action of the Eucharist Wee reade of the breaking of the bread blessing it distributing it and a miracle insuing vpon it and shall wee not beleeue it to bee the Eucharist Widford Defendant I say that it appeareth not in the Text nor in the Glosse Luk. 24. nor by the ancient Fathers that the bread which Christ brake and gaue to his Disciples was consecrated bread that it was sacramētall bread or turned into his body with whō Carthusiā accords It came to passe saith he that as Christ sate downe he took

Ignatius onely to prooue the practise of the Primitiue Church and thus much Bellarmine confesseth whereupon I adde that this confessed practise of the Primitiue Church was grounded on our Lords precept drinke you all of this for the Church so neere Christ cannot bee supposed to haue swarued any way from his institution by adding any thing vnto it or taking away from it certainely Ignatius and the Churches wherein he bore sway obserued the order and practise of Saint Iohn his master and if Saint Iohn administred the Cup in all Churches to the people so did the rest of the Apostles for they varied not from Christ or among themselues in celebrating the Lords Supper And what the Apostles did ioyntly no Christian doubteth but they did by the direction of the holy Ghost according to our Lords will and commandement And thus wee see this example amounteth to a precept and the practise in Ignatius his time ought to bee a president for all future times SECT II. Testimonies of the Practise of the Christian Churches in the second Age. From 100. to 200. Anno Dom. 150. IVstin Martyr in his second apologie thus writeth They which are called Deacons among vs giue to euery one that is present of the consecrated Bread and Wine And when he hath related the whole manner of the celebration of the Eucharist as it were to preuent a cauill that might be made and is now made by Papists the Martyr heere sheweth the practise of the Church but maketh no mention of the precept of our Sauiour as that they did so in deed but were not bound so to doe he further addeth for the close as they report that Iesus commanded them or as they haue deliuered vnto vs Iesus his command giuen vnto them Bellarmine his answere Bellarmine repineth at this so expresse a testimony of so ancient a Father and so renowned a Martyr and therefore laboureth to disparage it some way or other Si non aliqu â nocuisset mortuus esset Yet all that he saith to it is but this that those last words of the Martyr which mentioneth Christs precept belong not to the Communion but to the Consecration The Refutation This solution will no way beare water First it is euident to any that reads the whole place that Iustin Martyrs words wherein he mentioneth Christs precept belongeth both to the Consecration and to the Communion For after he had spoken of the Communion he subioyneth these words And therefore they cannot bee seuered from the Communion The series or method of the passage in Iustin is thus hauing rehearsed the words of the Institution This is my body doe this in remembrance of me and this Cup is the new Testament drinke you all of this he addeth and he commanded that they onely should participate as had been before washed in the lauer of Regeneration and lead such a life as Christ prescribed them These words that they onely should participate clearely conuince the Cardinall and demonstrate that Iustin Martyr extendeth Christs command both to the Consecration and to the Commumunion it selfe which in Christs precept cannot be deuided both being enioyned in this one precept doe this in remembrance of me that is Consecrate and Communicate Secondly howsoeuer the Cardinall by any tricke of sophistrie shall dismember the whole sentence and pull these words As Christ commanded from the rest and refer them to which part of the sentence he pleaseth yet he can neuer smoother the light of truth shining in these words The Deacons deliuer or minister to euery one of the consecrated bread and wine The practice then of those times maketh for vs against the Church of Rome The Deacons then as the Ministers now deliuered the Sacrament to the people in both kindes Anno. 152. Laurence Deacon to Pope Sixtus cryed out to him as hee was led to his Martyrdome Whether goest thou father without thy sonne whether hastest thou Priest without thy Leuite try whether thou hast chosen a fit minister to whom thou hast committed the dispensation of our Lords blood Wilt thou denie me to bee a copartner with thee in the effusion of thy blood who hast made me a copartner with thee in the celebration of our Lords blood This giueth such light to Iustin Martyrs words and so fully accordeth with them that Tiletanus the defender of the councell of Trent confesseth that it is manifest that in this age the vse of both kinds was common to all Anno 180. Saint Irenaeus Bishop of Lions and Martyr in the fourth booke against heresies and 34. cha proueth the resurrection of the flesh and eternall life by an argument drawne from the faithfulls eating Christs flesh in the Eucharist and he presseth his argument in this manner How doe they viz. the heretiques say that the flesh should be vtterly corrupted and neuer rise againe which is nourished with the body and blood of Christ and a little after Our bodies by participating the Eucharist or Sacrament of our Lords supper are not now corruptible or shall not vtterly be corrupted and come to nothing because they haue the hope of theresurrection Irenaeus speaketh of all Christians people as well as Priests for all faithfull Christians haue hope of a blessed resurrection and he saith that they are nourished with the bodie and blood of Christ by participating of the Sacrament of his supper Papists answer The Romanists seeke to auoyde these and the like passages by their doctrine of concomitancie auerring that the blood of Christ is not seuered from his body and consequently that the Laietie take the blood in the body and are nourished therewith to eternall life and this say they is all that can bee gathered from Irenaeus his words They are nourished with the blood of Christ which they receiue together with his body not with the blood of Christ which they take by it selfe in the Cup. The Refutation This answer of theirs is weake and insufficient First because it is built on a weake and ruinous foundation viz. the reall and carnall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament vnder the accidents of bread and wine which I haue else where by Scriptures and Fathers refelled See the fisher caught in his owne net part 2. That the doctrine of concomitancie is builded vpon the reall and carnall presence is not denied by the Romanists for they make the one the ground of the other Secondly albeit wee should grant that the Laiety in some sence receiue the blood of Christ in the bread yet they receiue it not so as Christ commandeth for they receiue it not by drinking No man drinketh in eating or eateth in Drinking Thirdly the blood of Christ which wee receiue in the Sacrament we receiue not as subsisting in his veines or as being a part of or ioyned vnto his body but as shed for vs In which quality and manner it is impossible to receiue the blood of Christ together with and in the body by naturall