Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	hear_v	rome_n	1,466	5	7.0789	4	false

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

faithfull wife was like to be debarred of the comfort of receiuing the Sacrament and drinking of the Lords Cup. Tert. then is cleere for the Laietie communicating in both kinds And so is Origen Anno. 230. Origen in 16. Hom. on Numb maketh this question What people is it that is accustomed to drinke blood and he answereth the faithfull people the Christian people heareth these things and embraceth him who saith vnlesse you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed Marke the ingemination The people the faithfull people heareth these things c. Therefore in Origens time it was the peoples vse and custome to drinke the blood of Christ. Papists answer Bellarmine loc sup cita saith to this testimonie of Origen that the people did drinke but they had no command so to doe It was their vse it was not Christs precept Secondly hee saith the people might haue such a vse or custome to drinke at the Lords supper though euery one dranke not but some onely The Refutation I need not refell this answer because Bellarmine granteth all that for which I produce this testimonie that the practise of the Church in Origens time goeth for vs and his mincing the matter that some of the people might drinke not all and that they dranke it by custome not by law no way healpeth his bad cause For first Origen in this very place alleageth Christs precept for this practise of the faithfull people Iohn 6. vnlesse ye drinke my blood you haue no life in you Secondly in the end of this homily he turneth his speech not to some of this people but to his audience and thus concludeth Thou therefore art the true people of Israel who knowest to drink the blood and hast learned to eat the flesh of the Word of God and to take a draught of the blood of that grape which is of the true vine those branches of which the father purgeth The euidence of this truth is like the light of the morning it groweth cleerer and cleerer For Origen is cleerer in this point then Tertullian and Cyprian is yet cleerer then Origen Anno. 250. Cyprian that learned Bishop of Carthage and blessed Martyr of Christ Iesus not onely deliuereth but propugneth our assertion by a forcible argument epist. 54. How doe wee inuite them Gods people to shed their blood for Christ in the confession of his name if when they set forth to fight for him we denie them his blood how shall wee fit them for the Cup of Martyrdome if before we admit them not by right of Communion to drinke of the Lords Cup in his Church in his 63. epistle Because some men out of ignorance or simplicitie in sanctifying the Cup of the Lord and ministring it to the people doe not that which Iesus Christ our Lord and God the Author and Institutor of this Sacrifice did and taught I thought it both a matter of religion and necessity to acquaint you herewith by letters that if any yet bee held in that error the light of truth being now discouered vnto him hee might returne vnto the roote and beginning of our Lords institution Papists answere Bellarmine in his answere to Saint Cyprian makes good the Poets obseruation Qui semel verecundiae limites transiuerit hunc grauiter impudentem esse oportet he that hath once passed the bounds of modesty he must be stoutely impudent and arme his forehead with brasse for here he is not content to slight this allegation as he did the former but is bold to challenge it for an euidence on his owne side This place saith hee rather maketh for our opinion then against it for Saint Cyprian speaketh of certaine Christians that fell in time of persecution from the profession of the true faith and were therefore excommunicated by the Bishops whom Saint Cyprian exhorteth in regard of the eminent persecution to restore these weake Christians to their former right and interest which they had in the Lords body The right therefore of the Laietie to Communicate is giuen by the Priests and taken away by them Now if the Priests or Prelates may for certaine crimes take the right of Communicating from the Laietie they may also dispose of the manner of Communicating vnder one kinde To the second testimony he answereth that Cyprian in that place handleth not the poynt whether the Cup ought to bee deliuered to the people or no but if it bee deliuered vnto them hee will haue it deliuered not in water onely but wine mingled with water And this he saith Christ taught vs. The Refutation Neither of these answeres will beare scale both of them are to light by many graines the first of these is liable to these exceptions First it is impertinent for we bring the testimony to prooue the practise of the Primitiue Church concerning the Laieties participating the Cup But Bellarmine craftily waues that poynt and questioneth by what right the people did Communicate Admit that which is most falfe that the Bishop or Priest gaue the people all the right they had to the Cup yet they had it and vsed it their practise therefore maketh for vs. Secondly it is inconsequent for first when a'man is Excommunicated and hath lost his right to the Lords Table a Bishop vpon the parties submission and sorrow for his sin and humble intreatie may restore him to his right againe and set him where he was yet this prooueth not that the Laietie had their originall right of Communicating from them as a Bishop may vpon iust cause suspend a Lay man or Cleargie from the Communion so he may also exclude him from hearing of the word and publike prayer yet no man will hence conclude that the Laietie or Priest haue no right at all to come into the Church and to pray and to heare Gods word but from the Bishop Albeit Cyprian in his owne Church and any other Bishop in his Diocesse may admit or reiect some particular persons vpon iust cause from the Communion yet it will not from hence follow that the Bishop of Rome may take away either the Cup or the Bread from Gods people in all Churches Thirdly it is no good inference that because the Bishop may depriue a man of the whole Sacrament vpon some causes viz. for a great crime or high misdemeanor that therefore he may depriue him of a part of it without any fault at all as the Romanists doe the Laietie in generall Fourthly a Bishop may dispence with his owne censures or reuoke them but he cannot dispence with Gods law To suspend a man from the whole Communion if the delinquent deserue it is agreeable to Christs and the Apostles discipline but to admit him to one part of the Sacrament and not to the other is a manifest violation of Christs ordinance who instituted this Sacrament in two kinds and

cause to complaine of the Church of Rome for the violation of Christs Institution and hindring them from discharging their whole duety in communicating in both kinds according to his commandement Thirdly vnworthy Receiuers receiue no benefit at all by the Communion but eate and drinke their owne damnation And Saint Ambrose pronounceth him to be an vnworthy Receiuer who celebrates these mysteries otherwayes then the Lord hath appointed Therefore they amongst the Papists who consent to this violation of Christs Institution and mutilation of the Sacrament may expect no benefit at all by this their sacrilegious practice much lesse may they looke to share equally with them who communicate entirely according to Christs commandement Fourthly although each Element represent Christ vnto vs yet not so fully or expressely as both together Therefore this argument as all the former may be retorted vpon the aduersarie The efficacie of Sacraments is answerable to their significancie for they effect that which they signifie c. But the significancie of one Element is not equall to the significancie of both Therefore the efficacie of one Element is not equall to the efficacie of both Which conclusion is assented vnto both by Halensis and Vasquez Gasper Consaluus and Clemens the sixth SECT V. The fourth Argument our aduersaries thus frame The Sacrament of the Lords Supper ●…ught to be administred that all faithfull people may communicate All cannot receiue in both kinds exempli gratia Abstemij whose stomack cannot brooke wine and Nazarites who made a vow against drinking of wine But all faithfull people cannot communicate in both kinds Therefore it ought not to be administred in both kinds The answer First this Argument toucheth not the point in question for wee finde no fault with the Church of Rome for her indulgence in this kinde but for her sacrilege not for her dispensing with them that cannot receiue in both kinds but for prohibiting them that can and desire it Secondly Lawes as Pomponius obserueth Prouide for those things that happen commonly or for the most part and not for such things as happen to few or seldome A man can scarce finde one in a Kingdome that hath such an Antipathy to Wine that he cannot indure so small a quantitie of some kinde of Wine as may suffice for the Communion And I beleeue our aduersaries can hardly name now a Christian Nazarite 〈◊〉 the world And is it any way reasonable out of respect to so few to make a generall law for the restraint of the Cup from the Laietie Is there any reason that the disabilitie of so few should preiudice the right of all the rest of Gods people Some Priests haue at some times so weake stomackes that they cannot taste wine and some both of the Laietie and Cleargie through infirmitie of stomacke or drought in the throat in hot diseases cannot swallow downe the bread will they therefore make a generall law to take away the Cup from the Priests or the bread from both Thirdly for Nazarites if there be any in the Church they are to bee taught that there Euangelicall liberty releaseth them of the strict rigour of their legall vow and that our Sauiours command Drinke ye all of this is a sufficient warrant for them to drinke of the sacramentall wine at the Lords Table though they drinke no wine else where Saint Iames the Brother of our Lord though as Saint Hierome writeth of him he kept strictly the Nazarites vowe in abstaining from wine and strong drinke at other times yet he was amongst the twelue at Christs last Supper And Saint Marke testifieth that all dranke of the Cup and for such whose stomacks cannot away with the smalest quantitie of wine it may be sufficient for them to take the Cup into their hands and shew their desire or they may haue a Cup by themselues of wine so allayed with water as their stomackes may brooke as the fathers in the Counsell of Towers ordered to giue to sicke folke bread sopt in wine because they were not able to take downe dry bread Lastly this Argument is both answered and retorted in the Conference SECT VI. The first and last Argument which our aduersaries draw from reason may be thus formed The Sacrament ought to be so administred that all inconueniences in the celebration thereof may be preuented But many inconueniences cannot be preuented vnlesse the Cup be with-held from the Laietie Therefore in the administration of the Sacrament the Cup ought to be with-held from the Laietie The inconueniences which they pretend to arise from the publicke vse of the Chalice are summed vp by M. Harding art 2. diuis 8. viz. irreuerence of so high a Sacrament whereof Christian people in the beginning had a marueilous care and regard the loathsomenesse of many that cannot brooke the taste of wine the difficulties of getting wine in countries neere situated to the North pole and impossibility of keeping it long The answer First inconueniences in a matter of indifference may be pondered and put in the other scale against the commodities in the thing in question and if the inconueniences be such as cannot be preuented and they are greater and more in number then the profits or aduantages that are like to grow vpon the vse of it in this case wisedome aduiseth to take away a thing that is not necessary I say if the vn-auoydable inconueniences exceede the certaine profits thereby But in religious duties which cannot be omitted without violation of Gods Law and Christs Ordinance inconueniences must not turne the ballance onely we must take all the care that may be to preuent such inconueniences Which though they be neuer so many yet are they rather to beindured then Gods absolute Command disobeyed or Christs Institution corrupted Secondly Christ and his Apostles and the Christian Churches throughout all the world for twelue hundred yeeres foresaw the inconueniences which our aduersaries now pretend yet they thought it not fit in regard of them to violate Christs Institution by restraining the Cup to the Cleargie onely For they as wee haue proued by abundant testimonies generally and ordinarily gaue the Cup to the Laietie as well as the Bread Thirdly if they would from these wants and impediments inferre that some fauourable course should be taken and dispensation granted to such as cannot taste wine or liue in such countries where wine cannot be got we would not much striue with them Wee censure not the Priests in Russia who for want of wine vsed to consecrate in Methegling nor call Innocentius the eigth into question howsoeuer now many Papists condemne him for it for dispensing with the Priests in Norway to consecrate without wine That which in this question we charge the Church of Rome with is a manifest transgression of Christs Ordinance and a generall prohibition of giuing the Cup to the Laietie where wine may be had and the communicants are able and willing to drinke if the Priests

Bishops ouer the Priests All which yet we doe acknowledge in a peaceable and flourishing estate of the Church ought to be had And we haue cause to praise God for our happinesse in England aboue other Churches in this behalfe M. Euerard Here M. Euerard stepping in not being called said I pray you Sir if there may bee a Church without a Bishop who shall ordaine the Priests in that Church D. Featly Sir what are you who intrude your selfe into our priuate conference It seemes you are a Romish Priest Are you not so M. Euerard I am no Priest D. Featly What will you deny your Priesthood M. Euerard I am no Priest to tell you D. Featly Now I perceiue you are not onely a Priest but a Iesuited Priest also For you can equiuocate M. Euerard It is no equiuocation to say I am no Priest to tell you D. Featly Indeed now that you expresse your mentall reseruation you vse no equiuocation but while you concealed it you did equiuocate And I maruell you blush not to vse such a simple shift or euasion as to say you are no Priest to tell me As if you or any man were made a Priest to tell another man you are a Priest At these words the meate was brought in and thereby a stop made of a farther reply for the present But not long after the Guests were all placed the L. reuiued the former question demanding of Doctor Featly L. F. Who should ordaine Priests in a Church where there are no Bishops D. Featly If there bee no Bishops in any adioyning Church by whom they may be ordained and presented to the Church I say in that case the Church to whom Christ as St. August saith gaue the keyes may commit Episcopall authority to certaine Priests and they thus authorized may ordaine other Priests as well as absolue and confirme the baptized and performe other acts ordinarily reserued to Bishops d And this ordination in a troubled state of the Church and in case of necessitie I hold to be lawfull and warrantable both because it hath that which the Apostle requireth 1. Tim. 4. 14. to wit the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery and because there haue bin presidents of such ordination in the Primitiue Church And questionles the Church that committeth the power to one Priest set in an eminent degree ouer the rest may commit the same power to more Presbyters or Priests especially considering it is the iudgement of learned diuines both Protestants and Papists that Bishops and Presbyters differ rather in execution of some acts of their order appropriated to Bishops onely then in their essentiall order A Bishop hath an eminencie of degree in the same order but his ecclesiasticall order is essentially the same with the Presbyters or Priests But what doth this question concerne any here present Neither wee nor for ought I know the Papists themselues define it to be a matter of faith necessary to saluato resolue this way or that way Therefore this question might haue been forborne M. Euerard The Councell of Trent hath defined it therefore to vs it is a matter of Faith D. Featly I scarcely beleeue the Councell of Trent bee it of what credit it may bee hath defined this point in such sort as you intimate M. Euarard I will shew it D. Featly When you shew it I will answer it After this passage some speech hauing been cast in by some of the table concerning differences in point of Religion among the Protestants of England D. Featly said it was to bee considered that the differences amongst the true members of the Church of England were only in point of Discipline and Ceremony not in point of Doctrine or matter of Faith But the Romanists differed one frō another in point of Doctrine and matter of Faith for the present saith he I will instance in two remarkeable particulars First touching the conception of the blessed Virgin secondly touching the Popes supreame authority euen ouer Generall Councells In the first point the Iacobins or dominicants maintaine that the blessed Virgin was conceiued in Originall sinne the Iesuites Franciscans and Sorbonists hold the contrary M. Euarard Yet both keepe the Feast of the immaculate Conception D. Featly They may both keepe a Feast vpon the same day and that for the Conception of our Lady But certainely they who beleeue she was conceiued in sin cannot without hipocrisie keepe a Feast of the immaculate Conception Touching the second point the Sorbonists haue euer held and doe hold to this day that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope but the Iacobins Iesuits all orders of Friers generally besides many Secular Priests hold the contrary that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell When I liued in Paris in the Ambassadors house I heard of a generall Chapter as they called it held by the Iacobins in Tho. Aquinas Schoole Where for many dayes together diuers diuinity questions were handled and among other this question touching the Popes superioritie to Councels An acute Serbone Doctor there present thus impugned the Iacobins assertion Whatsoeuer is defined in a Generall Councell confirmed by the Pope is infallibly true de fide But it is defined in a generall Councel to wit the Councel of Constance confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope Therefore it is infallibly true and de fide that a Generall Councell is aboue the Pope The Auditors the greater part of them very much applauded this argument of the Sorbonist and expressed their applause by a kinde of shout But the Iacobin respondent in a kinde of scorne answered it by retortion thus Whatsoeuer is defined in a generall Councell confirmed by the Pope is infallibly true and de fide But it is defined in a Generall Councell to wit the Councell of Lateran confirmed by Leo the tenth that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell Therfore it is infallibly true and de fide that the Pope is aboue a Generall Councell At this Syllogisme the Iacobin had neere as great an applause as the Sorbonist Wee that were present of the Reformed Churches vnknowne to the Romanists receiued very much satisfaction to heare Papists amongst themselues thus bandy Councell and Pope against Councell and Pope For from both we concluded that sith contradictories cannot be both true and it appeared in matter of Faith that Generall Councels confirmed by Popes had decreed direct contradictories that therefore Generall Councels confirmed by Popes might erre and consequently that the strongest pillar of a Romanists Faith is weake and tottering M. Euerard The Councell of Constance which decreed a Generall Councell to be aboue the Pope was confirmed by Martin the fifth only in such points as were in that Councell determined against Hus and the Bohemians the Pope confirmed not all points defined in that Councell M. L. Haue you any example of any such confirmation of a Councell wherein some points defined by a

grounded vpon vncertaine and false supposals For a Church may haue been visible yet not the names of all visible Professors now bee shewed and proued out of good Authors There might be millions of Professors yet no particular and authenticall record of them by name Records there might bee many in ancient time yet not now extant at least for vs to come by Yet we will not refuse to deale with you in your owne question if you in like manner will vndertake the like taske in your owne defence and maintaine the affirmatiue in the like question which we now propound here vnto you in writing Whether the Romish Church that is a Church holding the particular entire doctrine of the now Romanists as it is comprised in the Councell of Trent was in all Ages visible especially in the first 600. yeeres and whether the names of such visible or legible Romanists in all Ages can bee shewed and proued out of good Authors Secondly whereas in a Conference Iune 27. 1623. with you and M. Sweete I vndertook to proue the perpetuall visibility of the Protestant Church both à priore by Syllogisme and à posteriore by Induction and then also made an Essay in both kinds as the time permitted demonstrating the visibility of the Protestant Church being an effect by the eternity of our Faith as the cause And further to stop your clamour for names I produced at that time the names of visible Professors of our beliefe for 200. yeeres Thirdly wheras since the Conference I haue made good my demonstration à priore of the perpetuall visibility of the Protestant Church against all your cauils refuted at large through my whole booke intituled The Romish Fisher caught and held in his own net printed at London 1624. but particularly more especially in the Remonstrance therein to Sr. Humphry Linde frō page the 14. vsque ad finem and in my Reply to your answer Paragraph 8. pag. 89. vsque ad 112 Fourthly whereas now I haue quite finished my demonstration à posteriore and haue set downe the so much harangued for Catalogue of visible Professors in all Ages from Christ to Luther of our Protestant doctrine in a maine point of difference and one of the first mentioned in the Conference touching the communicating in both kinds I now therfore challenge you M. Iohn Fisher according to your deepe ingagement before in and since the Conference as you tender the tickle state of your Catholike cause with your collapsed Ladies immediately after the perusall of this my Treatise to goe about and in conuenient time without further delayes and tergiuersatiō to draw a like Catalogue for your part of such Writers and Authors of note in all Ages who haue defended or at least approued your dry and halfe Communion Which after that you haue performed I will proceed God assisting me to name visible Professors in all Ages in other points of greatest moment But if you refuse to meete mee in this field pitched by your selfe diuerting into your common place of railing at Sectaries and Nouelists Or if like Caligula you triumph at Rome for a signall victory in Germany when he had gathered onely a few pebbles on the shore at Caieta and you thereupon cry out vpon the shifts and tergiuersations of D. Featly whereas to pay you backsome of your owne in coine your white liuer wil not suffer you to come so much as in sight of the walles and gates of my defence but onely to shoote a few paper bullets against three or foure of my redoubts you in all your Replyer not replying one word to the defence of my proceeding in the Conference and Refutations of your answers Or if for want of better imployment Ne toga condylis penula desit oliuis You shall tacke together a cento of relations like Sibylles leaues as much distracted as the braines of the Penner and if you shall intreate in good earnest your Midas Reader to giue credit to your own report in your own cause you being both a Romanist and a Iesuite against the subscription of sundry persons of honor worth and qualitie affixed to the Conference Or if hauing a leaden Treatise that hath long lyen heauy vpon your hands touching no saluation out of the Church of Rome you shall clap my name and D. Whites vpon it to make it sell intituling it A Reply to D. White and D. Featly whereas from the first page being 145. to the last 181. there is not one syllable against either of their writings Fifthly and lastly if you shall change your trade and of a Fisher turne Sawyer nothing but drawing the Saw of your ragged stile 1000. times by the same line backward and forward and neuer pierce into the heart of any Controuersie impute it to no other thing then meere compassion in your opposites that they reioyne not to your Replyes ne famam tuam sponte concidentem maturiùs extinguant suo vulnere lest they should giue a deaths-wound to your reputation that lyeth on bleeding already In tauros ruunt Libyci leones Ne sint Papilionibus molesti FINIS THE SVMME AND SVBSTANCE OF A DISPVTATION BETWEENE M. DAN FEATLY OPONENT AND D. SMITH THE younger Respondent now by the Pope intitutuled Bishop of Chalcedon and Ordinary of all England at Paris Sept. 4. 1612. Stylo nouo touching the Reall presence in the Sacrament LONDON Printed by Felix Kyngston for Robert Milbourne and are to be sold at his shop in Pauls Churchyard at the signe of the Greyhound 1630. THE SVMME AND SVBSTANCE OF A DISPVTATION betweene M. Dan. Featly Opponent and D. Smith the younger Respondent now by the Pope intituled Bish. of Chalcedon and Ordinary of all England at Paris Sept. 4. 1612. Stylo nouo touching the Reall presence in the Sacrament The Lawes of the Disputation 1. That they should dispute calmely and peaceably 2. That all impertinent discourses should be auoided 3. That M. Featly at this time should onely oppose and D. Smith onely answer THese Conditions agreed vpon it was thought fit both should set downe the state of the Question and the points of difference between them which D. Smith being Respondent first vndertooke distinguishing betweene the questions of Reall presence and of Transubstantion and determining the point in question to bee this Whether the body of Christ were truly and substantially in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine Which being done hee entred into a large discourse to set downe the proofes and confirmations of the affirmatiue vsed by their Church Whereupon he was challenged by M. Featly of a breach of the third Law and so after Master Featly had for his part promised him to answer all his arguments at another time when the hearers should thinke good D. Smith surceased And M. Featly explained the termes of the Question as followeth There are two termes said hee in the question Presence and Reall I distinguish of both First The Scripture