Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	blood_n	body_n	bread_n	1,966	5	8.1709	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69019	The lavvfulnes of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper VVherein (by the way) also, somewhat of the crosse in baptisme. First written for satisfaction of a friend, and now published for common benefit. By Dr. Iohn Burges, pastor of Sutton Coldfield.	Burges, John, 1561?-1635.; Burges, John, 1561?-1635. Answer rejoyned to that much applauded pamphlet of a namelesse author, bearing this title: viz. A reply to Dr. Mortons generall defence of three nocent ceremonies, &c.	1631 (1631)	STC 4114; ESTC S106928	94,058	129

in celebrating those mysteries And in his time and after before the Transubstantiation they did Adore Christ as coexistent with the bread which perhaps gaue occasion to Auerrois who liued eightie yeares before Honorius to say that Christians did adore their God and then eate him For at that time the errour of Consubstantiation had gotten strength and they did as it were confine the locall presence of Christ to the bread once sanctified at least in the Sacramentall vse of it and did performe diuine honour to the Sonne of God as being therin Not yet intending to adore that which was seene but that which was taken to bee therein vt contentum in continente ineffably there yet ibi there The difference betwixt these and the former ages was in this That the former Ages did in receiuing the Sacrament c Adoring as Aug. said not that which is seene and perisheth but that which is beleeved c. adore Christ as therin mystically as the signified thing is in the Signe without any opinion of Christs bodily presence in the creatures themselues or of alteration made in the substance nature or forme of the creatures whereas that Age dreamed of a Consubstantiation The following did embrace that monster of Transubstantiation and then when all the substance of the visible creature was held to be gone they did easily turne and entend the Adoration to the visible things as if there had beene now no substance of any creature left therein but only the appearances of familiar creatures vnder which Christ himselfe was substantially but inuisible That there was this difference the writings of the seuerall Ages will manifest to any diligent Reader and among other things this cause which is kept I confesse still though stripped of the sense it had that in celebrating or consecrating the prayer was not made that the Bread and Wine might bee made the body and blood of Christ in themselues as is now fansied but Vt nobis accipientibus fiant corpus sanguis Domini to vs receiuing of them they may become the body and blood of the Lord. Intimating that the Reall presence of Christ in a spirituall manner is not effected in the visible signes but in and vnto the faithfull Receiuer of them And that all the conuersion and changing of the Bread and Wine was only in their vse in that they were mystically and in type the body and blood of Christ as the Arke was Iehouah as the Rocke was Christ 1. Corinthians 10. The Adoration therfore of Christ in the vse of the Sacrament hath alwayes beene in the Christian Church First without any reference of diuine honour to the visible things themselues as being really turned into Christ or containing him within themselues Afterwards from the preuailing of Guilmund and other against Berengarine and the truth for a reall presence of Christs conioyned with the bread they directed their Adoration to the creatures but not for the creatures or Elements sakes but for Christs sake At last came in the Adoration of the Sacrament or visible element of bread it selfe as hauing no substance or materiall subsistence but onely the naturall Body of Christ by vertue of Consecration by Concomitance wholly Christ who is God to be adored for euer In the first times and second the adoration was onely in the vse For out of the Sacramentall vse they did not beleeue such a Reall presence but after the abomination of Transubstantiation once got the field because there was then nothing of the creature supposed to be left but the Accidents and those as Bellar. himselfe speaketh vnited to the person of the Sonne of God Then followed that wheresoeuer that appeared Diuine honour was held fit to bee done thereto as vnto the very Son of God incarnate and certainely existent vnder those Species of Bread and Wine as euer he was on the Crosse or in the wombe of his mother onely for feare of frighting vs hee is pleased to bee there invisible and as after the manner of a Spirit but yet in his very true naturall body the same that was crucified say they This most abominable Idolatrie followed indeed the Transubstantiation But the two other sorts of Adoration of Christ in the vse of the Sacrament went before this The middle also was Idolatrous not in obiecto in the object as the last but interpretatiue because they conceiued very Christ to be coexistent then with the sanctified Creatures and as so adored him but not the visible creatures The first Adoring was vndoubtedly lawfull when the sanctified creatures were vnderstood to bee the Body and Blood of Christ not in rei veritate as being changed the one into the other or one coexistent with the other but in significante mysterio in a signifying mysterie as August spake made the Body and Blood of Christ not by any alteration of their substance forme and nature as Theodoret but onely by their Institution and Deputation to that vse and therefore were not the very Body and Blood of Christ nor did exhibit the same as was after dreamed to the mouth and bodie of euery Receiuer of them but onely to the soule of the true beleeuers who receiued spiritually and by faith rem sacramenti the thing signified by the outward elements For all that while the adoration or diuine worship was directed only to Christ as sitting at the right hand of God in heauen and that in the act of Communicating Hence the 1. Nicene Councell exhorteth that men should not bee humiliter intenti humbly intent to the things before them but looke vp higher Hence came into the Lyturgie Sursum corda lift vp your hearts Hence many plaine speeches of Saint August Chrysost and others that the Receivers must as Eagles mount vp to heauen and take hold of Chirst there Prepare mentem non ventrem fidem non dentes their heart not their stomacke faith not their teeth to receiue Christ himselfe and feed vpon him That Adoration preceded Transubstantiation Ann. 1130. lib de Canonii observantia proposit 23. prope finem Tom 11. Bibl. Pat. Colon pag. 460. D. Col. 1. which was defined at the fourth Lateran Councell Ann. 1215 I shew In the 11 Centurie we haue in Radulpho Decano Tungrensi the maner of receiuing the Sacrament set forth in these words Inclinatus autem dicit antequam communicet Domine Iesu Christe qui voluntate patris cooperante Spiritu sancto per mortem propriam mundum viuificasti libera me per hoc sacro-sanctum corpus sanguinē tuum ab omnibus iniquitatibus malis meis c. Cum distribuit dicit Corpus Domini nostri Iesu Christi proficiet tibi in vitam aeteruam Amen The Priest bowing himselfe before hee communicates saith thus O Lord Iesus Christ who by the will of the Father and the consecration of the holy Ghost hast quickned the world through thine owne death deliver mee by this thy most holy body and blood from all mine iniquities and

thy selfe What corruption is in that vnlesse he should haue said bowing thy selfe with thy face downewards which he meant and so did Cyril for this gesture is opposed to streting out of the hand not stretching out thy hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but bowing thy face downeward and not as the Replyer looking with the eyes downewards which is no impediment to stretching out the hand as bowing downeward is But the word saith hee is many times vsed in such a sense He should haue said mostly But if it be many times to vsed why is the Bishop said to haue corrupted the Text Forsooth Robert Stephen saith it signifieth properly a gesture of the eyes Good and doth not Rob. Stephen shew that it is frequently vsed for bowing downe of the face And then whether sense is fitter the place must shew not the word mistake there might haue been but not corruption But it is vtterly vntrue that Robert Stephen doth say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie properly a gesture of the eyes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pronus sum propendeo inclino me vel inclino caput sum capite obstipo demitto oculos saith Stephen Where casting downe of the eyes is the last and onely made a secondary ●ense of the word as following vpon the bowing downe of the head and not the p●imary and proper Therefore the same Robert Stephen in his Greek Concordance rendreth it incuruo me and in his Treasury 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inclinatus supplex But the compound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shew it Cleane contrary For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is erigere se contrary to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in Iohn 8.89 where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are both vsed the one not for looking downe but for bowing downe to write one the ground the other not for looking vp but lifting vp himselfe againe As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it doth signifie bowing downe to looke into as in Ioan. 20.11 So that the Replier hath falsified his Authour to make good his challenge and the Bishop of Chester hath not corrupted Cyril But he will giue vs a reason why in this place at least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should onely be looking downe Repl. And that Cyrill respecteth the gesture of the eye it is very probable because in receiuing of the Bread hee biddeth the Receiuer first to sanctifie his eyes with it and then to take it In proportion whereof those words cited are vsed concerning the Cup 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Cham. de Canone lib. 9. c. 20. 〈…〉 1. Damasc 〈…〉 side● 〈◊〉 4. cap. ●3 Answ I answer This probabilitie is grounded vpon a mistaking of Cyrils words which are not that the Communicant should sanctifie his eyes by looking on it but per contactum by touching of it as Chamier saith the place it selfe So Damasc saith also That they should put the mysticall Bread to their eyes foreheads and lips c. and then where is the Replyers ground But he hath yet more to say Repl. And besides Cyrill doth manifestly referre the Adoration and worship hee speaketh of to the saying Amen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Looking downe stedfastly vpon it and saying Amen in manner of Adoration and Veneration What reason then had Rochester first and Chester after to apply the manner of worship and adoration vnto the bodily gesture signified in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answ If the Adoration bee there referred to the prayer vsed at the deliuery of the Cup in the very act of receiuing the same Then was there Adoration vsed and that by Order not voluntarily in the act of receiuing 〈◊〉 Al● 〈◊〉 Damasc which is the point for which Cyrill was alleadged Let them in receiuing referr●● their Adoration to Amen that is vnto the prayer vsed at the deliuery who will question them But they rather condemne the vse of any such particular prayer for each Communicant at that time One as a priuate worship in publicke Another as a mixing of seuerall worships forgetting that euery Communicant performeth his priuate worship when hee receiueth And that Bread and Broath Creame and Strawberries Wine and Sugar agree not better in our bodily meates then some acts of worship with other some though not all 2 Chron. 29. ●8 The people adored the Priests blew with Trumpets the Leuites sang and all this continued till the burnt offering was finished Here is a mixture of priuate in publicke and seuerall sortes of worship at the burnt offering 2. The Replier hauing complained of two learned Bishops that they had corrupted Cyrill in their translations doth himselfe indeed corrupt him when he rendreth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 looking downe stedfastly vpon it of which like sense of the word hee can giue no example as if his griefe were not at mis-translation but onely that any but himselfe should corrupt Cyrill 3. The Adoration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must needs bee referred to the gesture for it denoteth the same as all men know And therefore the Bishops did right in referring it to the gesture required in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which this is a declaration in what manner they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Replier is forced to put the words out of their owne order to referre the Adoration to Amen though it gaine him nothing Repl. 3. Seeing Cyrill hath no precept of bowing the body at the receiuing of the Bread he cannot be so interpreted concerning the Wine without imputation of superstitious aduancing of the Wine aboue the Bread Answ I haue shewed before that the manner was when they had taken the Bread to cary it to their owne places I meane in the Churches where they went to the Table for it and then to receiue it kneeling apart And this was as I thinke the cause why Cyrill requireth Adoration when they come to the Cup which they might not cary away from the Table as they did the other and not so for the Bread because that custome had setled that long before viz. that men did sumere Adorantes Repl. 4. Seeing Cyrill had such leisure to appoint his Communicants so many superstitious toies about the Sacraments with particular description as that hee should in taking the Bread hold his fingers together beare vp his right hand with his left take it in the hollow of his hand so borne vp taking great heed that no crume fall c. hee would surely more expresly haue spoken of Kneeling if it had beene vsed in his time Answ This followes not for that being as wee haue shewed so ingrafted in the peoples hearts to receiue the Bread into their mouthes after some priuate prayers Kneeling There was no need to instruct them in that at all and therefore Cyrill insisteth in the newer Inuentions about the Bread in the manner of taking it at the Table Cyrils