Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	body_n	call_v	great_a	1,387	5	2.5032	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34612	The history of Popish transubstantiation to which is premised and opposed, the Catholick doctrin of Holy Scripture, the ancient fathers and the Reformed churches, about the sacred elements, and presence of Christ in the blessed sacrament of the eucharist / written nineteen years ago in Latine, by the Right Reverend Father in God, John, late Lord Bishop of Durham, and allowed by him to be published a little before his death, at the earnest request of his friends.; Historia transubstantiationis papalis. English	Cosin, John, 1594-1672.	1676 (1676)	Wing C6359; ESTC R2241	82,193	184

and real Presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament that stout Roman Champion applies to his Transubstantiation and then crows over his Adversaries supposing that he hath utterly overthrown the Protestants cause whereas there is such a wide difference as may be called a great Gulf fixed betwixt the true or real Presence of Christ in the Lords Supper and the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into his Body and Bloud This last is such a Prodigie as is neither taught by Scripture nor possible to be apprehended by faith it is repugnant to right reason and contrary to sense and is no where to be found in Ancient Writers But the other is agreeable to Scripture and to the Analogy of faith it is not against Reason although being spiritual it cannot be perceived by our bodily senses and it is back'd by the constant and unanimous Doctrine of the holy Fathers For it makes nothing against it that sometimes the same Fathers do speak of the Bread and Wine of the holy Eucharist as of the very Body and Bloud of Christ it being a manner of speech very proper and usual in speaking of Sacraments to give to the sign the name of the thing signified And however they explain themselves in other places when they frequently enough call the Sacramental Bread and Wine Types Symbols Figures and Signs of the Body and Bloud of Christ thereby declaring openly for us against the Maintainers of Transubstantiation For we may safely without any prejudice to our Tenet use those Expressions of the Ancients which the Papists think to be most favourable to them taking them in a Sacramental sense as they ought to be whereas the last mentioned that are against them none can use but by so doing he necessarily destroys the whole contrivance of Transubstantiation it being altogether inconsistent to say the Bread is substantially changed into the Body of Christ and the Bread is a Figure a Sign and a Representation of the Body of Christ For what hath lost its being can in no wise signifie or represent any other thing Neither was ever any thing said to represent and be the Figure and Sign of it self But this is more at large treated of in the Book it self Now having given an account of the occasion of writing and publishing this Discourse perhaps the Reader will expect that I should say something of its excellent Author But should I now undertake to speak but of the most memorable things that concern this great Man my thoughts would be overwhelmed with their multitude and I must be injurious both to him and my Readers being confined within the narrow limits of a Preface But what cannot be done here may be done somewhere else God willing This only I would not have the Reader to be ignorant of That this Learned man and as appears by this constant Professor and Defendor of the Protestant Religion was one of those who was most vehemently accused of Popery by the Presbyterians before the late Wars and for that reason bitterly persecuted by them and forced to forsake his Country whereby he secured himself from the violence of their Hands but not of their Tongues for still the good men kept up the noise of their clamorous Accusation even while he was writing this most substantial Treatise against Transubstantiation John Durel CHAP. I. 1. The Real that is true and not imaginary Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is proved by Scripture 2 and 3. Yet this favours not the Tenet of Transubstantiation being it is not to be understood grosly and carnally but spiritually and Sacramentally 4. The nature and use of the Sacraments 5. By means of the Elements of Bread and Wine Christ himself is spiritually eaten by the Faithful in the Sacrament 6. The eating and presence being spiritual are not destructive of the truth and substance of the thing 7. The manner of Presence is unsearchable and ought not to be presumptuously defined 1. THose words which our blessed Saviour used in the institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which is shed for you for the remission of sins are held and acknowledged by the Universal Church to be most true and infallible And if any one dares oppose them or call in question Christs Veracity or the truth of his words or refuse to yield his sincere assent to them except he be allowed to make a meer figment or a bare figure of them we cannot and ought not either excuse or suffer him in our Churches for we must embrace and hold for an undoubted truth whatever is taught by Divine Scripture And therefore we can as little doubt of what Christ saith Joh. 6. 55 My flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drink indeed which according to St. Paul are both given to us by the consecrated Elements For he calls the Bread the Communion of Christs Body and the Cup the Communion of his bloud 2. Hence it is most evident that the Bread and Wine which according to St. Paul are the Elements of the holy Eucharist are neither changed as to their substance nor vanisht nor reduc'd to nothing but are solemnly consecrated by the words of Christ that by them his blessed body and bloud may be communicated to us 3. And further it appears from the same words that the expression of Christ and the Apostle is to be understood in a Sacramental and mystick sense and that no gross and carnal presence of body and bloud can be maintained by them 4. And though the word Sacrament be no where used in Scripture to signifie the blessed Eucharist yet the Christian Church ever since its Primitive ages hath given it that name and always called the presence of Christs body and bloud therein Mystick and Sacramental Now a Sacramental expression doth without any inconvenience give to the sign the name of the thing signified And such is as well the usual way of speaking as the nature of Sacraments that not only the names but even the properties and effects of what they represent and exhibite are given to the outward Elements Hence as I said before the Bread is as clearly as positively called by the Apostle the Communion of the body of Christ 5. This also seems very plain that our Blessed Saviour's design was not so much to teach what the Elements of Bread and Wine are by nature and substance as what is their use and office and signification in this Mystery For the body and bloud of our Saviour are not only fitly represented by the Elements but also by vertue of his institution really offered to all by them and so eaten by the faithful Mystically and Sacramentally whence it is that he truly is and abides in us and we in him 6. This is the spiritual and yet no less true and undoubted than if it were corporal eating of Christ's flesh not

reason that they are inseparable one from the other meer nonsense for as long as the accidents of the Bread i. e. the sha●● and taste and colour c. remain in their proper being so long is the Body of Christ inseparably joyned with them wherefore if the accidents in their nature pass into the belly or are cast out by vomiting the Body of Christ it self must of necessity go along with them and for this cause pious souls I repeat their own words do frequently eat again with great reverence the parts of the Host cast out by vomiting Others answer also That a beast eats not the Body of Christ Sacramentally but accidentally as a man that should eat a Consecrated Host not knowing that it was consecrated 3. They inquire about musty and rotten Hosts and because the Body of Christ is incorruptible and not subject to putrefaction therefore they answer That the Hosts are never so and that though they appear as if they were yet in reallity they are not as Christ appeared as a Gardener though he was no Gardener 4. They demand concerning indigested Hosts which passing through the belly are cast into the draught or concerning those that are cast into the worst of sinks or into the dirt Whether such Hosts cease to be the Body of Christ And answer That whether they be cast into the Sink or the Privy as long as the appearances remain the Body of Christ is inseparable from t●●● And for the contrary opinion they say that it is not tenable and that it is not safe for any to hold it because the Pope hath forbid it should be maintained under pain of Excommunication Therefore the Modern Schoolmen add That if any should hold the contrary after the Popes determination he should be condemned by the Church of Rome that is Nay they hold it to be a Point of Faith which none may doubt of because the contrary Doctrine hath been condemned by Pope Gregory the Eleventh 5. They ask concerning the accidents whether the Body of Christ be under them when they are abstracted from their subject This is against Logick Or whether Worms be gendred or Mice nourished of accidents And this against Physick 6. Whether the Body of Christ can at the very same time move both upwards and downwards one Priest lifting up the Host and another setting it down And I know not how many more such thorny questions have wearied and non-plust them and all their School and brought them to such straights and extremities that they know not what to resolve nor what shifts to make And truly it had been very happy for Religion if as the Ancients never touched or mentioned Transubstantiation so latter times had never so much as heard of its name For God made his Sacrament upright as he did Man but about it they have sought out many inventions 25. Likewise this Transubstantiation hath given occasion to some most wicked and impious Wretches to abuse and profane most unworthily what they thought to be the Body of Christ For instances may be brought of some wicked Priests who for filthy lucre have sold some Consecrated Hosts to Jews and Sorcerers who have stabb'd and burnt them and used them for Witchcraft and Inchantments Nay we read that St. Lewis himself very ill advised in that gave once to the Turks and Saracens a consecrated Host as a pledge of his Promise and an assurance of Peace Now can any one who counts these things abominable perswade himself that our Blessed Saviour would have appointed that his most holy Body should be present in his Church in such a manner as that it should come into the hands of his greatest Enemies and the worst of Infidels and be eaten by Dogs and Rats and be vomited up burnt cast into Sinks and used for Magical Poysons and Witchcraft I mention these with horror and trembling and therefore abstain from raking any more in this dunghill 26. No wonder therefore if this new Doctrine of Innocent the Third being liable to such foul absurdities and detestable abuses few men could be perswaded in the fourteenth Century that the Body of Christ is really or by Transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Altar as it is recorded by our Country-man Robert Holkot who lived about the middle of that Century As also Thomas Aquinas reports of some in his time who believed that after Consecration not only the accidents of the Bread but its substantial form remained And Albertus Magnus himself who was Thomas his his Tutor and writ not long after Innocent the Third speaks of Transubstantiation as of a doubtful question only Nay that it was absolutely rejected and opposed by many is generally known for the Anathema of Trent had not yet backt the Lateran Decree 27. As for the rest of the Schoolmen especially the modern who are as it were sworn to Pope Innocent's determination they use to express their belief in this matter with great words but neither pious nor solid in this manner The common opinion is to be embraced not because reason requires it but because it is determined by the Bishop of Rome Item That ought to be of greatest weight that we must hold with the holy Church of Rome about the Sacraments now it holds that the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Bloud as it is clearly said Extra De fide summa Trinitate Cap. firmiter Again I prove that of necessity the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ for we must hold that declaration of faith which the Pope declares must be held Thus among the Papists if it be the pleasure of an imperious Pope as was Innocent the Third Doctrines of Faith shall now and then increase in bulk and number though they be such as are most contrary to holy Scripture though they were never heard of in the Primitive Church and though from them such consequences necessarily follow as are most injurious to Christ and his holy Religion For after Innocent the Third the Roman Faith was thus much increased by the determination of Pope Gregory the Eleventh that if it so happens the Body of Christ in the Consecrated Host may descend into a Rats belly or into a Privy or any such foul place 28. In the fifteenth Century the Council of Constance which by a Sacrilegious attempt took away the Sacramental Cup from the People and from the Priests when they do not officiate did wrongfully condemn Wiclif who was already dead because amongst other things he had taught with the Ancients That the substance of the Bread and wine remains materially in the Sacrament of the Altar and that in the same Sacrament no accidents of Bread and Wine remain without a substance Which two Assertions are most true 29. Cardinal Cameracencis who lived about the time of the Council of Constance doth not seem to own the Decree of Pope Innocent as

of St. Chrysostom In comes the Priest carrying the Holy Ghost 14. About the same time Rupertus Abbot of Tuitium famous by his Writings did also teach that the Substance of the Bread in the Eucharist is not converted but remains These be his words You must attribute all to the operation of the Holy Ghost who never spoils or destroys any substance he useth but to that natural Goodness it had before adds an invisible excellency which it had not He hath indeed an unwarrantable opinion of the Union of the Bread and Body of Christ into one Person but it came as some others as absurd in that Age from too great a curiosity about determining the manner of Christs Presence and of the Union of his Body with the Bread about which that learned man troubled himself too much However he neither taught nor mentioned Transubstantiation 15 Not long after that Algerus a Monk and some others had had some disputes about this subject Pet. Lombard made up his Books of Sentences in the fourth whereof he treats of the Eucharist and thinks that it is taught by some sayings of the Ancients That the substance of the Bread and Wine is changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ But soon after he adds If it be demanded what manner of change that is whether formal or substantial or of any other kind that I cannot resolve Therefore he did not yet hold Transubstantiation as a point of Faith Nay he doth not seem constant to himself in making it a probable opinion but rather to waver to say and unsay and to shelter his cause under the Fathers name rather than maintain it himself Of the accidents remaining without a subject and of the breaking into parts the body of Christ as Berengarius was bid to say by Pope Nicholas he reasons strangely but very poorly 16. Otho Bishop of Frisingen as great by his Piety and Learning as by his Bloud for he was Nephew to Henry the Fourth and the Emperour Henry the Fifth married his Sister he was also Uncle to Frederick and half Brother to King Conrade lived about the same time He believed and writ That the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist as did many more in that Age. 17. As for the new-coyn'd word Transubstantiation it is hardly to be found before the middle of this Century For the first that mention it are Petrus Blesensis who lived under Pope Alexander the Third and Stephen Eduensis a Bishop whose Age and Writings are very doubtful And those latter Authors who make it as ancient as the tenth Century want sufficient Witnesses to prove it by as I said before 18. The thirteenth Century now follows wherein the World growing both older and worse a great deal of trouble and confusion there was about Religion the Bishop of Rome exalted himself not only into his lofty Chair over the Universal Church but even into a Majestical Throne over all the Empires and Kingdoms of the world New Orders of Friers sprung up in this Age who disputed and clamoured fiercely against many Doctrines of the ancienter and purer Church and amongst the rest against that of the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ So that now there remained nothing but to confirm the new Tenet of Transubstantiation and impose it so peremptorily on the Christian world that none might dare so much as to hiss against it This Pope Innocent the Third bravely performed He succeeding Celestin the Third at thirty years of age and marching stoutly in the foot-steps of Hildebrand called a Council at Rome in St. John Lateran and was the first that ever presumed to make the new-devised-Doctrine of Transubstantiation an Article of Faith necessary to salvation and that by his own meer authority 19. How much he took upon himself and what was the mans spirit and humour will easily appear to any man by these his words which I here set down To me it is said in the Prophet I have set thee over Nations and over Kingdoms to root out and to pull down and to destroy and to throw down and to build and to plant To me also it is said in the person of the Apostle To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven For I am in a middle state betwixt God and man below God but above man yea greater than man being I judge all men and can be judged by none Am not I the Bridegroom and each of you the Bridegrooms friend The Bridegroom I am because I have the Bride the noble rich lofty and holy Church of Rome who is the Mother and Mistris of all the Faithful who hath brought me a precious and inestimable portion to wit the fulness of things spiritual and the vastness of temporal with the greatness and multitude of both God made two great Lights in the Firmament of heaven he hath also made two great Lights in the firmament of the Vniversal Church that is he hath instituted two dignities which are the Papal authority and the Regal But that which governs the day that is spiritual things is the greater and that which governs carnal things the less so that it ought to be acknowledged that there is the same difference between the Roman High Priest and Kings as between the Sun and Moon Thus he when he was become Christs Vicar or rather his Rival These things I rehearse that we may see how things went and what was the face of the Latine Church when Pope Innocent the Third propounded and imposed Transubstantiation as an Article of Faith as is plainly and at large set down by a learned Author George Calixtus who deserves equally to be praised and imitated 20. This Innocent therefore who to encrease his Power and Authority wrought great troubles to the Emperour Philip stript Otho the Fourth of the Empire forced John King of England to yield up into his hand this Kingdom and that of Ireland and make them Tributary to the See of Rome who under pretence of a spiritual Jurisdiction took to himself both the Supreme Power over things temporal and the things themselves who was proud and ambicious beyond all men covetous to the height of greediness they are the words of Matthew Paris and ever ready to commit the most wicked villanies so he might be recompenced for it this I say was the man who in his Lateran Council propounded that Transubstantiation should be made an Article of Faith and when the Council would not grant it did it himself by his own Arbitrary Power against which none durst open his mouth For those Canons which this day are shewn about under the name of the Council are none of his but meerly the Decrees of Pope Innocent first writ by him and read in the Council and disliked by many and afterwards set down in the Book of Decretals under certain titles by