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	nature_n	spirit_n	1,729	5	5.0066	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50622	Papimus Lucifugus, or, A faithfull copie of the papers exchanged betwixt Mr. Iohn Menzeis, Professor of Divinity in the Marischal-Colledge of Aberdene, and Mr. Francis Demster Iesuit, otherwise sirnamed Rin or Logan wherein the Iesuit declines to have the truth of religion examined, either by Scripture or antiquity, though frequently appealed thereunto : as also, sundry of the chief points of the popish religion are demonstrated to be repugnant both to Scripture and antiquity, yea, to the ancient Romish-Church : to all which is premised in the dedication, a true narration of a verbal conference with the same Iesuit.	Menzeis, John, 1624-1684.; Dempster, Francis.	1668 (1668)	Wing M1725; ESTC R2395	219,186	308

adde Doctor Strang de interpretatione perfectione Scripturae lib. 1. cap. 8. Where you might have found a full account of the right means of interpreting Scripture and of the right way of useing these means and consequently of the difference betwixt them that used them rightly and others who doe not use them duely Fourthly I resolved a Querie of yours whether without the preaching of the Word the means of interpretation may be used and the true sense of Scripture attained But of all these things in your reply like a perfect Fuge bellum you take no more notice then to asperse them as long Digressions about the rules of interpreting seripture A rare and compendious confutation I confesse But if I did extravague in these discourses was it not in following such a vagrant guide as you Doe you not play the Devil first to temp me to thse D. gressions and then to accuse me for them Yea doe you not show your self a silly fool to wound your self through my sides For if it be an impertinent Digression for me to answere your Queries must you not be an impertinent fool to propound them But perhaps you thought it your wisdome rather to come off with this reflexion of folly then to adventure to graple with these things which would prove too hard for you After you had waved all these particulars lest you should seeme to say nothing at all to that Section you fall upon a word which I spake in answere to another of your judicious Queries Viz. Whether these of a false Religion might duely use al the means of interpretatiō To which I answered De jure they ought to use them though De facto and in sensu composito they did not use them which I confirmed by some Scripturs To confute this my answere What say you if they of a false Religion say as much of as And who questions but they may say it Our lips are our own say the worst of men And who is Lord over us Psal 12 verse 4. Have we not sufficient experience of the licentious tongues of your Romanists doth it therefore follow that you doe duely use the means of interpretation and not we Si accusare sufficiat quis innocens We doe not desire any man to receive our expositions because we affirme them to be true nor are we so brutish as to suffer your Romish interpretations to be obtruded upō us on your bare affirmatiō If you would come downe out of the clouds and not insist stil on generals you should find it is upon convinceing grounds from the series of the context other Scripturs the Analogie of faith c. That we reject your Romish senses and embrace these which are approved by PROTESTANTS As for Example there is a great Controversie betwixt you and us touching the sense of these words of Christ Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body You will have them to be understood in A proper and lueral sense and by the Priests pronounceing or rather whispering them in Latine the Body of Christ to be substituted under the Accidents of bread We on the contratie affirme the sense of these words as is usual in Sacramental speaches to be Figurative the Bread being called the Body of Christ because it is a Sacramental figne and exhibitive Symbol of his Body You will find Armies of arguments brought by our Divines particularly By Whitaker Chamier Morton Nethenus c. To justifie our sense and to confute yours I shall at the time give you but a hint of this one According to your received Romisn glosse these words of Christ should be inexplicable false and imply a manifest contradiction therefore you Romish glosse must surely be false The Sequel is clear The Antecedent I prove And first I say these words of Christ should be inexplicable Straine your wit and squeeze your Authors to tell me what Hoc or the pronowne This can signifie Surely it can neither signify bread nor the Accidents of bread else the Proposition were not proper For al know that one Disparat cannot be properly predicated of another Nor can it signify The Body of Christ For according to you Christs Body is not there until al the Words be finished But the pronowne This doth clearly demonstrat something then present when it was spoken What therefore remains but that with other your Authors you betake your self to the desperat refuge of your Individun̄ vagum Eus in confuso Contentum sub speciebus and what is that but something you know not what Was Christs understanding clouded with such confusion that he knew not what he meant when he said This But besides when ever any thing is truely predicated of an Individuum vagum though it be disjunctivly enunciated of many things yet it is determinatly verified of some one thing and therefor suppose the pronown Hoc or This were taken as an Individuu●● vagum yet it must signifie something then present identificated with The Body of Jesus But that is impossible according to you seeing Christs Body is not present untill all the words be uttered More of the Vertigo of your authors touching this particular may be seen in the forementiond writers But I not onely said that this Proposition of Christ according to your Romish glosse would be Inexplicable but also False and Imply a contradiction For it implyes a manifest contradiction that a true affirmative proposition De praesenti should produce its object But this proposition which must be true as being Christs and which all see to be affirmative De praesenti according to your Romish glosse doth produce its object For according to you it substitutes the Body of Christ under the accidents of bread either by Adduction or Reproduction Ergo this proposition according to your Romish glosse implyes a manifest Contradiction The Major is clear because if a true proposition De praesenti should produce its object then in the Iustant of nature wherein the proposition is conceived before its object as the cause before its effect the proposition should be true and not true True ex hypothesi for it is supposed to be a true proposition Not true because not conforme to its object For it affirmes its object to be De praesenti yet in that Instant of nature the object is not for it is the instant of Priority before the object And consequently if this proposition This is my Body doe substitute Christs Body under the accidents of bread His Body should be under these accidents before it be under them For it should be under them in the first Instant of nature wherein this proposition is conceived else the proposition should be false And yet it should not be under them because the proposition as the productive cause of the presence of Christ must be presupposed for One instant of nature before its effect But what speake I of Instants of nature Is it not at least requited to the truth of an Affirmative proposition de

have a new Specimen of your Iesuiticall Candor for First there was no mention of the Translation in your first proposall of this Objection But Secondly to let this Peccadillo passe how are you so impudent as to say that I had given no other Answere but remitted you to our PROTESTANT Authors Looke backe on my Paper and blush for your lying Had I not first inverted the Objection against your self and then did I not Answere directly that this Objection might have had some colour of reason had I sustained the part of an Oppouent but none at all I being the Defendant or Respondent Did I not shew you that it concerned you to prove that we PROTESTANTS had not the true sense of Scripture and that all incumbent to me at present was to answere your arguments And the same now I desire to be accōmodated to the True letter and translation of Scripture Prove if you can that we are either destitute of the true letter translation or sense of the Scripture What I said of PROTESTANT Writers that they have shewed our Religion to be conforme to the true sense of Scripture which indeed they have done as with a Sun beame was not that they in that had performed what now I was tyed to doe but as then I told you that it were no impossible taske but had often been performed though at present I resolved to keep you to the Rules of argueing Yea did I not deal more liberally with you and require you to pitch on some chief points in controversie betwixt you and us and for your encouragement promised that I should not onely hold the Defendants part But you cannot be drawne out of your lurkeing holes and thereby you discover both your desperat cause and cowardly Spirit Nay more have I not in my last Paper proven sundrie points of controversie against you Such as the Perfection of Scripture the perspicuity of Scripture the falliblity both of Popes and Councils c. Yet have you nto once had the boldnesse to canvase these my arguments Should I have passed through other Controversies is it not like that you would have waved all under your common pretence that they were but impertinent Digressions But though you had keeped silence at other points I think not so strange as that you could hear your Popes in cathedra and extra cathedram charged with errour and yet not awake out of your Lethargie I will minde you of a testimony of your Alphonsus à Castro concerning your Popes to see if it can alarme you In lib. 1. Adversus Haereses cap. 4. Thus he writes Omnis homo errare potest in side etiamsi Papa sit Nam de Liberio Papa refert Platina illum sensisse cum Arianis Anastasium secundum hujus nominis Pontificem favisse Nestorianis qui historias legerit non dubitat Caelestinum Papam etiam erresse circa matrimonium fidelium quorum alter labitur in Haeresin Res est omnibus manifesta Neque hic Caelestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debeat ita ut illum errasse dicamus velut privatam personam non ut Papam qui in qualibet re seriâ definienda consulere debet viros doctos quoniam hujusmodi Caelestini Definitio habebat●r in antiquis Decretalibus in cap. Laudabtlē titulo De Conversione infidelium quam ego ipse vidi legi So your A Castre In your second Cavill you alledge for it seemes you dare adventure upon no more Syllogisms That before I affirme so boldly that all things necessarie to Salvation are contained in Scripture I ought first to have drawne a catalogue of all these necessarie points and now you foyst in a word againe which was not in the first proposal of this cavil Or rather say you a list would be drawne of all these points which the PROTESTANT Religion holds as necessarie All the ansvere you bring me in makeing to this is That a proposition in general may be beleeved though the beleever cannot make an induction of all the particulars contained in it Are you become so shamelesse that in every step you must deal unfaithfully Who may not see that ye Romanists are moved by the same Genius with the old Hereticks of whome Austine observed Hareticorum frontem non esse frontem Did I not make Five Replyes to this your Second Cavil And you pitch but upon one branch of one of them and that also you misrepresent I must therefore pull you by the eare and remember you that First I shew that you were not In bonâ fide to object against the Perfection of Scripturs as containing all things necessarie to Salvation neither could you doe it without contradicting the grounds which you had laid downe in your First Paper Secondly I shew that this demand of A catalogue of necessaries was an old cavil of your fellows confuted by many particularly by Chillingworth Crakanthorp Stillingfleet c. to whome indeed I remitted you To these now I adde a verie late but learned Author Master Tillotson part 2. Sect. 3. § 15. In his confutation of a much eryed up Romish pamphlet entituled Sure footing where he calls This canting demand of a Catalogue of necessaries one of the expletive topicks which Popish writers of the lower forme doe generally make use of to sil up a booke And withall brings in Doctor Holden in his Analysis fidei lib. 1. cap. 4. One of the great Patrons of your traditionarie way shewing that this demand of a catalogue of necessaries is unreasonable and mantaining it to be not onely Impossible but also if it could be had Uselesse and Perni●ions Thirdly I shew from Scripture and Augustine that you falsly affirmed that the Scripture did put no difference betwixt necessarie truths and others Fourthly I shew it was unreasonable in you to demand of me a precise Catalogue of necessarie truths for proving whereof I did coacervat a heap of arguments And Fifthly I shew that it concerned you Romanists no lesse then us to draw a Catalogue of necessarie truths and that it would prove a more difficle taske for you then for us Yea from your putting a character of necessitie upon mary articles which sometimes had it not I demonstrated your Religion to be a false Religion and your Church notwithstanding all her great pretences to Catholicisme to be the most schismatical societie under Heaven and remitted you to Doctor Morton Voetius and Stillingfleet who had demonstrated this at large Wherupon now I must minde you how Master Chillingworth urged his adversarie Master Knot to produce a Romish catalogue of necessaries assureing him when ever he received that with the one hand he should deliver his catalogue with the other but this could never be obtained from Master Knot The like offer is lately made by Master Tillotson to Master Serjeant the Author of Surefooting but though Master Serjeant have made the fashion of a Reply yet hath he not adventured upon such a Catalogue