Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	church_n	holy_a	scripture_n	2,807	5	5.7899	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96332	A demonstration that the Church of Rome, and her councils have erred by shewing, that the councils of Constance, Basil, and Trent, have, in all their decrees touching communion in one kind, contradicted the received doctrine of the Church of Christ. With an appendix, in answer to the XXI. chapter of the author of A papist misrepresented, and represented.	Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.	1688 (1688)	Wing W1721A; ESTC R226161	116,790	130

Lateranensi ultimo Bellar. de Concil l. 1. c 7. de Concil partim Reprobatis and of no Authority Why are they stiled Concilia Reprobata Reprobated Councils by the greatest Part of Roman Catholicks in reference to some of these things which they profess to have decided under this Majestick Character Why is it yet left free for any Romanist to reject their Authority and Decrees in many Matters Moreover if they were true General Councils representing the whole Church and assisted by the Holy Ghost either such Councils must have erred in what they have decreed as matter of Faith and therefore cannot be Infallible and then the whole Church Representative and Councils assisted by the Holy Ghost may erre in matters of Faith or if they did not erre it must be matter of Faith That a General Council is superior to the Pope Secondly That General Councils may infallibly determine matters of Faith without him yea against him Thirdly That the pertiancious Resisters of this Doctrine were Hereticks and therefore that Eugenius the 4th Julius the 2d Leo the 10th and the 5th Lateran Council were Heretical If they did not know the Truth of what they thus assert how shall private Persons be able to discern what such Assemblies and so many Universities and Churches throughout the World consenting with them and owning them as such could not discern That is how shall they know when Councils are truly General when they truly represent the Church Catholick and they are assisted by the Holy Ghost Was not this one of their Decrees That for the future Quilibet in R. Pontificem eligendus Every one that was to be chosen Pope should in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost with Heart and Mouth Profess to God Almighty and to blessed Peter firmy to believe and hold as long as he lived the holy Catholick Faith according to the Traditions of the Apostles the general Councils and in particular of the general Councils of Lateran Lyons Vienna Constance and Basil and to keep that Faith to a tittle unchanged (a) Consil Const Sess 39. Basil Sess 23.37 Et usque ad animam sanguinem confirmare defensare praedicare And to preach confirm and defend it with their Life and Blood Did not the following Popes till after the Time of Eugenius the 4th make this Profession Yea were not the Inquisitors of Hereticks obliged by the Council of Constance to enquire of any who lay under Suspicion of Heresy (b) Vtrum credaet teneat asserat quod quodlibet Concilium Generale etiam Constantinense Vniversalem Ecclesiam repraesentet Item utrum credat quod illud quod Sacrum Concilium Constantienense Vniversalem Ecclesiam Repraesentans approbavit approbat in favorem fidei salutem animarum quod hoc est abuniversis Christi fidelibus approbandum tenendum Et quòd condemnavit condemnat esse fidei bonis moribus contrarium hoc ab eisdem esse tenendum pro condemnato credendum asserendum Sess 45. apud Binium Tom. 7. p. 1124. Whether he believed held and asserted That every general Council and particularly that of Constance represents the Universal Church and whether he believed that what that Council representing the whole Church approved in favour of Faith and the welfare of Souls was to be approved by all the Faithful and what it condemned as contrary to Faith and good Manners was as such to be condemned And after this Profession of these Popes this Inquisition made by all concerned to find out and prosecute Persons suspected of Heresy could they be doubtful whether these Councils were truly General or no Would they condemn Men of Heresy for not believing these Articles if they themselves did not believe them What Hppes can private Persons have that they shall surely know when Councils represent the Church and are accepted by it if the Agreement of so many Nations so many Universities so many Cardinals Arch-Bishops Bishops Divines and Doctors the Profession of so many Popes the Practice of so many Inquisitors do not prove that these Councils were once accepted by the Church Again Was there any Scripture or Tradition of the Church which plainly taught the contrary if not there can be none now and so no Man can hve just Cause from Scripture or Tradition to doubt the Infallibility of these Councils That they represented the whole Church and were assisted by the Holy Ghost That they were above the Pope and Representatives of the Church Catholick without Dependance on him If either plain Scripture or Tradition contradicted these their Assertions and Determinations then must these great Assemblies and all the Universities Nations and Churches which owned them as true general Councils be accounted ignorant of what plain Scripture or Tradition delivered touching a Matter of Faith of so great Import to the Vnion the Peace and Reformation of the Church and why then may not others be ignorant of other Matters plain in Scripture or Tradition without Peril why may we not suppose or at the least suspect That other Councils less numerous have been so Again These Councils of Constance and Basil have declared and decreed That (a) Concil Basil Sess 2. apud Bin. To. 8. p. 22. Sess 18. p. 55. general Councils have Authority immediately from Christ which every one of whatsoever State or Dignity though it be Papal is obliged to obey in things pertaining to Faith the Extirpation of the said Schism and the general Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members That the Pope himself is bound to stand to the Declaration and Definition of these Councils Whatsoever Christian saith the (b) Sess 45. Council of Constance refuseth to profess That he believes asserts and holds this he shall be proceeded against as one suspected of Heresy This saith the Council of Basil is (c) Sess 33. p. 95. Veritas fidei Catholicae A Truth belonging to the Catholick Faith and whosoever pertinaciously resists it censendus est Haereticus Is to be deemed an Heretick It is an Article of Faith which cannot be neglected say they Sine interitu saluts Without the Loss of Salvation They also decreed That it was not in the Power of the Pope to dissolve prorogue or transfer a general Council to another place without the Consent of the said Council And this Decree is also stiled (a) Ibid. Sess 33. p. 59. Sess 38. p. 101. An Article of Faith which he who pertinaciously doth resist is to be deemed an Heretick They also urge in Confirmation of these Decrees 1. That they were established by Martin the Fifth confirming the Decrees of the Council of Constance and by Eugenius the Fourth confirming that of Basil and particularly that of the Eighth Session That (b) P. 33. during that Council there could be no general Council assembled elsewhere and that if any one presumed to make or erect another Assembly under the Name of a general Council assembled

Scripture and Tradition as in the bowing down to Images the Celebration of the Mass in Latin where it is a Tongue unknown to the Generality of them that hear it yet in none of them hath she so openly affronted and defied both the Institutions of the H. Scripture and the continual Practice and declaration of the Church of Christ as in her practice of the Substraction of the Cup from Lay Communicants and in the Propositions Assertions and Decrees she hath established to excuse that practice In that of Honorary Worship of the Images of Saints her second Nicene Council doth very frequently though say the Fathers met at Frankford * Praefat. p. 10. very impudently pretend to Apostolical Tradition The Trent Council usher in their Decree concerning the Honour and Veneration to be imparted to them with an insinuation that it is made juxta Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae usum à primaevis Christianae Religionis temporibus receptum † Sess 25. According to the use of the Catholick and Apostolick Church received from the first Ages of Christianity But when they come to settle as a Law this Defalcation of the Cup they do it without any of these colours or pretences yea with confessed deviation both from our Saviour's Institution and Tradition and from the constant practice of the first and purest Ages of his Church Declaring and defining as the Trent Council doth That (a) Sess 21. c. 1 2. although our Redeemer and our Lord in his Last Supper did institute this venerable Sacrament and deliver it to the Apostles in both species yet (b) Ibid. Can. 2. if any person say the Holy Catholick Church was not by just causes and reasons moved to give it to the Laity and Priests not consecrating in one species only let him be accursed And as the Council of Constance doth That * Quod licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie tamen haec consuetudo viz. communicandi Laicos tantummodo sub specie panis habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare Concil Constant Sess 13. although in the Primitive Church the Sacrament was received by the Faithful under both species yet is the Custom of receiving it by Lay-Men and by Priests not consecrating to be received as a Law. That these Decrees are evidently repugnant to the institution of our Lord and Saviour and to the practice of the whole Church of Christ for above a Thousand Years hath been proved beyond all possibility of contradiction in a late excellent Treatise in Answer to a Discourse of Mr. Condom on this Subject That the same Decrees and almost every proposition declaration and assertion which have been advanced and invented by the General Councils of Constance Basil and of Trent in favour of them are manifestly opposite and repugnant to the received Traditions of the Church of Christ and to the Sence and the Expressions of the Fathers of the Christian Church I undertake by God's Assistance in the ensuing Pages to demonstrate by shewing First What these Councils have determined in this matter And Secondly What hath in contradiction to them been asserted and declared by the Fathers which flourished in the Church of God. Now the Church of Rome hath by the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent declared and defined as followeth 1. First (c) Sancta Synodus declarat docet nullo divino praecepto Laicos Clericos non conficientes obligari ad Eucharistiae Sacramentum sub utraque specie sumendum Syn. Trid. Sess 21. c. 1. That the Laicks and Priests who do not consecrate are not obliged by divine Precept to receive the Sacrament in both kinds That (d) Et cap. 3. though Christ in his Last Supper instituted this veverable Sacrament under the species of Bread and Wine yeet do not that institution and delivery bind all the Faithful by the Law of Christ to receive both species and that they who assert the contrary speak rashly and presumptuously 2. That (e) Neque nullo pacto dubitari posse salva fide quin illis alterius speciei communio ad salutem sufficiat Ibid. Et Sess 13. Can. 3. it cannot be doubted without prejudice to the Christian Faith but that Communion in one kind only is sufficient to Salvation Whosoever doth affirm the contrary to either of these Declarations saith the Trent Council let him be Anathema 3. That (f) Sancta mater Ecclesia gravibus justis causis adducta hanc consuetudinem sub altera specie communicandi approbavit pro lege habendum decrevit quam reprobare aut sine Ecclesiae authoritate pro libito mutare non licet Concil Trid. Sess 21. c. 2. the Church of Christ for just and weighty reasons hath approved the Communion of Laicks and Priests not consecrating under one kind only and hath defined it for a Law That (g) Concilium S. Generale Constantiense in Spirite Sancto legitime congregatum declarat decernit definit quod licet Christus post coenam instituerit suis Discipulis administraverit sub untraque specie panis vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum similiter quod licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie tamen haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula c scandalaest rationabiliter introducta quod a conficientibus sub utraque specie a Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur unde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab Ecclesia Sanctis Patribus rationabiliter introducta diutissime observata sit habenda est pro lege quam non licet reprobare aut sine Ecclesiae authoritate pro libitu mutare Concil Constant Sess 13. although Christ himself did minister this venerable Sacrament to his Disciples in both kinds the species of Bread and Wine and though it was so received by the Faithful in the Primitive Church yet the contrary Custom that the Priests who do consecrate should receive in both kinds and the Laity should receive only the species of Bread was rationally introduced and is to be received as a Law which none must change or reject at his pleasure without the Authority of the Church 4. That to say that it is (h) Quapropter dicere hanc consuetudinem aut legem observare sit sacrilegum aut illicitum censeri debet erroneum pertinaciter asserentes oppositum praemissorum tanquam Haeretici arcendi sunt graviter puniendi Ibid. Sacrilegious or unlawful to observe this Law or Custo is to be deemed Erroneous and they who pertinaciously do so assert are to be punished and driven from the Church as Hereticks they acting damnably who endeavour to reprove this custom as Sacrilegious That (i) Quod nullus Presbyter sub poena excommunicationis communicet populum sub utraque specie panis vini Item ipsa Sancta Synodus decernit declarat super ista

spiritual Drinke for corporal Refection is not perfected without both these And as he elsewhere saith because spiritual effects are done under the likeness of visible it was fit that this spiritual nourishment should be delivered to us under the Species of those things which Men do ordinarily use for corporal nourishment and therefore this Sacrament is delivered to us under the Species of Bread and Wine 2. For the signification of it for it is a memorial of the Lord's Passion whereby his Blood was separated from his Body and therefore in this Sacrament the Blood is offered by it self And elsewhere Because the Completion of our Salvation was made by the Passion and Death of Christ by which is Blood was separated from his Flesh separatim nobis traditur Sacramentum corporis ejus sub specie panis sanguis sub specie vini the Sacrament of his Body is delivered N. B. to us apart under the Species of Bread and the Blood under the Species of Wine that so in this Sacrament might be the memory and representation of our Lord's Passion 3. For the healthful Effect of it for the Body is offered to shew that it is of force to save the Body and the Blood is offered to shew that it is of force to save the Soul for the Soul is in the Blood. (k) In 4. Sent. dist 8. q. 2. dist 11. q. 2. Bonaventure saith That as to the signification both Species are of the integrity of this Sacrament because the matter of the Sacrament is expressed in neither of them by it self but in both together which appears thus Here Christ is signified as Meat perfectly refreshing them that eat him Sacramentally and Spiritually but a perfect Refection is not in Bread alone or Wine alone but in both he therefore is signified as perfectly refreshing not in one Species only but in both And again This Sacrament though it contains two Signs and two Words yet because a perfect Sign ordained for one thing sc the Vnion of the Body Mystical results from them therefore the Sacrament is one and the reason of this Integrity and Ordination comes from Nature for neither is Bread nor Wine apart fully Refectory but both and one full Refection in nature comes from both and so they are disposed to signifie one Refection but this is compleated by the Divine Institution which by one Institution hath appointed these two Signs to signifie one perfect Refection and so it is one Sacrament on the account of nature and of Divine Institution (l) In 4. Sent. dist 8. Art. 13. Albertus Magnus lays down this general Rule The Sacrament of the Church causeth nothing in Grace which it doth not signifie in Similitude and that the Sacraments of the New Law are the cause of nothing of which they bear not a sensible Image and thence infers That the Vnion of the Mystical Body is not perfectly caused and signified but by a double Sign and therefore by virtue of the Sacrament we ought to have both And in his Comment upon the Sixth of John he saith That as in the Flesh is received what is vivifying and restorative of the spiritual and divine Life lost in us so by the Blood is received the Aspersion and cleansing of our inward parts And making the enquiry why to that manducation Spiritual Drink was necessary to be added he answers it is so because Meat cannot be without Drink In his Comment on (m) c. 22. f. 321. St. Luke Some saith he more curious than devout enquire to what end was the Sacrament of the Blood instituted after the Sacrament of the Body since the Body of Christ is not without the Blood nor the Blood without the Body But to this we say that though these are as to their nature undivided yet have they different Effects for one by Christ is ordained to incorporate the Blood for the washing away of Sins whence it is said That without shedding of Blood there is no Remission And that which they say that the Body is not without the Blood is true but yet by virtue of the Sacrament the Sacramental Body is not in the Blood nor the Sacramental Blood in the Body That therefore we might have a Supper Sacramentally perfect it was necessary that it should be instituted that the Body and Blood should be Sacramentally had this therefore is the cause and manner of the Institution so our King and Priest saves us out of the Flour and out of the Wine-Press (n) Rat. l. 4. c. 54. f. 126. Durantus saith That the Church instituted the Sacrament to be taken after the consecration of both Species to shew that he who receives the Hoast only receives not the whole Sacrament Sacramentally For although the Blood be in the consecrated Hoast yet is it not Sacramentally there because the Bread signifies the Body not the Blood the Wine signifies the Blood not the Body wherefore because the Sacrament under one kind is not compleat according to the Sign the Sacrament ought to be compleat before the Priest use it And again (o) Ibid. c. 4● f. 106. Although under the Form of Bread the Blood may be taken with the Body and under the Form of Wine the Body may be taken with the Blood yet according to Innocent the Third neither the Blood under the Form of Bread nor the Body under te Form of Wine is drunk and eaten because as neither Blood is eaten nor the Body drunk so neither under the Form of Bread is drunk or eaten under the Form of Wine Cassunder informs us of (p) De com sub utraque specie p. 1034. Petrus de Palude that he asserted That the matter of the Sacrament ought to be double viz. the matter of Bread and Drink because the effect of the Sacrament ought to be perfectly represented by the matter in a way agreeable to natural things because the Sacraments effect what they do figure but the effect of the Sacrament is full Refection of the Soul and therefore the matter representing this ought to do it by perfect Refection of the Body which only is by Meat and Drink (q) Lyturg. p. 77. Guilielmus de monte Landano as he there cites him adds That he who receives the Body receives the whole Truth but not the whole Sacrament and therefore in many places they Communicate with Bread and Wine that is with a whole Sacrament The (r) De commu sub utraque specie ibid. Dean of Lovain as he cites him saith That with respect to the Sacrament and the perfection of it it is more convenient that the Communion should be made under both kinds for this is more consonant to the Institution and integrity of it to corporal Refection to the Example of Christ and the Primitive Church And again He freely confesseth that the Laity communicating under one kind only receive not a full Sacrament which consists of two Parts This Sacrament saith (s) In 1 ad Cor.

of our Redemption which therefore we make known to your Holiness that such Men may be known to you by these Tokens and that by the Sacerdotal Authority they may be expelled from the Communion of Saints whose Sacrilegious Simulation is thus found out for blessed Paul hath well admonished the Church of God of such Men saying We beseech you Brethren that you mark them who cause Divisions and Offences contrary to the Doctrine which you have received and avoid them Where evident it is that the Practice of the Manichees in Receiving of the Body of the Lord in the Christian Mysteries that so they might dissemble their Infidelity is called Simulation and their declining to drink the Blood of our Redemption is that which made this Simulation to be Sacrilegious 2dly Here it is also evident that in St. Leo's days to eat the Body of our Lord or to receive it and to drink his Blood were look'd upon as two distinct things one of which might be done without the other the Body being taken when the Blood of our Redemption was not which wholly overthrows the Doctrine of Concomitance on which this Sacrilege is founded 3ly Observe that Leo would have such persons expelled from the Communion of Saints for this Sacrilegious Simulation That 4ly He makes the declining of the Cup at any time a mark sufficient to discern these Sacrilegious Persons and a cause sufficient for their Exclusion from the Communion of Saints whereas had others at any time been permitted in the Church-Assemblies to Communicate in Bread alone for any other Reason this mark had been no certain indication of a Manichee to Priest or People since being caught they might pretend that they had formerly received the Cup but now abstained for some special cause approved by the Church The Faithful therefore must have then generally Communicated at all times or else the Manichee could not be certainly discovered by one Dry Communion Moreover Pope Gelasius did by a Law condemn this half Communion as a great Sacrilege (b) Non esse sumendum Corpus Domini sine Calice Gelasius Majorico Johanni Episcopis apud Ivon decret part 2. cap. 8 9. Comperimus quod quidam in eadem Regione sumpta tantum Corporis Sacri portione a Calice Sacri cruoris abstineant qui proculdubio quoniam nescio quâ superstitione docentur obstringi aut integra Sacramenta accipiant aut ab integris arceantur quia divisio unius ejusdem Mysteril sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire We have found saith he that some in the same Country having taken only a portion of the Holy Body abstain from the Cup of the Holy Blood who because I know not by what Superstition they are said to be bound ought without doubt to receive the entire Mysteries or to be driven from both for the division of one and the self same Mystery cannot happen without great Sacrilege Where note 1. That this Law respecteth not Priests only for as (c) Ad A. D. 496. Sect. 20. Baronius observes This is no mention in the Law of the Priest Sacrificing or of any other of that Order whence saith he it is evident that what is generally spoken here ought not to be restrained to them Moreover Cassander doth assure us That in his Old Manuscript this was the Title of this Decree That (d) Quod nulli liceat absque sanguinis participatione solius carnis Communionem percipere P. 19. p. 1106. it was not lawful for any one N. B. to Receive the Communion of the Flesh without partaking of the Blood. In Ivo the Title of it runs thus That the Body of our Lords is not to be taken without the Cup. (e) Excommunicari illos praecipit quicunque sumpto corpore dominico a calicis participatione se abstinerent Nam ut ipse in eodem decreto asserit hujusmodi Sacramentorum divisio sine grandi Sacrilegio provenire non poterit Microl. Cap. 19. Micrologus saith That P. Gelasius commanded that they should be Excommunicated quicunque whosoever they were that having taken the Body of our Lord abstained from the Cup. (f) Prop. 23. p. 579. Radulphus de Rivo transcribes the very words of Micrologus and both of them give the same reason of this precept viz. For as he in the same Decree asserts such a division of the Sacraments cannot come to pass without great Sacrilege Now from these Testimonies it is evident 1. That from the Tenth to the Fourteenth Century it was esteemed an unlawful and Sacrilegious thing for any that were capable of both to receive the Bread without partaking of the Cup. Yea Sacrilege is by them declared to be inseparable from such a divisio of this Mystery It therefore must according to the judgment of Pope Gelasius and of the following Ages who approved of his Decree be inseparable from the constant practice of the Church of Rome since te times of the Council of Constance 2. Whereas the R. Doctors say this Decree was made against the Manichees who held Wine in abomination and therefore did refuse the Cup and so concerns them only who refuse upon a like account to drink of it It is observable that neither Gelasius himself nor any who have since that time took notice of this Law have told us that it was peculiarly made against the Manichees who abstained from drinking of the Cup for the formantioned reason but they without Exception declare that by this Law it was not lawful for any one to receive the Flesh without the Cup and that whosoever did so was by virtue of it to be Excommunicated And hence (g) L. 2. c. 8. Algerus in the Twelfth Century cites this Decree to prove that the Bread is separately to be consecrated into the Flesh and the Wine into the Blood of Christ and that both are to be received by the Faithful And they had reason to speak thus generally of it for that this Law of P. Gelasius was not directed against the Manichean Heresie may be made evident from numerous considerations For 1. had this Pope made this Law against the Manichees there can be no reason imagined why he as well as Leo should not mention them 2ly That Expression in the body of this Law that he knew not by what Superstition they were bound up cannot filty be applied to the Manichees for it was doubtless a matter well known to Gelasius why the Manichees refused the Cup and not unto Gelasius only but to all the People For Leo who preceded him had taken care that not only (h) Omnia quae tam in Scripturis quam in occultis traditionibus suis habent profana vel turpia ut nosset populus quid refugeret aut vitaret oculis Christianae plebis certa manifestatione probavimus Decret Leonis P. c. 6. Collect. à Dionysio exiguo apud Justel p. 224. All the profane and filthy things which were in their Writings but also that the things contained in their