Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	death_n	sin_n	wage_n	2,391	5	11.9240	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A08891	The fal of Babel By the confusion of tongues directly proving against the Papists of this, and former ages; that a view of their writings, and bookes being taken; cannot be discerned by any man living, what they would say, or how be vnderstoode, in the question of the sacrifice of the masse, the reall presence or transubstantiation, but in explaning their mindes they fall vpon such termes, as the Protestants vse and allow. Further in the question of the Popes supremacy is shevved, how they abuse an authority of the auncient father St. Cyprian, a canon of the I Niceene counsell, and the ecclesiastical historie of Socrates, and Sozomen. And lastly is set downe a briefe of the sucession of Popes in the sea of Rome for these 1600 yeeres togither; ... By Iohn Panke.	Panke, John.	1608 (1608)	STC 19171; ESTC S102341	167,339	204

matter of faith as other men do if in examination it happen to be an error yet shal it be none in the Pope but must be one in al men else For trial of this let any man read the 1. 2. chapt de sanct beat where he proueth it an error vpon whom soeuer shall thinke that the soules of the blessed doe not see God vntill the last day Bellar. de Sanctor beatit l. 1 c. 1. 2 This error is put vpon Iohn 22. Bellarmine confesseth as much Ioannem hunc reverâ sensisse animas non visuras Deum nisi post resurrectionem That Iohn 22. did verily beleeue Bell. de Rom. pont l. 4. c. 14. fol 549. c. 12. fol. 531. he saueth Pope Nicholas by the like that the soules see not God vntil the last day But this he thought saith he when he might so thinke without danger of heresie nulla enim adhuc praecesserat Ecclesiae definitio for there had no determinatiō of the church gone before Why The determinatiō of himselfe is the determination of the church aswel as you said before his telling of a thing to himselfe was the telling of it to the church And why excuseth he the Pope by the not determination of the Church When hee telleth vs himselfe De conc auth l. 2. c. 2 5. That neither generall counsels nor particular which otherwise are subiect to erre can erre if the Pope confirme them And yet see the man be telleth vs De Rom. pont l. 4. c. 14 f. 551 that Iohn need not to reuoke the error cum in errorem nullum incidisset for he fel into no error If hee fel into no error neither did they fal into any error on whō Bellarmine laieth the same error nor must he cal it an error to say The soules of the righteous see not God vntil the last day seeing he himselfe saith that Iohn so held and yet held no error Frō absurd and grosse cōclusions they fal to flat blasphemies Rom. 6.23 Rhem annot on that Text. Blasphemies Contradictiōs The reward of sin is death but everlasting life is the gift of God saith S. Paul the Rhemists say in their annotations that The sequele of the speech required that as he said deathor damnation is the stipend of sin so life everlasting is the stipend of iustice so it is What indignity is this to the holy Ghost to crosse him so manifestly S. Paule maketh opposition betweene eternal life eternal death touching the cause of either The proper working cause of death is sin so saith the Apostie The reward wages or stipend of sin is death but everlasting life is what the stipende of good workes as the Rhemists say no but the free gift of God The Apostle might as easilie haue said so as they if it had bin so Annot 2. Cor. 5. vers 10. Wil Reinolds cont Whi●…k fol. 105● Why did S. Paule invert and turne the sentence if as the one had deserued hel so the other had deserued heaven but only to exclude what the Rhemists bring in They iterate this in an other place where they say Heaven is as well the reward of good works as hell is the stipend of ill workes This is also seconded by one from Rhemes who saith that the Apostle Saint Paule laieth in indifferent ballance good works and euil maketh the one the cause of heauen as the other is the cause of hel But if it be so that good works be the cause purchase merit of eternall life as these men tell vs as trulie as euill works are the purchase and merit of hel what saie they to their owne note Rhem. Annot. Rom c 9. v. 11. 16. vpon another text where they tel vs that by the example of the two two twinns Iacoh Esaw it is euident that nether nations nor particular persons bee elected eternallie or called temporallie or preferred to Gods fauour before other by their owne merits but of thē two vvhere iustlie hee might haue reprobated both hee saued of mercie one What is this as S Paul said before eternal life is the gift of God excluding merits Yet they stand not alwaie to this last For they saie againe Man hath free will to make himselfe a vessell of saluation or damnation Rhem. Annot 2. Tim. 2. v. 21. though saluation be attributed to gods mercy principally the other to his iust iudgment H●w hath man free wil to make himselfe a vessel of saluation or damnation whē saluation is principallie of Gods mercie and the other of his iudgment Whie explaine they not that darke speech that wee maie vnderstand it Interpres eget interprete They neede more Interpreters then the text They told vs before that Gods meere mercie is seene in the elect and iustice in the reprobat And that they that are saued Annot. Rhem. Rom 9. v. 6.11 14. 16. must hold of gods eternal purpose mercy and election And this election and mercy dependeth on his owne purpose will determination that all are worthie of damnation before they bee first called to mercie Make good this doctrine which they haue last set downe and agreed vpon the former will proue blasphemous and deregatorie to the m●iestie of God That good workes are the cause of beauen as evill are the cause of hell Or that man hath free will to make himself a vessell of saluation or damnation I doubt not if the Rhemists be followed but that a man might take vp moe contradictions then those before which they haue heaped amongst their notes in that testament 2. Tim 2.25 God giueth repentance Where S. Paul writing to Tymothy willeth him to instruct with meeknesse those that resist or vvithstand the truth prouing if at anie time God will giue them repentance that they maie acknowledge the truth they note That conversion from sin and heresie is the gift of god and of his special grace Annot. vppon that place in the margent pag. 589. I might aske them first how this agreeth with their owne note one the other side of their owne leafe so oft mentioned before Man hath free wil to make him selfe a vessel of saluation or damnation But I wil leaue that now and demand of them howe it agreeth with this The grace of god woorketh not in man against his will nor forceth anie thing without his acceptation and consent Annot. 2. cor 6. v. 1. Annot. Ioh. 6. v. 44. Annot Luc. 14. v. 23. Conuersion from sin heresie is the gift of God For whosoeuer are lead by the spirit of God Rhem. Rom. 8. v 14. in marg Hee meaneth not that the children of god be violently compelled against their wills but that they bee sweetly d●awn moued or induced to doe good ex Aug. Ench c. 64. de verbis domin Serm. 43. c 7 deverb Apost ser 13. c. 11 1● Acts ● and therfore it lieth in a mans will to

as the nature of the word soundeth or said it was the thinge it selfe not a figure sampler similitude since Gregorie Nazianzene as D. Tonstall quoteth him vnto vs In sanctū pase l. 2. fol 66. Figura figurae speaking of things done in the old law The arke or the Pascall Lamb saith Pascha legale audenter dic● figurae figura erat obscurior the Easter Lamb in the law I speak boldly was an obscure figure of a figure that is a figure of the Eucharist So that touching any substance of matter the Eucharist is noe more the body then the sacrifices sacramēts in the law all both theirs ours being referred to Christ on the Crosse To proceed to the obiection made our of Saint Paule Heb. 9.16.25 That the host which is sacrificed by offering must of necessity be reall offered and slaine Canus ibid. ob fol. 404. ex Cal ui Instit l. 4. c. 18. par 5. f. 475 if then in euerie of their Masses Christ be offered in sacrifice in euerie of their Masses he is also slaine therfore ether S. Paules argument is frustrat where he saith Otherwise he ought to suffer oftē from the beginning of the world or if Christ be offered in sacrifice he dieth verily and indeed but they al confesse they offer Christs liuing body impassible Can us ibid. fo 421. hee doth well to set the obiection and answere so far a sunder At corpus viuū spirans non offerimus idē enim in Eucharistia est at que in coelo so at the most they find an oblation they cannot finde a sacrifice To this obiection he seoffingly saith that wee haue found out wherwith to maintaine our counterfeit opinion but hee cannot finde how to ouerthrow so weake an argumer We wil grant saith hee to those that argue against vs that to the perfect offering of the eye ature there must be the death and end of it if it bee truly sacrificed But we offer not a liuely ond breathing bodie such a bodie is in the Euch●rist in heauen yet although the body of Christ in the Eucharist be a liuing body the blood bee in the body yet wee doe uether offer the body because it is aliue or the blood because it is in the body but the body in regard it is slaine the blood because it was shed on the Crosse Thus by this answer of his wher before the distinctiō stood with them of offering the same body which was offered on the crosse and that that body was in the Eucharist but after an other manner then on the Crosse vnbloodily or in a mystery now he confesseth they offer not a liuing body but because it is slaine then there must needs followe death nor the blood as it is in the body but because it was shed on the crosse whie then are they afraid to call their sacrifice bloody but vnbloody if the host be slaine and this argumēt of Canus haue the Rhemists borowed as they did the former for in their first conflict about this sacrament they professe That they consecrate the seuerall elements Rhem. 26. mat v. 26. shew the sence or meāing of this note in anie writer ancient take the whole Dicth in a sacrament i● presēt indeed not into Christs whole person as it was borne of the Virgin or is now in heauen but the br●ad into his body a part as betrayed broken and giuē for vs the wine into his blood apart as shed out of his body for remission of sinnes in which mysticall and vnspeakable manner he would haue the Church to offer and sacrifice him daily he in mistery sacrament dieth though now not only in heauen but also in the sacrament he bee indeed by sequel of al his parts to each other whole aliue immortall Thus monstrously doe they teach now they thinke they haue gotten a sacrifice into their hands But how they offer without blood or with blood whether aliue or dead whether ther same that Christ did either at his supper or on the Crosse that they cannot tel nor with any wordes explaine Their descriptions in these are like that of Syrus in the Poet when he sent one brother to finde an other Teren in Adel. act 4. Scen. 2. Perplexa descriptio but by the derection taken he neuer knewe where to finde him Pr●terito hāc rectâ plateâ sursum vbs eo veneris cliuus de●rsum vorsum est Passe right through this street to the ouer part when you come there there is a steepe place towards the lower ende therof run downe this way after that there i● on this hand a Chappell and there fast by in a narrow corner A speech ful of perplexitie That they should violate or alter the holy ordinance of God touching Christs sacrifice which was as they say themselues violent The sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse The sacrifice of their Masse painfull bloody into a sacrifice reall true yea and propitiatory which shall bee neither violent painful nor bloody and yet sacrifice his body as betraied broken giuen for vs the blood as shed out of his body that very blood which was in the vaines of his body and yet for him to die in a mystery in a sacrament all to bee done vnbloodily so change the nature substance of that sacrifice which was the purchase redēption of the whol world as it is blasphemous for them to teach so haue they brought such phrases and wordes as none can vnderstand vpheld by none but themselues God neuer intended that his sonne should offer himselfe anie more but once and that was with shedding of blood death so must hee be offered or not at all offered Re●d 7. 8. 9. 10 cap. to the Hebrewes if we wil speake of a reall offering and areal sacrifice a reall presence and a reall offering a real death cānot be seuered If the anciēt Church of God had deliuered their doctrine opinions Aug. Epist 23. fere finè Christ is nowe offered not in substance but in asacrament or representatiō of his death D. Allen is out with his owne Catholikes be cause they cānot bring this place of Aug handsomly to Ierue their turne de sac Euch. l. 2. ca. 11 in such confused tearmes as these men doe wee had bin as much to seeke what had bin their mindes in this case as wee are of these men nowe But they were expedite cleare as by their discourses appeareth Nonne semelimmolatus est Christus in scipso Was not Christ saith S. Augustine once offered in himselfe And yet in a sacrament hee is offered for the benefite of the people not every Easter only but euery day Nether doth hee lie when the question is asked answereth Christ is offered daily vnto the people For if sacramēts had not a certaine similitude of the things wherof they be sacraments they should bee noe sacraments at al

of bread as also the natural property of nourishing feeding the body which is proper to bread Is it called bread because it hath the shew of bread by what figure Hath it the naturall properties of bread yet is it not bread say againe say truly it is called bread therfore it is bread It hath the naturall properties of bread feeding nourishing as also the accidents sauor waight tast colour and al and therfore it hath the name is indeed very bread They are so farre remoued from the center of trueth in these points that rather then they wil leaue their wils shut vp the streame of their owne affections they will leaue all hope of a sound beleefe What eateth the mouse if she or he I know not whether chance to catch of the cōsecrated host Lumb l. 4. dis● 13. a fine Aske the schoolman it becommeth their grauities to treate such questions It cannot bee said saith Lumbard that the body of Christ is eaten of bruite beastes although it seemeth so to bee when the mouse eateth then what eateth hee Deus nouit God knoweth that and hee that saith otherwise God knoweth that is adiudged an hereticke How then escapeth the Angelicall Doctor Quidam autem dixerunt 3. p. 80. q. art 3 ad 3. Some haue saide faith hee that as astone as the sacrament is touched by a Mouse or a Dogge the body of Christ ceaseth to be there But this derogateth from the truth of this sacrament neither must we say that a bruit beast doth eat the body of Christ sacramentally but it must bee saide that the Mouse eateth by chance Ibid. fol. 24. 2. as a man that shoulde eate the consecrated host vnknowne vnto him Now Gardiner saith contrary that no creature can eate the body and bloud of Christ but only man I let passe the rest of Aquinas prodigious base discourses touching some other cautels belonging to this sacramēt Ib. q. 83. art 6 ad 3. as if a spider should fall into the consecrated wine or poison should therewith be mingled which although with warrant good enough I might lay thē before you Tuberius because I am by al honest direct courses to warne you to beware you drinke not at that fountaine The maine scope of this treatise discourse whose fairest Streames are so filthy and loth some yet I will omit him now returne to some hand somer discourse and shew you that as they are found to faulter touching the particular drift of every word in the institution of the Lordes supper as the blessing breaking This is my body so if those were granted vnto them to bee as they would lay thē downe themselues that we should agree and say with them that the reall and substantiall body of Christ is present in the Eucharist yet can they not tel you neither the manner of the presence Art 5. cont Iuell fol. 127. b. Christ gaue his diciples the same body which suffered on the crosse the same body is there corporally carnally and naturally but not after a corporal carnall or natural wise but in visibly spiritually diuinly by way to him onlie knowen The maner of his presence is not locall or natural but such as God only knoweth Art 6. fol. 136. Corporally yet spiritually Carnally yet diuinely Naturally and yet supernaturally and by al these waies yet by none of these God only knoweth the way nor according to what body that presence is as whether according to that wherein hee lived heere in earth or whether as it is now qualisfied and glorious in heaven Whether with parts or without parts neither are they agreed how hee is eaten D. Harding saith it is cleare by many places of holy scripture that Christ at his last supper gaue to his disciples his very body even the same which the day following suffered death on the crosse which haue ministred iust cause to the godly learned fathers of the Church to say that Christs body is present in the sacrament really substantially corporally carnally and naturally by vse of which adverbes they haue ment only a truth of being so that we may say that in the sacrament his very body is present really that is to say indeed substantially that is in substance and corporally carnally naturally by which words is meant that his very body his very flesh and his very humane nature is there not after corporall carnall or naturall wise But invisibly vnspeakeably miraculously supernaturally spiritually divinely and by waie to him onlie knowne Againe Concerning the māner of the presence saith he being of that bodie bloud in the sacrament they that is the fathers we acknowledge and confesse that it is not locall circumscriptine definitiue or subiectiue or naturall but such as is knowen to God only In the next article The body of Christ saith he is made present in the blessed sacrament of the Altar vnder the forme of bread wine not after a grosse carnal maner but spiritually supernaturally yet substantially not by locall but by substantiall presence not by maner of quātitie or filling of a place or by chāging of place or by leaving his sitting on the right hand of God but in such a manner as God only knoweth and yet doth vs to vnderstand by faith the truth of his very presence far passing all mens capacities to comprehend the manner how Historia maxima nascitur do nihilo If M. Hardinge knowe not how it was in him an idle diligence to bee so copious in striuing to expresle the manner how Hath not he told vs He hath expressed our beleefe his owne two which is more then the manner how Corporally Carnally naturally saith he spiritually dininely say wee And yet he saith all confounding substantially spiritually God doth vs to vnderstand saith he by faith the truth of the presence What need faith sale I It is taken into the hād from the hād conferred to the mouth there they fasten their teeth Bellar. de sac euch l. 1. c. 2. f. 28. 29. and from thence to the stomacke The senses of sight feeling haue their offices here faith hath none nether is it hard to comprehend all this and more two Here is also one the same Christ with proportion of body members distinct each from other also without distinction of mēbers parts which ouerthroweth the truth of a naturall body and yet so they make him at one and the lame time at the table and vnder the shew of bread not by local but by substantiall presence not by maner of quantity or filling of a place and yet the same mā did saie before Art 5. fol. 130. b. Put laid Fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mēsa agnum illū dei sunt verba magni Niceni Synodi ex Cut Tonstall lib. 1. de euchar fol. 40. Bellarm. de sacra