Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	good_a	work_n	work_v	5,063	5	7.8717	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34012	Missa triumphans, or, The triumph of the mass wherein all the sophistical and wily arguments of Mr de Rodon against that thrice venerable sacrifice in his funestuous tract by him called, The funeral of the Mass, are fully, formally, and clearly answered : together with an appendix by way of answer to the translators preface / by F.P.M.O.P. Hib.	Collins, William, 17th cent.; F. P. M. O. P.	1675 (1675)	Wing C5389; ESTC R5065	231,046	593

Church so that the Mounsieur hath reason to exclaim against them also and against the whole Christian world for they abstain from such meats no more then we do and neither they nor we have any warrant for eating such prohibited meats but only the authority and statutes of the Church and upon that score we do it and will do it notwithstanding Mr. de Rodons fulminations exclamations and out-cryes Now I leave the Prudent Reader to judge whom we ought to follow whether the true doctrine of the Church Representative guided by the holy Ghost or the groundless and frivolous opinion of pitiful Rodon But that which I find utterly unsupportable in this miserable wretch is his intollerable Pride in making himself censurer of the whole Christian world by contradicting not only so many General Councils but also the most holy spirit of God who promised to assist and direct his spouse the Church alwais And again I finde it an insufferable piece of impudence in him who hath nothing to shew for the antiquity of his pretended Church to contradict and revile at the old mother Church unto whom God gave power to alter things for the better as his holy spirit should inspire her in due times as is palpably demonstrated out of the passages of holy Scripture above-mentioned Away away then with Mr. de Rodons silly exclamations against Gods Church Representative which serve for nothing but to scare crows with and not to startle or daunt any man of knowledg or belief What matter is 't then if juggling Rodon alledg S Paul in his 1. Tim. 4. against us saying that they who forbid to marry and command to abstain from meats do teach the doctrines of devils for these words cannot concern Roman Catholicks who allow not only of marriage but also own it to be a Sacrament to which is more then Mr. de Rodon or his party doth or is it because we allow not that our Priests and Religious men should marry who of their own free accord made a voluntary contract with Allmighty God never to marry that by observing a single life they may the easier and with more freedom serve him or did our Church before they made their contract with God and her ever forbid them marriage or Lastly while a man is already married is it the doctrine of the devil that he should not marry again if not wherefore should it be his doctrine to prohibite Priests and Religious Persons to marry whereas they are already contracted and married to Christ and to his Church if a contract promise or vow made to a woman doth oblige and tye a man to her sure a contract or vow made unto God must oblige him as much according to the Royall Psalmists saying in his 49th Psalm Immolate to God the sacrifice of Praise and pay thy vows to the Highest The same thing we say again concerning meats our Church ●…orbideth not the eating of any sort of meats for we ●…at of all sorts of meats Mr. de Rodon and his party eats of though not at all times because in obedience to our mother the Church we abstain from several meats on certain days being Christ commanded fasting but left the determination of the time when we are to fast to his spouse the Church as is evidently collected out of S. Mark 2. where we read that when the disciples of S. Iohn and of the Pharisee●… came to our Saviour and askt him Why his Disciples did not fast as they did our Saviour answered them thus that so long as they have the Bridgroom with them they cannot fast But the days will come when the Bridegroom shall be taken away from them and then they shall fast in those days and for this reason the Church commands no strict fast from Easter-day to Assention But wherefore doth not the good Mounsieur shew and make it out by Scripture or any way else that our fasting is against the Apostle or according with the doctrine of devils a splenative man may say of others what he li●…t but any rational or well setled brain may rather think that Mr. de Rodon and his ●…arty who never use to fast from any kinde of meats they can come at do contradict Gods commandment concerning fasting and consequently by disobeying him and his Church do at least practise if not teach the doctrine of devils What matter is it also if honest de Rodon alledgeth against us these words of the said Apostles Eph. 2. We are saved by Grace through faith and that not of our selves it is the gift of God not of works least any man should boast for we humbly believe those words and our Church never determined any thing to the contrary Therefore de Rodon doth falsly belye us when he says that we hold we are saved by works and faith as coming from our selves and from the strength of our free-will c. for we never held or do hold any such thing neither do we say that we can have faith from our selves because we hold faith is a supernatural vertue insused into us not acquired by our industry or diligence That which we say and maintain against all our adversaries is that our good works done while we are in the state of Grace are meritorious we say not that our works precisely as they are ours are of any merit but as they are supported by Gods Grace which grace we cannot have without faith and I pray did not our Saviour himself say whosoever shall give you to drink a cup of water in my name because you are Christs Amen I say to you he shall not lose his reward which sentence of his we understand thus viz. that if a man while he is in the state of Grace doth bestow or give any thing for the love of God be it never so little or doth any good work for the love of God be it never so inconsiderable that such a man shall be hereafter rewarded by God for it and being rewards are the correlatives of merits we conclude that a man for doing any good work while he is in the state of Grace doth merit yet we attribute not the merit chiefly to the work but to Grace which we hold to be the principal cause thereof And we say moreover that be any mans work never so good in it self if it be done while he is out of the state of Grace such a work is not at all meritorious to him and consequently we hold that a penny given for Gods sake by him that is in the state of Grace is more meritorious to him then if he or any body else should bestow a thousand pound also for Gods sake while they are out of it How then can this true doctrine of the Church disagree with the Apostles words or agree with de Rodons false and calumnious lye when he says that the Romish Church hath determined that we are saved by works and faith as coming from our selves and from the strength of

To this argument I answer confessing the major viz. He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the world c. and denying the minor viz. But if Jesus Christ by these words This is my body had meant the real presence c. he had spoken contrary to the common usage of all the world And to the probation of his minor viz. There was never any author either facred or prophane that made use of such words as these This is my body to signifie c. that I grant and deny the consequence viz. therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all authors as well sacred as prophane and contrary to the common usage of all men to make these words of Jesus Christ this is my body to signifie the substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body and the real presence of his body in the host immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest and not before And the reason is this because of the disparity that is betwixt Christs words and the words of all authors sacred and prophane for Christs words as uttered by him have a creative productive and effective vertue and force It was with his word he changed water into wine at the feast of Cana in Galilee It was with his wotd he cured and cleansed the Leprous man in the Gospel It is with his word he wrought all his stupendious wonders and Miracles and if Mr de Rodon believes he is God he ought to believe that it was with his word he created heaven and earth or dare the Monsieur say that when God spoke these words fiat caelum fiat terra be the heavens made be the earth made that heaven and earth were in being before God uttered his creative word or thinks he that Christ had no hand in that creation if he doth then I dare say and can assure him he has no more belief then a meer heathen But as for the words of a meer man whether he be an author sacred or prophane sure it is that they are not of a creative productive or effective vertue and force as Christs are and so it is no wonder if according to the common usage of all mens meaning their authors words do presuppose that the things whereof they treat or speak have their being before and not by vertue of their bare significative words But as it is proper to a meer mans word be he never so good an author sacred or prophane not to give a being to the thing he speaks of so it is proper to Chri●…s effective word to effect or cause what it signifies and consequently all authors I mean all Christian authors whether sacred or prophane may very well and ought according to the common usage of all faithfull and Christian people understand these words This is my body as spoken by Christ whose words are of a creative productive and effective force and power in a common usual litteral sense as when I or another man should say this is my horse this is my house meaning a real horse and a real house and not the sign or figure of a horse or of a house But if the Mounsieur will not understand words in the same sense as all other Christians do and ought to do and will give no more vertue and power to Christs creative word then Jews Turks and heathens do I see no reason why he and all those that take his part ought to be e●…med as to matters of belief better then any of these But let us suppose with the greatest part of all Christians that ever were and now are that Christ can Transubstantiate bread into his body that it implyes no contradiction and that at the institution of this Sacrament he intended really so to do I ask Mr. de Rodon how Christ could have exprest his real meaning unto us with clearer words and more to the common usage of all Authors and men then by saying This is my body When a man sayes this is my hand this is my cloke doth he speak contrary to the common usage of all authors a●…d men or do they understand by his words the figure or signe of his hand and cloke only when he intends they are his reall hand and cloke Even so supposing Christ can Transubstantiate bread into his body really and that when he instituted the Sacrament he meant really so to do would it be contrary to the common usage of all Authors and men to und●…rstand his words in a literal sense or how can a conception be more clearly exprest then by the termes and words which were instituted for its proper and immediate signification Dialecticks and Philosophers instead of carrying the things they treate of to School with them do carry only conceptions and words thither and the words serve only to express their conceptions and the properer the word is the better it e●…presseth the concept But in this passage This is my body the words are instituted to signifie properly and immediately a●…reall corporal thing and not its signe or figure Therefore according to the Rules of Dialectick a reall body cannot be plainlyer exprest then by saying This is my body Doubtless those that said how can this man give us his flesh to eat understood him literally as we do and if our saviour himself had meant it otherwise could he not easily have answered and satisfied them by saying you are mistaken sirs you understand me not right I mean not that it is my reall substantial body but only the representation or Sacrament of it His answer was not so but this Amen I say unto you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud ye shall not have life in you Here also he calls it his flesh and bloud therefore he understood it litterally as we do not figuratively only as M. R. doth To this I add that a figurative expression is obscurer then a litteral one why then did not Christ to avoid obscurity foreknowing that in future times should be gr●…at alterations and hot debates in his Church concerning Transubstantiation wherefore I say did he not say this is only the figure and sacrament of my body in●…tead of saying absolutely This is my body for by saying so he would take away all ambiguity concerning Transubstantiation and his Church would be in perfect union concerning this grand Mystery As to Mr. de Rodons first Instance concerning these words of God the father This is my beloved son I confess Christ was his son before he spok them words But these words were spoken by God the father to let the world know that Christ was his true natural son he intended not then to create him his son or to transubstantiate any creature into his sons substance But if God the father had taken bread in his hand and said this is my son no sacred or prophane author considering his omnipotency ought to doubt but that that bread was his real son because of

Consecration ought to be understood according to their immediate sense p. 17. The B. Sacrament is the New Testament in Christs Blood not only of his Blood p. 22. These words This is my Body signifie a substantial being and not a Sacramental only p. 23. The Protestant Communion exhibits not Christs Body Blood to the Believers p. 27. The Sacramental Species receive●… worthily makes the receiver a Mystical Member of Christ. p. 30. Faith alone insufficient for this Sacrament Ib. Faith is no mouth literally or metapho●…ically p. 31. Christs glorified Body never damnified by the receiver of the B. Sacramen●… p. 32. To verifie a proposition it sufficeth the thing be as the proposition says it is p. 35. I●… is the Sacrament that is the chief and whole cause of our spiritual refreshment and the thing which the Soul principally hungers and thirsts after Faith is only a con●…ition requisite so is Hope and Charity also for to receive worthily p. 38. Christs Body worthily received works spiritually upon the Soul p. 40. These words of St. Aug. To eat the ●…lesh of Christ is a Figure c. which De Rodon alledges against us expounded p. 43. Cardinal Cajetans Authority alledged against us expounded p. 45. The action whereby we obtain remission of sins an●… sanctification ending in glo●…ification consists not in the spiritual eating or drinking by Faith only p. 5●… In these words My Flesh is mea●… indeed no Figure falls upon the word Meat p. 55. Christs Flesh is a corporal food that nourishes spiritually only p. 57. Objects of Divine Faith not to he levelled by our reason and sense p. 59. Christ come●… into the Sacrament by an adductive power p. 66. He is not produced there entitatively but modally only p. Ibid. Certain passages of Scripture alledged a●…ainst us by De Rodon viz. That there is ●…reaking givin●… ea●…ing and drinking after Consecra●…ion answered p. 68. When Christ said Drink ye all this Mat. 26. he meant his Blood p. 71. Why the e●…ects of the Sacramental Species ●…emain after Transubstantiation p. 73. Transubstantiation is a total substantial conversion and not a formal substantial conversion only p. 75. The Sac●…amental Species are something Sub●…ect li●…e p. 77. Transubstantiation destroys not the nature of Acci●…ents p. 79. Transubstantiation destroys not the Nature o●… Sac●…aments p. 84. Corporal nourishment in the Sacramental S●…ecies n●…t requisite p. 85. The Sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be adored with a Latria p. 88. If our adversaries give not a Latriacal adoration to their Communion Bread it may be lawfully given to Dogs p. 89. If they adore their Communion they are greater Idolaters than we p. 91. Christ gave power to Priests to Consecrate p. 97. Christs Body is in the Sacrament immediately by reason of its substance p. 99. It s quantity is also there though not with its quantitative dimensions p. 100. The definition of a proper place and how many manner of ways both Christian Divines and Philosophers hold a thing may be in a place p. 103. A glorious Body may be in its equivocal place p. 109. The Iacobins and the Jesuits opinion concerning Christs Body to be brought or produced in the Sacrament saved p. 112. Christs Body is in all things subject to his Soul as his Soul is subject to his Divinity p. 117. Why the local extension of Christs Body in the Sacrament is hindred p. 119. De Rodons Argument of to move and not to move at the same time c. answered p. 121. Wherein a formal contradiction consists p. 123 De Rodons ridiculous quibbles and Unphilosophical illations answered p. 129. Distance is only betwixt corporal things whilst they are in their univocal places p. 130 A Sacramental place is properly no place at all p. 133. De Rodons Dropsical Argument of a drop of water that drowned many thousands c. mouldred p. 136. Division is only between corporal things in their proper places p. 138. God and Nature are not obliged to do what they can do p. 140. De Rodon shoots at Christ through Diana's side p. 143. Christ is seen in the Sacrament by the Spiritual Eye of our understanding supported by the light of Faith p. 146. It is not convenient we should see Christ visibly with our Corporal Eyes in the Blessed Sacrament p. 148. Substances possess no place p. 151. Christs Body in the Sacrament whether taken substantially or quantitatively has no posture or scituation in it p. 154. His Body appears not more or less for dividing or sub-dividing the Host p. 156. Christ is as glorious and happy in the Host as he is in Heaven p. 161. What these terms Reduplicatively and specificatively what sensus compositus and divisus mean p. Ibid. As Christ comes into the Host without local 〈◊〉 so he leaves it without local ●…e 〈◊〉 p. 165. De Rodon gives the Apostle the lie p. 167. Christ Diana and the Apostle saved from De Rodons keen Arrow p. 168. De Rodon jumps with the Iews against Christ p. 170. His Thunderbolt or Coelestial Arrow shivered p. 172. According to De Rodons Principles there ought to be no Sacrament of our Lords Supper at all p. 174. Cl●…ud de Xaintes defended against De Rodon p. Ibid. Exorcismes p. 176. De Rodons miraculous Arrow put by p. 179. Christ really in Heaven and really in the Blessed Sacrament at the same time p. 182. He is not in the Sacrament impanated p. Ibid. He gave himself to Iudas also p. 18●… Bellormine and Peron defende●… p. 186. The Sacraments of the old Testament had a relation to those of the new p. 187. The Mo●…sieurs Scripturistical Arrows shat●…ered p. 190. The marks of the Roman Church p. 193. The Seven Sacraments expounded p. 195. Why we keep the Eucharist in our Pixes and 〈◊〉 p. 197. Monsieur and his Party the false Prophets the Evangelist spoke of p. Illid God many manner of ways in his Creatures p. 202. External Adoration due to Christ where he is known to be personally present p. 203. Hereticks uncivil both to God and Man p. 206. According to De Rodons Principles we may adore the Devil instead of Christ p. 209. VVhy External adoration is due to Christ in the Sacrament more than in the VVater of Baptism p. 210. Heaven and Hell destroyed by the Monsieurs Principles p. 211. The Monsieurs third Foundation built upon Quick-sands p. 215. De Rodons very considerable Argument pernicious to all mankind p. 218. Destructive to Go●…s Providence p. 222. A moral certitude of being Christned sufficient p. 223. Pope Adrian defended against De Rodon p. 226. Apostate Priests and Monks in credit and spiritual jurisdiction with De Rodon and his Party p. 228. The P●…imitive Church adored the Host p. 233. Proved by the Testimonies of sundry Holy Fathers p. Ibid. Our Diana or Mass holds it out from all Ages maugre De Rodon and all Hereticks p. 237. Diana vindicated against Idolatry p. 238. The Church makes no new Articles of