Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	dead_a	die_v	live_v	11,283	5	6.6056	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34613	The history of popish transubstantiation to which is premised and opposed the catholic doctrin of Holy Scripture, the antient fathers and the reformed churches about the sacred elements, and presence of Christ in the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist / written in Latine by 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.	Cosin, John, 1594-1672.; Beaulieu, Luke, 1644 or 5-1723.; Durel, John, 1625-1683.	1679 (1679)	Wing C6359A; ESTC R24782	82,162	188

of theirs remains save some Citations in Lanfrank But it were to be wisht that we had now the entire Works of Berengarius who was a learned man and a constant follower of Antiquity for out of them we might know with more certainty how things went then we can out of what his profest enemies have said Concil Rom sub Hild. Papa A. 1079. 12. This Sacramental debate ceased a while because of the tumults of War raised in Apulia and elsewhere by Pope Nicholas the Second but it began again as soon as Hildebrand called Gregory the Seventh came to the Papal Chair For Berengarius was cited again to a new Council at Rome where some being of one opinion and some of another as it is in the g Excus cum Lanfran libro apud Binium Acts of that Council writ by those of the Popes Faction his cause could not be so intirely oppressed but that some Bishops were still found to uphold it Nay the Ring-leader himself Hildebrand is said to have doubted h Engilb Archiep. Trevir apud Goldast Imp. Tom. 1. Whether what we receive at the Lords Table be indeed the Body of Christ by a substantial conversion But i Bertold Const chron An. 1079. three months space having been granted to Berengarius and a Fast appointed to the Cardinals k Benno Card. in vita Hild. that God would shew by some sign from heaven which yet he did not who was in the right the Pope or Berengarius concerning the Body of the Lord a last the business was decided without any Oracle from above and a new form of retracttion imposed on l Habetur ista formula apud Tho. Wald ens Tom. ● c. 42. in Regest Greg 7. Berengarius whereby he was henceforth forward to confess under pain of the Popes high displeasure that the Mystick Bread first made m Brix Syn. Episc apud Abb. Usperg in Chron. ad An 1080. Magical and enchanting by Hildebrand is substantially turned into n Addit formula praescripta in proprietate naturae the true and proper Flesh of Christ which whether he ever did is not certain For though o De Gest Angl. l. 3. c. 58. Et post eum ab aliis Vide Bell. Chronol An. 1079. Malmesbury tells us that he died in that Roman Faith yet p Pegm Comment 31. ad 2. part direct inquisit there are ancienter than he who q Bertol. Const qui tempore Brengar vixit ad An. 1083. say that he was never converted from his first opinion And some relate that after this last condemnation having given over his Studies and given to the poor all he had he wrought with his own hands for his r Vincent in Spec. l. 26. c. 40. Baron ad An. 1088. §. 15 c. living Other things related of him by some slaves of the Roman See deserve no credit These things hapned as we have said in the year 1079. and soon after Berengarius died 13. Berengarius being dead the Orthodox and ancient Doctrine of the Lords Supper which he maintained did not die with him as the ſ Chron. Cassin l. 3. c. 33. St. Bern. An. 1120. Chronicus Cassinensis would have it For it was still constantly retained by St. Bernard Abbot of Clairvaux who lived about the beginning of the twelfth Century Serm. de Coena Dom. Joh. 6.56 63. In his discourse on the Lords Supper he joyns together the outward form of the Sacrament and the spiritual efficacy of it as the shell and the kernel the sacred Sign and the thing signified the one he takes out of the words of the Institution and the other out of Christs Sermon in the sixth of St. John And in the same place explaining that Sacraments are not things absolute in themselves without any relation but Mysteries wherein by the gift of a visible sign an invisible and divine grace with the Body and Bloud of Christ is given he saith That the visible Sign is as a Ring which is given not for it self or absolutely but to invest and give possession of an Estate made over to one Many things saith he are done for their own sake and many in reference to something else and then they are called Signs A Ring is given absolutely as a gift and then it hath no other meaning it is also given to make good an Investiture or Contract and then it is a Sign So that he that receives it may say The Ring is not worth much it is what it signifies the Inheritance I value In this manner when the Passion of our Lord drew nigh he took care that his Disciples might be invested with his grace that his invisible grace might be assured and given to them by a visible sign To this end all Sacraments are instituted and to this the participation of the Eucharist is appointed Now as no man can fancy that the Ring is substantially changed into the Inheritance whether Lands or Houses none also can say with truth or without absurdity that the Bread and Wine are substantially changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ But in his Sermon on the Purification which none doubts to be his Serm. de Purif B. Mariae he speaks yet more plain The Body of Christ in the Sacrament is the food of the soul not of the belly therefore we eat him not corporally but in the manner that Christ is meat in the same manner we understand that he is eaten Also in his Sermon on St. Martin Serm. de S. Mart. which undoubtedly is his also To this day saith he the same flesh is given to us but spiritually therefore not corporally For the truth of things spiritually present is certain also As to what he saith in another place that the Priest holds God in his hands it is a flourish of Oratory as is that of St. Chrysostom Lib. 3. de Sacerd. In comes the Priest carrying the Holy Ghost 14. About the same time Rupertus Rupert Abb. An. 1125. 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 a In Exod. l. 2 c. 10. 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 b Ex quâ Consequabatur Panem esse Corpus Christi sed Corpus non humanum neque carneum sed Panaceum 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

THE HISTORY OF POPISH Transubstantiation To which is Premised and opposed The CATHOLIC DOCTRIN OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE The Antient Fathers and the Reformed Churches About the Sacred Elements and Presence of CHRIST in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist Written 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 The Second Edition London Printed for Henry Brome at the Gun at the West end of St. Pauls 1679. Effigies D. Joannis Cosin Episcop● Dunelmensis c To the Right Honourable HENEAGE Lord FINCH Baron of Daventry Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England My Lord THe Excellency of this Book answers the greatness of its Author and perhaps the badness of the Version is also proportioned to the meanness of the Translator But the English being for those that could not understand the Original that they also might be instructed by so instructive a Discourse I hope with them my good intent will excuse my fault only my fear is I shall want a good Plea wherewith to sue out my pardon for having intituled a person of the highest honour to so poor a labour as is this of mine My Lord these were the inducements which set me upon this attempt it being the subject of the Book to clear and assert an important truth which is as a Criterion whereby to know the Sons of the Church of England from her Adversaries on both hands those that adore and those that profane the blessed Sacrament these that destroy the visible Sign and those that deny the invisible Grace I thought I might justly offer it to so pious and so great a Son of this Church who own'd her in her most calamitous condition and defends her in her happy and most envied restauration I was also perswaded that the Translation bearing your illustrious name would be thereby much recommended to many and so become the more generally useful And I confided much in your goodness and affability who being by birth and merits raised to a high eminency yet doth willingly condescend to things and persons of low estate My Lord I have only this one thing more to alledge for my self That besides the attestation of publick fame which I hear of a long time speaking loud for you I have these many years lived in a Family where your Vertues being particularly known are particularly admired and honoured so that I could not but have an extraordinary respect and veneration for your Lordship and be glad to have any occasion to express it If these cannot clear me I must remain guilty of having taken this opportunity of declaring my self Your Lorships Most humble and most obedient Servant Luke de Beaulieu THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER IT is now nineteen years since this Historical Treatise was made by the Right Reverend Father in God John Cosin when in the time of the late accursed Rebellion he was an Exile in Paris for his Loyalty and Religion's sake for being then commanded to remain in that City by his gracious Majesty that now is who was departing into Germany by reason of a League newly made by the French King with our wicked Rebels he was also ordered by him as he had been before by his blessed Father Charles the First a Prince never enough to be commended to perform Divine Offices in the Royal Chappel and to endeavour to keep and confirm in the Protestant Religion professed by the Church of Englang his fellow-Exiles both of the Royal Family and others his Country-men who then lived in that place Now the occasion of his writing this Piece was this When his Gracious Majesty had chosen Colen for the place of his residence being solemnly invited he visited a neighbouring Potent Prince of the Empire of the Roman Perswasion where it fell out as it doth usually where Persons of different Religions do meet some Jesuits began to discourse of Controversies with those Noblemen and Worthies who never forsook their Prince in his greatest straights but were his constant Attendants and Imitators of his ever constant Profession of the Reformed Religion charging the Church of England with Heresie especially in what concerns the Blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper They would have it that our Church holds no real but only a kind of imaginary presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ but that the Church of Rome retained still the very same faith concerning this sacred Mystery which the Catholick Church constantly maintained in all Ages to wit that the whole substance of the Bread and Wine is changed into the substance of the Body and Bloud of Christ and right-well called Transubstantiation by the Council of Trent This and much more to the same purpose was pronounced by the Jesuits in presence of His Majesty and the German Prince with as much positiveness and confidence as if it had been a clear and self-evident truth owned by all the Learned His Sacred Majesty and his Noble Attendants knew well enough that the Jesuits did shamelesly belie the Church of England and that their brags about Roman Transubstantiation were equally false and vain But the German Prince having recommended to the perusal of those Honourable Persons that followed the King a Manuscript wherein as he said was proved by Authentick Authors all that had been advanced by the Jesuits They thought it fit to acquaint the Reverend Dr. Cosin with the whole business and intreat him that he would vindicate the Church of England from the Calumny and plainly declare what is her avowed Doctrine and belief about the true and real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament Hereupon our worthy Doctor who was ever ready and zealous to do good especially when it might benefit the Church of God fell presently to work and writ this excellent Treatise as an Answer to the Prince's Manuscript that if those worthy Persons pleased they might repay his Highness kindness in kind Yet notwithstanding the solicitations of those that occasioned it and of others that had perused it he would not yield to have it made publick while a few months before he died because having composed it for particular Friends he thought it sufficient that it had been useful to them But the Controversie about the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist being of late years resumed with much vigour and even now famous by the learned and eloquent Disputes of Monsieur Claude Minister of the Reformed Church in Paris and Monsieur Arnold Doctor of Sorbon and others who moved by their example have entred the Lists The reiterated and more earnest importunities of his friends obtained at last his consent for the publication of this Work and the rather because he thought that the Error constantly maintained by the famous Doctor of Sorbon was by a lucky anticipation clearly and strongly confuted throughout this Book for whatever the Fathers have said about the true and real Presence

the Bread in the Sacrament If the nature of man is not substantially altered by the new Birth no more is the bread by Consecration Man becomes by Baptism not what Nature made him but what Grace new-makes him Ibid. de init myst cap. 9. and the Bread becomes by Consecration not what it was by Nature but what the Blessing consecrates it to be For Nature made only a meer man and made only common bread but Regeneration of a meer man makes a holy man in whom Christ dwells spiritually And likewise the Consecration of common bread makes Mystick and Sacramental bread Yet this change doth not destroy Nature but to Nature adds Grace As is yet more plainly exprest by that holy Father in the fore-cited place Perhaps thou wilt say saith he this my bread is common bread De Sacr. l. 4. c. 4. it is bread indeed before the blessing of the Sacrament but when it is consecrated it becomes the Body of Christ This we are therefore to declare how can that which is bread be also the body of Christ By Consecration And Consecration is made by the words of our Lord that the venerable Sacrament may be perfected You see how efficacious is the word of Christ If there be then so great a power in the word of Christ to make the Bread and Wine to be what they were not how much greater is that power which still preserves them to be what they were and yet makes them to be what they were not Therefore that I may answer thee it was not the Body of Christ before the Consecration but now after the Consecration it is the Body of Christ he said the word and it was done thou thy self wert before but wert an old Creature after thou hast been consecrated in Baptism thou art become a new creature By these words St. Ambrose teacheth how we are to understand that the Bread is the Body of Christ to wit by such a change that the Bread and Wine do not cease to be what they were as to their substance for then they should not be what they were and yet by the Blessing become what before they were not For so they are said to remain as indeed they do what they were by nature that yet they are changed by grace that is they become assured Sacraments of the Body and Bloud of Christ and by that means certain pledges of our Justification and Redemption What is there can refute more expresly the dream of Transubstantiation 18. St. Chrysostome doth also clearly discard and reject this carnal Transubstantiation and eating of Christs Body St. Chrys A. D. 390. without eating the bread Hom. 45. in St. Joh. Sacraments saith he ought not to be contemplated and considered carnally but with the eyes of our souls that is spiritually for such is the nature of mysteries where observe the opposition betwixt carnally and spiritually which admits of no plea or reply again As in Baptism the spiritual power of Regeneration is given to the material water so also the immaterial gift of the Body and Bloud of Christ is not received by any sensible corporal action but by the spiritual discernment of our faith and of our hearts and minds Which is no more than this that sensible things are called by the name of those spiritual things which they seal and signifie But he speaks more plainly in his Epistle to Casarius where he teacheth that in this Mystery there is not in the bread a substantial but a Sacramental change according to the which the outward Elements take the name of what they represent and are changed in such a sort that they still retain their former natural substance In Ep. ad Caefar contra haeres Apol. The bread saith he is made worthy to be honoured with the name of the Flesh of Christ by the consecration of the Priest yet the Flesh retains the proprieties of its incorruptible nature as the bread doth its natural substance Before the bread be sanctified we call it bread but when it is consecrated by the divine grace it deserves to be called the Lords Body though the substance of the bread still remains When Bellarmine could not answer this testimony of that Great Doctor he thought it enough to deny that this Epistle is St. Chrysostoms a L. de Euch. 2. c 24. but both he and b In appar Chrys Possevin do vainly contend that it is not extant among the works of Chrysostom For besides that at Florence c Steph. Gard. Ep. Wi●t cont Pet Mart. Lib. ● de Euchar. and else where it was to be found among them it is cited in the Collections against the Severians which are in the version of Turrianus the Jesuit in the fourth Tome of Antiq. lectionum of Henry Canisius and in the end of the book of Joh. Damascenus against the Acephali I bring another Testimony out of the imperfect work on St. Matthew written either by St. Chrysostome or some other ancient Author a Book in this at least very Orthodox and not corrupted by the Arrians In these sanctified vessels saith he the true body of Christ is not contained but the Mystery of his Body 19. Which also hath been said by St. Austin above a thousand times S. Austin A.D. 400. but out of so many almost numberless places I shall chuse only three which are as the sum of all the rest In Psal 93. You are not to eat this Body which you see nor drink this Bloud which my Crucifiers shall shed I have left you a Sacrament which spiritually understood will vivifie you Thus St. Austin rehearsing the words of Christ again Epist 23. ad Bonif. If Sacraments had not some resemblance with those things whereof they are Sacraments they could not be Sacraments at all From this resemblance they often take the names of what they represent Therefore as the Sacrament of Christs body is in some sort his body so the Sacrament of Faith is faith also To the same sense is what he writes against Maximinus the Arrian We mind in the Sacraments Cont. Max. l. 3. c. 22. not what they are but what they shew for they are signs which are one thing and signifie another And in another place speaking of the Bread and Wine De Doctr. Christ cap. 7. Let no man look to what they are but to what they signifie for our Lord was pleased to say this is my Body when he gave the sign of his body This passage of St. Austin is so clear that it admits of no evasion nor no denial For if the Sacraments are one thing and signifie another then they are not so changed into what they signifie as that after that change they should be no more what they were The water is changed in baptism as the Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper but all that is changed is not presently abolished or Transubstantiated For as the water remains entire in Baptism so

do the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist 20. St. Prosper St. Prosp A.D. 430. Orthodox in all things who lived almost in the time of Austin teacheth That the Eucharist consisleth of two things the visible appearance of the Elements and the invisible Flesh and Bloud of our Saviour Christ Sent. Pros dist 2. de cors cap. hoc est that is the Sacrament and the grace of the Sacrament as the person of Christ is both God and Man Who but the infamous Heretick Eutyches would say that Christ as God was substantially changed into man or as man into God 21. Upon this subject B. Theodoret 7. nothing can be more clear than this of Theodor. whence we learn what the Primitive Church believes in this matter Our Saviour Dial. 1. in the Institution of the Eucharist changed the names of things giving to his body the name of its Sacrament and to the Sacrament the name of his Body Now this was done for this reason as he saith Ibid. that they that are partakers of the Divine Mysteries might not mind the nature of what they see but by the change of names might believe that change which is wrought by Grace For he that called what by nature is his body Wheat and Bread he also honoured the Elements and Signs with the names of his Body and Bloud not changing what is natural but adding Grace to it He therefore teacheth that such an alteration is wrought in the Elements that still their nature and substance continues as he explains more plainly afterwards For when the Heretick that stands for Eutichius had said As the Sacrament of the Lords Body and Bloud are one thing before the Prayer of the Priest Dial. 2. and afterwards being changed become another so also the Body of our Lord after his ascention is changed into the divine substance and nature according to the Tenet of the Transubstantiator this Eutychian Argument is irrefragable but Catholick Antiquity answers it thus Thou are entangled in the nets of thine own knitting for the Elements or Mystick signs depart not from their nature after Consecration but remain in their former substance form and kind and can be seen and toucht as much as before and yet withal we understand also what they become now they are changed Compare therefore the Copy with the Original and thou shalt see their likeness For a figure must answer to the truth That body hath the same form and fills the same space as before and in a word is the same substance but after its resurrection it is become immortal c. All this and much more is taught by Theodoret who assisted at the universal Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon It is an idle exception which is made by some in the Church of Rome as though by the nature and substance of the Elements which are said to remain L. 2. de Euch. c. 27 Theodoret had understood the nature and substance of the accidents as Cardinal Bellarmine is pleased to speak most absurdly but the whole context doth strongly refute this gloss for Theodoret joyns together nature substance form and figure and indeed what Answer could they have given to the Eutychian Argument if the substance of the bread being annihilated after the Consecration the accidents only remain Or did Christ say concerning the accidents of the Bread and Wine these accidents are or this accident is my body But though we have not that liberty yet the Inventors of Transubstantiation may when they please make a Creator of a Creature substances of accidents accidents of substances and any thing out of any thing But sure they are too immodest and uncharitable who to elude the authority of so famous and so worthy a Father as Theodoret alledge that he was accused of some errours in the Council of Ephesus though he repented afterwards as they themselves are forced to confess Fain would they if they could get out at this door when they cannot deny that he affirmed that the Elements remain in their natural substance as he wrote in the Dialogues which he composed against the Eutychian Hereticks with the applause and approbation of the Catholick Church And indeed the evidence of this truth hath compelled some of our Adversaries to yield that Theodoret is of our side For in the Epistle before the Dialogues of Theodoret in the Roman Edition set forth by Stephen Nicolinus the Popes Printer in the year 1547 it is plainly set down Praef. in Dial. Theod That in what concern'd Transubstantiation his opinion was not very sound but that he was to be excused because the Church of Rome had made no decree about it 22. With Theodoret we may joyn Gelasius St. Gelas A. 470 or 490. plus minus who whether he were Bishop of Rome or no as Bellarmine confesseth was of the same age and opinion as he and therefore a witness ancient and credible enough He wrote against Eutyches and Nestorius concerning the two natures in Christ in this manner Doubtless the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ which we receive De duabus in Christo natur in Biblioth partum Tom. 4. is a very divine thing whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature and yet it doth not cease to be Bread and Wine by substance and nature And indeed the image and resemblance of the Body and Bloud of Christ is celebrated in this mysterious action By this therefore we see manifestly enough that we must believe that to be in Christ which we believe to be in his Sacrament that as by the perfecting vertue of the Holy Ghost it becomes a divine substance and yet remains in the propriety of its nature so this great Mystery the Incarnation of whose power and efficacy this is a lively image doth demonstrate that there is one intire and true Christ consisting of two natures which yet properly remain unchanged It doth plainly appear out of these words that the change wrought in the Sacrament is not substantial for first the sanctified Elements are so made the Body and Bloud of Christ that still they continue to be by nature Bread and Wine Secondly The Bread and Wine retain their natural properties as also the two natures in Christ Lastly The Elements are said to become a divine substance because while we receive them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature by the Body and Bloud of Christ which are given to us These things being so their blindness is to be deplored who see not that they bring again into the Church of Rome the same Error which Antiquity piously and learnedly condemned in the Eutychians And as for their thread-bare objection to this Bell loco Citat Baron A.D. 496. nota Marg. ad verba Gelasii in B. B. Patrum That by the substance of Bread and wine the true substance it self is not to be understood but only the nature and essence of the accidents it is a very strange and very