Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	body_n	bread_n	transubstantiation_n	1,791	5	11.1891	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54912	Occasionall discourses 1. Of worship and prayer to angells and saints. 2. Of purgatorie. 3. Of the Popes supremacie. 4. Of the succession of the Church. Had with Doctor Cosens, by word of mouth, or by writing from him. By Thomas Carre confessour of the English nunnerie at Paris. As also, An answer to a libell written by the said Doctor Cosens against the great Generall councell of Lateran under Innocentius the third, in the yeere of our Lord 1215. By Thomas Vane Doctor in Diuinity of Cambridge.	Carre, Thomas, 1599-1674.; Vane, Thomas, fl. 1652. Answer to a libell written by D. Cosens against the great Generall councell of Laterane under Pope Innocent the Third. aut	1646 (1646)	Wing P2272; ESTC R220529	96,496	286

of which this is a part and particularly because you heere make a particular obiectiō against it by Matth. Paris who intimateth so much by repeating a Matth. Paris histma p. 189. the substance of this very Decree in almost as many words as they are in the Councell which are too long to set downe heere Your further say that he that made these two decrees of absoluing subiects from obedience to their Princes and of recouering the land of Promise from the Saracens may well be thought to haue made the decree of Transubstantiation also And you say truth in that but it will not helpe you for Pope Innocent made them all but sacro approbante Concilio that is the whole Councell consisting of the Pope and the rest of the Prelats decreed them Nor haue you reason so to boggle at the word Transubstantiation or at this Councell for the word seeing the thing knew no beginning since our Sauiour as our Catholique bookes doe sufficiently proue and euen the word it selfe was in vse before this Councell as appeareth by Roger Houenden in Henrico 2. where he hath these words b Annul p. 576. Confessi sunt etiam quod Sacerdos noster bonus siue malus iustus vel iniustus corpus sanguinem Christi posset conficere perministerium huiusmodi Sacerdotis virtutem diuinorum verborum quae à Dominoprolata sunt panis vinum in corpus sanguinem Christi verè transubstantiantur Also by Blesensis who was king Henry the second his Chaplayne who saith c Blesens Ep. 140. Et vt gratia exempli in vno Sacramentorum vide as abyssum profundissimam humano sensui imperceptibilem pane vino transubstantiatis virtute verborum caelestium in corpus sanguinem Christi c. Both these wrote in the dayes of Henry the second and the Councell of Lat. was held in the dayes of king Iohn who raigned the second after him And in both these good English authors doe wee finde the word transubstantiated applyed to the bread wine chāged into the body bloud of Christ nor doe wee finde in any story that these men were questioned for the vse of these words as if they did import any thing more in their sense than that which was the generall beliefe of that and the foregoing ages It is not therfore the Decree of transubstantiation made in this Councell afterwards which hath made such a noyse in the world as you say it hath but the heretiques and Schismatiques that haue opposed it Nor was this Coūcell for this decrees sake called Maximū omniū generale celeberrimum but because it was summoned by the Pope frō all parts of the Christian world and there met together the greatest and most renowned assembly both of Clergy and Laity that euer was in the world which therfore it ill becomes you to deride In fine the three particular decrees you heere oppose but haue proued nothing against them are first inserted into the Decretalls which was done by Pope Gregory IX not many yeeres after the Councell was held who therein vsed the seruice of one of the best men of the world as I haue proued before Secondly they are put into the number of the Canons of this Councell by Crab who as I haue also proued tooke them out of the Originall Records Thirdly they are also reckoned amongst the rest of the Canons by all others that haue made edition of this Councell as Surius Binius and whosoeuer else Lastly they are receiued and allowed by the Catholique Church the strongest testimony of all others and doe you thinke to ouerthrow them who is sufficient for this he therfore that attempts it deserues the name of haereticorum maximus omnium generalis celeberrimus In the next place you inuade vs with an Arithmeticall argument but when I haue reckoned with you it will appeare that you are not a man of good account for thus you cast it C. But as it should seeme he that first composed it and stiled it so or afterwards set it forth and entituled it a Generall Councell had not his lesson perfect For betweene the seuenth and the eighth Generall Councell I trow there cannot another Generall Councell interueene as this notwithstanding is made to doe if it were so Great and so Generall as they say it is They count the second of Nice for the seuenth Generall which was held in the yeare 787. and the Councell of Florence held in the yeare 1449. for the eighth Generall as is there in the last session of it expressly set downe Finis octaui Concilii Generalis factus est 21. Iulii c. So that vnlesse they will make two eight generall Councells this of Lateran could be none ANSWER You passe from the matter of this Councell to disproue the title therof and say he that entituled it a generall Councell had not his lesson perfect and that because as you say they count the second of Nice for the seuenth generall Councell and the Councell of Florence for the eighth betweene th● seuēth and the eighth there cannot another interueene as this is made to doe if it were so great and so generall as they say it is Truly if he that published this Councell had had his lesson no perfecter than he that made these obiections he deserued to be whipt for a trewant for neuer were there such idle obiections made I pray who are these they that account the Councell of Florēce the eighth generall Councell your reader cannot but thinke you meane vs Roman Catholiques against whom you heere dispute and whom you would make to appeare so simple that they cannot tell eight But it is not the Roman account I trow that you heere follow but the schismaticall Grecian who yet will giue you no more thankes for it nor no more admitt you a member of their Church than will the Catholiques You must know th●n if you did not before that the eighth generall Councell was celebrated in Constantinople against Photius who made a schisme betweene the Latin and Greeke Church they of the schisme reiected this eighth and many other generall Councells which were celebrated in the west amōgst which this fourth of Lateran you so strongly and weakly fight against was one vntill the Grecians meeting againe with the Latins in the Councell of Florence the Grecians called that the eighth generall Councell which yet soone after they reiected and so at this day allow but seuen But if men may receiue and reiect Councells at their pleasure then you may with the Lutherans allow but six with the Eutychians which are yet in Asia but the first three with the Nestorians which are yet in the East but the first two with the Arrians and Trinitarians which are in Hungary and Poland none at all And this you and yours may doe with as good reason as they doe reiect and reuile this of Lateran and aboue all the sacred Oecumenicall Councell of Trent And

in a word which is the very hindge on which the sense is turned and turned contrary to the assured truth thereof and that is the word Ipse he himselfe as if the condemnation of Almericus and the booke of Ioachim had beene the Popes act without the Councell that so you might proue the Councell falsified wherein the sayd acts are recorded to haue passed And then you adde as another saying of Platina or as your construction of the former words of Platina He sayes it was not the Councell of Lateran that made any decrees to condemne them but that Pope Innocent condemned them himselfe But Platina hath neither any such formall words nor are they the meaning of the words he hath for his saying the Pope did condemne them doth not necessarily imply that the Councell of Lateran did not condemne them for it might be done by both either seuerally or together and this latter way it was done as I haue already proued and doe now againe by the testimony of Beluacensis a Beluac l 30 hist cap. 64. who speaking of this Councell saith that the Abbot Ioachim and Almericus were condemned therein So that you are Ipse He himselfe that haue falsified Platina layd vniust obiections against the Councell of Lateran and apertè manifestly condemned your selfe of fowle play by the euidence of the fact For a close to this section you say wee may well conclude that both these and other things de quibus nihil decerni potuit in Concilio were by the Pope set downe in his owne Decretalls out of which he tooke these Canons whoeuer he was that compiled them into the forme of a Councell Your conclusion is like your premisses there is no truth in either of them both you say that both these and other things I suppose you meane all the Canons ascribed to this Councell were set downe by the Pope in his owne Decretalls that is according to your meaning inuented by the Pope and put first into his Decretalls for if they were first decreed in Councell and afterwards put into the Decretalls it is not for your purpose but against you and that it was so I haue already sufficiently proued and doe yet againe by the title of these constitutions as they are set downe in the Decretalls which are not barely ascribed to the Pope as many others are but to him in a generall Councell thus Innocentius tertius in Concilio generali Wee may therefore well conclude that your conclusion built on your extreme corruption of Platina hauing so rotten a foundation must needs fall to the ground Lastly you say that he tooke them out of the Popes owne Decretalls whoeuer he was that compiled the Canons into the forme of a Councell But I haue proued before that he tooke them out of the originall Records of the Councell and if he had taken them out the Popes Decretalls it had bene well enough those Decretalls not being the Popes owne singly as you haue sayd but the Popes and Councells of Lateran together as I haue many wayes proued So that of all that you haue hitherto sayd there is not one word but is either vntrue or impertinent and to vse your owne words de quibus nihil decerni potest Yet as if you had not sayd enough of this nature you goe on to make faults in steed of finding them as you suppose in others C. For the third Canon of this Councell concerning the excommunication of temporall Princes and the Popes power to free their subiects from all obedience to them and to giue away their kingdomes is indeed one of the Extrauagants cap. 13. de Haereticis that is Pope Innocents owne Decree and not the Councells of Lateran vbi nihil decerni potuit So in the 71. Canon concerning the recouery of the Holy Land from the Saracens for which this Councell was chiefly called and met together the compiler hath made the words to run in a Popes stile and not in the stile of a Councell Ad liberandam terram sanctam de manibus impiorum sacro Concilio approbante definimus c. neither in the Councell was there any such Decree made as both Card. Bellarmine against king Iames's Apologie and Eudaemon Cidonius in his Parall Torti Tortur doe confesse out of Platina He therfore that made these two decrees of absoluing subiects from obedience to their Princes and of recouering the land of promise from the Saracens may well be thought to haue made that decree also of Transubstantiation which hath made such a noyse in the world and for which this Councell is so often quoted vnder the name of Maximum omnium Generale celeberrimum Concilium Answer The third Canon of this Councell concerning the excommunication of temporall Princes you say is one of the Extrauagants cap. 13. de Haereticis but you are very Extrauagant in saying so for there is no such matter in the place by you cited nor indeed any such place as you haue here rashly set downe All that is to be found is this that in the fifth booke of the Extrauagants there is a Title de Haereticis vnder which title are only three chapters and in them not a word of this matter And this for the truth of your quotation I will now consider the sense of what you say and the truth thereof The third Canon say you is one of the Extrauagants that is Pope Innocents owne Decree By which it seemes that it is the same thing with you to be one of the Extrauagants and to be Pope Innocēts owne Decree as if the Extrauagāts were Pope Innocēts owne decrees whereas it is apparāt by the titles to whom they are ascribed that not one of them was made by Pope Innocent so mightily are you mistaken in this matter This Decree then is not Pope Innocents owne and not the Councells of Lateran as you say but Pope Innocents owne and the Councells of Lateran his in and with the Councell of Lateran as I haue proued You also cite your selfe for it is to be found in no authour else against the Councell of Lateran saying vbi nihil decerni potuit where nothing could be decreed against which I oppose besides all that I haue sayd before a man of much better authority Albertus Crantzius who saith a Crantz Metrop l. 9. cap. 1. sect Innoc. 3. Concilium maximum congregauit Lateranum ibi multa constituta quae hodie extant in corpore iuris there many things were decreed which are at this day extant in the body of the law Moreouer the sense of this Canon you doe lamely and with change of the tearmes set downe for there is no mention of kings nor kingdomes and then the Popes absoluing of the vassalls of temporall Lords for those are the words of the Canon from their fidelity to them and exposing their land to be occupied by Catholiques exprest to be but in the case of neglect to purge their land of heresy and continuance therein after