Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	dead_a	life_n	trespass_n	5,011	5	10.5955	5	false

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

then to death the one having a positive being and the other consisting in a privation only But let us hear the Mounsier speak Rodon 4. Now that we may clearly understand this doctrine we must consider wherein the life which Iesus Christ gives us doth consist for seeing the flesh of Iesus Christ is meat to us because it gives us life it is evident that if we know what life that is which Iesus Christ gives us we must know likewise h●…w Iesus Christ is meat to us and consequently how we eat him But to know what that life is which Iesus Christ gives us we must consider what that death is in which we are involved which is expressed by S. Paul Eph. 2. in these words When we were dead in sins and trespasses God hath quickned us together with Christ by grace ye are saved and consequently the death in which we were involved consists in two things first in the curse of the Law which imports the privation of felicity and the suffering of temporal and eternal punishment for our sins secondly it consists in an habitual corruption whereby sin raigns in us and therefore it is said 1. Tim. 5. The widdow that lives in pleasure is dead while she liveth Also sins are called dead works Heb. 10. So that the life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us consists in two things first in deliverance from the curse of the Law by the pardon of our sins as S. Paul tells us Colos. 2. God hath quickned you together with Chri●… having forgiven you all trespasses blotting out the 〈◊〉 that was against us which obligation ●…receded from the Law because it did oblige all th●… transgressors of it to a curse secondly it consists in regeneration or sanctification whereof I●…sus Christ speaking in John 3. saith Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the kingdome of God And S. Paul Heb. 12. without holiness no man shall see the Lord. Therefore seing that the life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us consists in the pardon of our sins and in our regeneration and sanctification which ends in glorification and that Iesus Christ is called meat in reference to this life we must consider the me n●… whereby Iesus Christ hath purchased these things for us and seing it is certain that his death is the means by which he hath purchased Pardon of sins and regeneration we must conclude that Iesus Christ is the food and nourishment of our souls in regard of the merit of his death But that Iesus Christ by his death hath purchased life for us that is Iustification which consists in the pardon of our sins and regeneration which consists in holiness of life appears by these passages of Scripture viz. We are justified by the blood of Christ and reconciled to God by his death Rom. 5. We have redemption by his bloud even the remission of sins c. Therefore seing Iesus Christ hath purchased life for us by death and that his flesh and bloud are our meat and drink because they purchased life everlasting for us on the Cross viz. the remission of our sins and sanctification ending in glorification it follows that the action whereby Iesus Christ is applied to us for righteousness and sanctification is the same by which we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud But this action is nothing else but faith as the Scripture tells us Being justified by faith we have peace with God Rom. 5. God purifi●…s our hart●… by faith Act. 15 he that beleiveth hath eternal life Iohn 6. from what hath been said I form this Argument That action whereby we obtain remission of sins and sanctification ending in Glorification is the same whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ purchased for us by his death because that life principally consists in the remission of sins and sanctification as we have proved But the spiritual eating and drinking by faith and not the corporal by the mouth is that action where by we obtain remission of sins and sanctification as we have also proved therefore the spiritual eating and drinking by faith is the action whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ purchased us by his death and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth And consequently seing in S. John 6. a certain eating and drinking is spoken of whereby we have that life which Iesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death it is evident that a spiritual eating and drinking is there spoken of and not a corporal Answ. Now after clearly understanding Mr. de Rodons long sermon-like doctrine we confess the flesh of Christ is meat to us because it gives us spiritual life we confess also that the life it gives us consists in the forgiveness of our sins and in our sanctification which ends in Glorification Thirdly we confess that the death wherein we were involved consists in the privation of eternal felicity and in the suffering of eternal and temporal punishment for our sins in a word we grant our souls are quickned from the death of sin and all its effects and that she liveth spiritually by the merits of our Saviours death and passion and lastly we grant also that the action whereby Jesus Christ is applyed unto us for righteousness and sanctification ending in Glorification is the s●…me by which we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud But that this action is nothing else but faith as Mr. de Rodon inferrs we ●…atly deny and maintain that besides the act of believing there must be also an act of corporal eating Therefore to his proofs out of Scripture we answer that the three forementioned passages speak not of faith alone nor of faith as the cause of our sanctification but of faith as a condition requisite to it as I have formerly proved And being action proceeds from a suppositum as Schoolmen call it or cause and is attributed to it and not to a bare condition as 't is to be evidently seen in the example of fire which is the cause of burning wood not the application which is only a condition requisit where the action of burning is attributed to fire the cause not to application the bare condition Even so is it in this case The Sacrament is the cause of our sanctification and to receive it with faith as a remembrance of Christs death and Passion is only a condition requisit for receiving it spiritually and with profit to our souls By this solution Mr. de Rodon's concluding argument upon the premises above-granted and passages of Scripture clearly expounded vanisheth into smoak his argument is this That action whereby ●…e obtain remission of sins and sanctification ending in glorification is the same w●…ereby we have that life which Jesus Christ purchased for us by his death because that life chiefly consists in the remission of sins and sanctification that I confess But quoth he the spiritual eating and drinking by faith and not the corporal by

light to all the world if it were reproduced in all parts of the world that a great army might be made of one man reproduced in a hundred thousand adjoyning places that all the debts in the world might be payed with one crown reproduced as many times as there be crowns due That all the people in the world might quench their thirst with one pottle of wine reproduced as many times as there be inhabitants in the world that all the men in the world might drink in one and the same glass reproduced as many times as there be men in the world whereupon a man might be so curious as to ask whether if this glass should be broken at Paris it would also be broken at Rome Constantinople and other places that one man reproduced in an hundred thousand places might at the same time marry an hundred thousand wives and lie with them whereupon a man might desire to know whether these women might not conceive and every one of them be delivered of a childe at the end of nine moneths and consequently it may be said that one man did in one night beget an hundred thousand children c. Answ. It is a common saying Stultorum plenus est mundus that the world is full of fools and I think our Mounsieur may serve for all for the little Microcosme of his aery giddy brain is so full of senseless frantick figaries that it is not in his power to rid himself of them so he proceeds from folly to folly or rather to use his own terms he produces one foolish arrow and reproduces it so often that from it and its sequels he falls into an horrid blasphemy for thus he shoots Jesus Christ as he is man cannot be in divers places at once if another man cannot be so too because Jesus Christ as he is man was made like unto us in all things sin only excepted But another man cannot be in divers places at once ergo c. This arrow certainly aims not only at Diana but also at Christ himself therefore rather then it should hit Christ let us leave her and run to save him But how Rodon because the Apostle says Christ is made like us in his humane nature and essence and in all the rest of our properties which flow from our essence though not conceived and born in sin as we were does it follow that we are equal and like to him in power also If so then the Mounsieur rose again the third day after his death at Geneva by his own proper might and vertue without the ministry or aid of any Angel and sits now check by joal to Christ at the right hand of God the father and will descend with him to judge the quick and the dead for none of these things be sins and we must be like Christ in all things sin only excepted Where be all those forsooth that the Mounsieur raised from death to life where be all the lame all the blind all the dumb deaf and sick people he cured Christ did many such things and yet they were no sins how can he then or any of us be like unto Christ in all things sin only excepted save only in our humane nature But to be in two places at once belongs to Christs power and not to his humane nature where is Mr. de Rodons comparative argument then now If this be no blasphemy I know not what to call blasphemy Therefore Peter Paul nor Mr. de Rodon himself are like to Christ in his power though they be like him in their humane nature sin only excepted and consequently although Peter cannot be killed at Rome and alive at Paris at the same time for otherwise if he means a mortal Peter he should be man and no man at once yet Christ can be in heaven naturally and Sacramentally at Rome the self same time because he is in the Sacrament not as in his proper place and his body in it is a glorified immortal and impatible body and consequently cannot be killed as Peter being but a mortal man can be at Rome To those additionate absurdities which I call his additionate impertinencies for none of them are pertinent to our question I answer as I often did before that no body can be in two places at once circumscriptively though it may be circumscriptively in one place and sacramentally in another And all his impertinencies militate only against one body circumscriptively at once in two places which we grant cannot be And so this arrow endeth in its venom and Blasphemy Now then to his seventh Rodon 8. If Christs body were in the host it would be seen there for being there in its glory as the Roman Doctors say it is it would be there more visibly then it was when he conversed amongst men here below because the glory of Christs body doth principally consist in the brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light Like to that which he had upon Mount Thabor ●…ut who dares affirm that such a glorious body is not visible wheresoever it is yet it is certain that Christs body is not to be seen in the host which is an evident signe that he is not there c. Answ. I distinguish the major thus If Christs body were in the host it would be seen there with the eye of our understanding holpen by faith I confess with our corporal eye I deny The Romish Doctors then do hold that it is enough this grand Mystery is intelligible and implies no contradiction to have it be believed for if there be no impossibility nor contradiction in the case as concerning the veracity of the thing in it self they rely upon Christs own effective and true word therefore since our intelligible faculty holpen by faith sheweth us that Christ can create which is a thing more difficult in it self then to transubstantiate one thing into another as also that he left us an evident pattern of his power in such a case by converting water into wine we considering his omnipotency and his goodness whose property is to impart his self to his rational creature in the highest degree our spiritual eye viz. our understanding illuminated by faith seeing this far more clearly then our corporal eyes can see any thing seing also that for Christ to communicate himself really and substantially unto us is a more perfect and high degree of communication then if he should give himself figuratively only we seeing the thing feaseble in it self and agreeable to Christs infinite goodness believe it upon his word which we know to be firmer then heaven and earth Mr de Rodon strives by his natural reason grounded upon humane Philosophy to demonstrate that it is not in Christs power to Transubstantiate bread into his own body this is the main point and substance of our dispute he opposing Christs power as to this thing and we propugning it and maintaining it to be agreeable to his infinite goodness that the thing

do them any harm nor his arrows able to transfix them But now I hope he will come better provided with his new ones against Diana Behold he comes Rodon 2. The first argument is drawn from this viz. that in the Institution and first celebration of the Eucharist Iesus Christ did not sacrifice nor offer his body and bloud to his father as appears by what is mentioned in the three Evangelists and the Apostle S. Paul in which there is not the least footstep to be seen of a sacrifice or oblation of Christs body and bloud This Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Mass chap 27. in these words the oblation which is made after Consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament but is not of its essence which I prove because neither our Iod nor his Apostles did make this oblation at the first as we have demonstrated out of Gregory The Iesuit Salmeron in Tom. 13. of his Commentaries on the Epistles of S. Paul makes a Catalogue of unritten Traditions in which he puts the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy The worshiping of Images the Mass the manner of sacrificing and the Tradition that Iesus Christ did offer a sacrifice in the Bread and wine Card. Baronius in his Annalls on the year 53. freely confesseth that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is an unwritten Tr●…dition A strange thing that the Mass which is the foundation of the Romish Church for the doctors require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass cannot be found to have been instituted or commanded by Iesus Christ. And the truth is if Iesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist had offored unto God his father a sacrifice of his body and bloud propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead then there had been no need that he should have been sacrificed again on the Cross because having already expiated our sins in the sacrifice of the Eucharist there was no need he should expiate them again on the Cross. To this I add that S. Paul Eph. 4. 11. mentions the offices which Iesus Christ left in his Church when he ascended into heaven in these words he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and teachers but makes no mention at all of the Sacrificers of Christs body and bloud nor in 1. Tim. nor in the Epictle to Titus when he describes the duty of Bishops Presbyters and deacons without making the least mention of this sacrificing of Christs body and bloud Answ. But I pray good Mr. de Rodon wherefore do you not produce some Passage out of the three Evangelists or S. Paul to prove your assertion for according to all Philosophers and I believe you esteem not your self amongst the meanest of them arguments that only consist of negatives do never conclude or prove any thing you say it appears by what is mentioned by the three Evangelists and S. Paul that Christ at the Institution of the Eucharist did not sacrifice or offer his body and bloud to his father you tell us not in which of the Evangelists or wherein S. Paul and we finde no such thing in them But we finde these express words in S. Luke 22. Chap. and taking bread he gave thanks and broke and gave to them saying this is my body which is given for you If these last words viz. which is given for you signifie not to be offered or sacrificed for you I pray tell us what else do they signifie for the Evangelist said before that the bread was given them and immediatly after in the same sentence he adds which was given for you Sure if these last words signifie not which was offered or sacrificed for you they must needs be nonsensical and a vain Battalogical repetition of the same words for the sense would be this and gave to them his body which is given for them Therefore these words which is given for them is as much as to say which is offered or sacrificed for them And yet the Mounsieur is not ashamed to say that there is not the least foot-step of a sacrifice to be seen in what was mentioned by any of the three Evangelists But perhaps S. Luke was not of the three he meant whether he was or no it is certain that in this very Passage he left us a true and plain track of Christs unbloudy sacrifice But I cannot conceive nor understand how Mr. de Rodon or his Translatour too is able to save him from the infamous brand of heresy for obstinately denying what so many general Councils holy fathers do unanimously assert an Heretick as he is distingushed from a Turk Jew or Pagan is thus described viz one that professes to believe in Christ and yet dissents in opinion from the rest of the orthodox obstinately But now let us see how the Mounsieur agrees with the whole Church as to this point first with the great and most eminent doctor S. Aug who in his 20th Book de civit Dei speaking of Christ who saith thus per hoc sacerdos est ipse offerens oblatio cujus rei Sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit Ecclesiae sacrificium cum ipsius corporis ipse caput ipsius capitis ipsa sit corpus tam ipsa per ipsum quam ipse per ipsam suetus offerri By this meaning the Eucharist he himself is both the Priest offering and the oblation the signe or Sacrament whereof he would have the dayly sacrifice of the Church to be for whereas he is the head of his Mystical body and she is the body of her Mystical head she was as well wont to be offered by him as he by her and again lib. 17. de civit c. 20. the table which the Priests of the new-Testament doth exhibit is of his body and bloud for that is the sacrifice which succeeded all those sacrifices that were offered in shadow of that to come for the which also we acknowledg that voice of the same Mediatour in the Psalm But a body thou hast fitted to me because instead of all these sacrifices and oblations his body is offered and is ministred to the partakers or receivers With S. Cyprian more ancient then the former and in learning inferiour to none who in his 2. Epistle to Pope Cornelius hath these words Sacerdotes qui quotidie Sacrificia dei celebramus hostias Deo victimas praeparemus We priests who dayly celebrate the sacrifices of God let us prepare hosts and victimes for him with S. Ambrose in cap. 10. hebreor Quid ergo nos c. What we then do not we offer every day we offer surely but this sacrifice is an exemplar of that for we offer allwaies the selfsame and not now one lamb to morrow another but alwaies the self-same thing therefore it is one Sacrifice otherwise by this reason because it is offered in many places there should be many Christs not so but it is one Christ in every place here whole and there