Selected quad for the lemma: father_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A41592
|
An answer to A discourse against transubstantiation
|
Gother, John, d. 1704.
|
1687
(1687)
|
Wing G1326; ESTC R30310
|
67,227
|
82
|
of the Son of God and that of the Son of Man in one Christ Thirdly The Council declares they receive it as the all-vivificating and proper Flesh of the Word that Word who was made and called Man professing one Person in Christ to whom this Human Nature properly belonged Now if all this were to be expounded of a Figure what wresting would there be of this Article And how could the Council conclude the proper Flesh of Christ was that of the Divine Word one Person and two Natures and speak of neither but of a pure Figure The Sacrament might have been a Figure of the Passion and yet two distinct Persons admitted in Christ SEVENTH MOTIVE The Council of Trent declares that because Jesus Christ our Redeemer truly said that 't was his own Body which under the appearance of Bread he offered and gave to his Disciples the Church of God was alwaies perswaded that this wonderful change was operated by the conversion of the substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's precious Body and therefore renews the Canon of Transubstantiation And You know that as our Saviour commanded his Apostles to preach the Gospel so did he oblige the People to receive the promulgated Word and be obedient to their Pastors The obligation of this obedience will last to the end of the world and consequently in the mean time will be still due to the true Successors of the Apostles with whom Christ had promised to remain till the consummation of the World. You cannot deny but the Romish Church has true succession from Christ and his Apostles and we are sure you have left this Society of true Successors Obedience therefore to the true Successors of the Apostles who have defined this Catholic verity obliges me in the last instance to believe this is my Body can import no less than the sense of Transubstantiation I think a slight consideration of the foregoing motives easily shews Catholics pretend not as you would have them that if Transubstantiation can be it must be either because there are no Figures in Scripture or because a Sacrament admits of no Figures You seem to be perswaded of this your self turning these imaginarie Reasons against the Roman Catholic Assertion But alass they are no more against than they were for Transubstantiation For our Saviour's words may be literally true and yet many Figures admitted in Scripture There may be given many Spiritual interpretations of the sacred Text and yet this passage the Word was made Flest litterally signifie that the second Person of the Blessed Trinity was substantially Man. There are questionless in the old and new Testament many Figures and neither lookt upon as a meer Figure There may be then many Figures in Holy Writ and this is my Body not at all be concerned in these figurative interpretations Nor is your second reason more efficacious than the former For these words this is my Body literally received are not at all prejudiced by an outward sign or Figure of a Sacrament The very notion of a Sacrament in St. Austin's opinion shews part and hides the remainder What appears in the Sacrament of the Altar is a sign an accidental shape or resemblance and this is the object of Sense What is understood and believed can be no less than what our Blessed Saviour warrants us of his own Body How then is the substance of the Elements not changed because the Eucharist is a Sacrament and a Sacrament is a Sign A Man is an Image of God yet a Substance The Divine Son is a Figure of his Father's Substance and who can wrest from him the same Substance with his Eternal Father 'T is true it was an Arian Error the Son 's an Image therefore not God. Is your Illation stronger the Eucharist is a Sacrament or Sign therefore it is not the Substance This Error ought to correct yours Now this is my Body may be taken I think in the sense of Transubstantiation and the Eucharist remain a Sacramental Sign or resemblance Had you foreseen this Answer I presume you woul have smothered this instance viz. When he gave the Cup he said this Cup is the New Testament in my Blood where first the Cup is put for the Wine and if any thing be changed it must be the Cup. The speedy quitting of the contested Proposition this is my Body is a ready confession that you were unable to discover therein couch'd any Figurative exposition and so hasten to busie your Reader with a Metonymy contain'd in the word Cup put for Wine Had this been so how easily could sense and reason have unfolded what appeared difficult But why do I say difficult It is our common Language to ask for a Cup or Glass when we mean Drink Nor was the Phrase amongst the Jews otherwise This is cleared from the Triple repetition of the same Phrase in S. Paul to the Corinthians Drink this Cup. If this then was the proper speech and our Saviour did not speak improperly who could be so remote from Sense to guess the Cup or Chalice was to be drunk Would you not think that person extravagant who hearing you ask in a place where People were drinking Wine for a Glass should apprehend you would swallow down the Glass and so the Vessel be turn'd into your Substance Which must be true if it be false that Sense and Reason without the support of some father assistance could be deceived in so facile and usual an expression of a Cup or Glass put for Wine If then the Holy Ghost had used in Scripture the Cup for Wine I know not who could have refused such a Figure And because I find no Metonymy no Figure couch'd in this is my Body I exclude all Figurative insinuations I said if the Holy Ghost had put the Cup for Wine Wine you say the Divine Spirit writes Blood and so the Cup is metonymically put for the contained Drink in the Chalice or Blood. For what we read in St. Luke This Cup the New Testament in my Blood is equivalent to this Blood and so the Cup is Blood. If you suspect the supposal harken how St. Matthew Phrases it This is my Blood of the New Testament which is repeated by St. Mark and who dare contradict two Divine Testimonies If the Spirit of God was careful to plain so small a Nicety in so familiar a Phrase is it credible that he would have omitted the most important in the World which he has done if this is my Body be but a Figure of his Body since the Scripture discovers nothing to diminish the reality of Christ's true Body What you add if any thing be chang'd it is the Cup into the Covenant is very strange Till you make this good by Reason or evince it from Scripture give me leave not to credit your Authority And if you think the word Testament in this passage this Cup or Blood is the New Testament excludes real Blood
the whole Substance of Bread is wanting But Durandus calls your Sentiment holding Bread remains after Consecration the Doctrin of profane Novelty Suarez and Vasquez treat Durandus as one Divine doth anothers Opinion But you might have well omitted their names for one that is moderately learn'd in Divinity knows how copiously they both shew from Scripture and Fathers the Roman Catholic Doctrin Occham You have not faithfully delivered this Divine's Authority who thus answers to the second Query I say that in the Sacrament is true Transubstantiation Then he delivers four manners of understanding this Transubstantiation 1. That the Bread may remain with the Body 2. That the Substance of the Bread may suddenly be removed away 3. That it may return to Matter the common subject of all or receive some other Form. 4. That it may be reduced to nothing He admits all four as possible The first manner he prefers in these words which are your Objection The first manner may be held because it is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture and is more reasonable and easier than the other three manners These are Scholastic Opinions And therefore this Divine leaving them adheres to the true sense of Transubstantiation in these following words Yet because we find extant the Churches determination contrary to this exposition and all Doctors universally hold that the substance of Bread remains not there in the Sacrament Therefore I also hold that the substance of Bread remains not but the species of Bread and with this outward shape of Bread coexistent the Body of Christ Will you acknowledge what this Divine holds and professes Gabriel Biel. You have corrupted Biel. These are his words Although it be expresly delivered in Scripture that the Body of Christ is truly contain'd under the species of Bread yet we find not express in the Canon of the Scripture how the Body of Christ is there whether by conversion of some thing into himself or whether without conversion the Body begins to be with the Bread the substance and accidents of Bread remaining This Author is so far from speaking what you force him to say as to any thing expressed in Scripture a man may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after consecration that he proves we ought to believe the contrary sense contained in Scripture And this upon two accounts 1. Although the manner of Christ's existence in the Sacrament be not in this Divine's opinion evidently couch'd yet it is sufficiently particularized in the Canon of the Scripture For if this which was Bread is Christ's Body according to our Saviour's words this is my Body and Christ's true Body be there expresly delivered in Scripture as Biel affirms it necessarily folows that the Substance of Bread is changed For how can this which was Bread be Christ's true Body and not lose its own substance 2. He expounds the Scripture after this same manner from the Lateran Council St. Austin St. Ambrose and then concludes From these and many other authorities of Saints 't is held that the Body of Christ is in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation of the substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ Does this favour the Protestants You named but expressed not Melchior Canus's authority who says the Body and Blood of Christ was offered in the Sacrifice and his proof is the evident Testimony of St. Luke This I think prejudices us not in the least Petrus Ab Alliaco You have misrepresented Ab Alliaco who disputing upon meer possibilities proposes among others two Questions First Whether it is not possible that the Body of Christ may remain united to the substance of Bread in the Sacrament Secondly Whether the substance of Bread may not be suddenly removed away by divine power the accidents only remaining with Christ's Body This Divine thinks neither impossible and prefers the first as more rational and conformable to Scriptures These are his words 'T is possible the Body of Christ may assume the substance of Bread and this manner is not repugnant to reason or to the authority of Scripture it is more easie and more rational than that manner which pretends the substance of Bread leaves the accidents Now for the second It is not impossible to God that the substance of Bread may be suddenly elsewhere convey'd the species remaining in the place coexistent to the Body of Christ this manner would not be so rational as the first All this is upon possibilities But not to enlarge in Scholastic Opinions when matters of Faith are debated Cannot I dispute of what is possible but you will necessarily deduce I deny the being of what is actually present If I should say 't is possible God may create another World and People it with another Generation of Creatures can you deduce from this that there is no necessity of admitting any Men alive at this present in the whole Universe Cajetan 'T is true writ the Scripture did not evidently enforce the Roman Catholic Tenet Great Wits speak sometimes without consideration Yet the Good Cardinal retracted afterwards his Error in these words We can prove Christ's real presence from the words of the Gospel And thus in some manner amended as Soto remarks what was before amiss You instance the words you object out of Cajetan in the Roman Edition are expunged by order of Pope Pius V. I Answer a worthy remark to demonstrate the vigilancy of the Roman See was not wanting to blot out Innovation in its very first rise and appearance Bishop Fisher that glorious Martyr of the Church of Rome confesseth we cannot prove from the bare words of Scripture that Priests consecrate the true Body and Blood of Christ I shall not dispute whether this concern our present Controversie or not but I 'le beg you 'll take the following Explication of the Pious Bishop that is continues the holy Martyr in the same place not because this thing is now doubtful but because the certainty of this Doctrin cannot be gathered so strongly from the bare words of the Gospel as from the Father's Interpretation together with the continued practice of so long a time surviving in succeeding Posterity The blessed Bishop gives us this reason why he provoked to the Fathers lest any one should says he pertinaciously adhere to the pure words of Scripture despising Fathers Authorities as Luther did If this will not suffice I 'le translate when you require it the Fourth Chapter of this same Book wherein Bishop Fisher proves the Bread changed into Christ's Body from the three Evangelists And I 'le rank your Objections collected from Luther's Instances and Oecolampadius's Objections on one Page and on the opposite place Bishop Fisher's Solutions to them both in vindication of the Roman Catholic Assertion I finish this Scholastic Disceptation with this Querie Whether you would not think it weakness in