Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A63835
|
A dissuasive from popery to the people of England and Ireland together with II. additional letters to persons changed in their religion ... / by Jeremy Lord Bishop of Down.
|
Taylor, Jeremy, 1613-1667.
|
1686
(1686)
|
Wing T323; ESTC R33895
|
148,299
|
304
|
than what Berengarius was commanded to renounce and no interpretation can make it tolerable but such an one as is in another place of the Canon Law statuimus i. e. abrogamus nothing but a plain denying it in the sense of Pope Nicolas But however this may be it is plain they understood it not as it is now decreed But as it hapned to the Pelagians in the beginning of their heresie they spake rudely ignorantly and easily to be reprov'd but being ashamed and disputed into a more sober understanding of their hypothesis spake more warily but yet differently from what they said at first so it was and is in this question at first they understood it not it was too unreasonable in any tolerable sense to make any thing of it but experience and necessity hath brought it to what it is But that this Doctrine was not the doctrine of the first and best ages of the Church these following testimonies do make evident The words of Tertullian are these The bread being taken and distributed to his Disciples Christ made it his body saying This is my body that is the figure of my body The same is affirmed by Justin Martyr The bread of the Eucharist was a figure which Christ the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his passion Origen calls the bread and the chalice the images of the body and blood of Christ and again That bread which is sanctified by the word of God so far as belongs to the matter or substance of it goes into the belly and is cast away in the secession or separation which to affirm of the natural or glorified body of Christ were greatly blasphemous and therefore the body of Christ which the Communicants receive is not the body in a natural sense but in a spiritual which is not capable of any such accident as the Elements are Eusebius says that Christ gave to his Disciples the Symbols of Divine Occonomy commanding the image and type of his own body to be made and that the Apostle received a command according to the constitution of the New Testament to make a memory of this sacrifice upon the Table by the symbols of his body and healthful blood S. Macarius says that in the Church is offered bread and wine the antitype of his flesh and of his bloud and they that partake of the bread that appears do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ. By which words the sense of the above cited Fathers is explicated For when they affirm that in this Sacrament is offered the figure the image the antitype of Christ's body and bloud although they speak perfectly against Transubstantiation yet they do not deny the real and spiritual presence of Christ's body and bloud which we all believe as certainly as that it is not transubstantiated or present in a natural and carnal manner THE same thing is also fully explicated by the good S. Ephrem The body of Christ received by the faithful departs not from his sensible substance and is undivided from a spiritual grace For even baptism being wholly made spiritual and being that which is the same and proper of the sensible substance I mean of water saves and that which is born doth not perish S. Gregory Nazianzen spake so expresly in this Question as if he had undertaken on purpose to confute the Article of Trent Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal supper but still in figure though more clear than in the old Law For the Legal Passover I will not be afraid to speak it was a more obscure figure of a figure S. Chrysostom affirms dogmatically that before the bread is sanctified we name it bread but the Divine grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of bread but it is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords body although the nature of bread remains in it And again As thou eatest the body of the Lord so they the faithful in the old Testament did eat Manna as thou drinkest bloud so they the water of the rock For though the things which are made be sensible yet they are given spiritually not according to the consequence of Nature but according to the grace of a gift and with the body they also nourish the soul leading unto faith To these very many more might be added but instead of them the words of St. Austin may suffice as being an evident conviction what was the doctrine of the primitive Church in this question This great Doctor brings in Christ thus speaking as to his Disciples You are not to eat this body which you see or to drink that bloud which my crucifiers shall pour forth I have commended to you a sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you And again Christ brought them to a banquet in which he commended to his Disciples the figure of his body and bloud For he did not doubt to say This is my body when he gave the sign of his body and That which by all men is called a sacrifice is the sign of the true sacrifice in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrances BUT in this particular the Canon Law it self and the Master of the Sentences are the best witnesses in both which collections there are divers testimonies brought especially from S. Ambrose and S. Austin which whosoever can reconcile with the doctrine of Transubstantiation may easily put the Hyaena and a Dog a Pigeon and a Kite into couples and make fire and water enter into natural and eternal friendships Theodoret and P. Gelasius speak more emphatically even to the nature of things and the very philosophy of this Question Christ honour'd the symbols and the signs saith Theodoret which are seen with the title of his body and bloud not changing the nature but to nature adding grace For neither do the mystical signs recede from their nature for they abide in their proper substance figure and form and may be seen and touch'd c. And for a testimony that shall be esteem'd infallible we allege the words of Pope Gelasius Truly the sacraments of the body and bloud of Christ which we receive are a Divine thing for that by them we are made partakers of the Divine nature and yet it ceases not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine And truly an image and similitude of the body and bloud of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries NOW from these premises we are not desirous to infer any odious consequences in reproof of the Roman Church but we think it our duty to give our own people caution and admonition 1. That they be not abus'd by the rhetorical words and high expressions alleged out of the Fathers calling the Sacrament The body or the slesh of Christ. For we all believe it is so and rejoyce in it But the
question is after what manner it is so whether after the manner of the slesh or after the manner of spiritual grace and sacramental consequence We with the Holy Scriptures and the primitive Fathers affirm the latter The Church of Rome against the words of Scripture and the explication of Christ and the doctrine of the primitive Church affirm the former 2. That they be careful not to admit such Doctrines under a pretence of being Ancient since although the Roman errour hath been too long admitted and is ancient in respect of our days yet it is an innovation in Christianity and brought in by ignorance power and superstition very many Ages after Christ. 3. We exhort them that they remember the words of Christ when he explicates the doctrine of giving us his flesh for meat and his bloud for drink that he tells us The flesh profiteth nothing but the words which be speaks are spirit and they are life 4. THAT if those ancient and primitive Doctors above cited say true and that the symbols still remain the same in their natural substance and properties even after they are blessed and when they are receiv'd and that Christ's body and bloud are only present to faith and to the spirit that then whoever tempts them to give Divine honour to these symbols or elements as the Church of Rome does tempts them to give to a creature the due and incommunicable propriety of God and that then this evil passes further than an errour in the understanding for it carries them to a dangerous practice which cannot reasonably be excus'd from the crime of Idolatry To conclude THIS matter of it self is an error so prodigiously great and dangerous that we need not tell of the horrid and blasphemous questions which are sometimes handled by them concerning this Divine Mystery As if a Priest going by a Baker's shop and saying with intention Hoc est corpus meum whether all the Bakers bread be turned into the body of Christ Whether a Church mouse does eat her Maker Whether a man by eating the consecrated symbols does break his fast For if it be not bread and wine he does not and if it be Christ's body and bloud naturally and properly it is not bread and wine Whether it may be said the Priest is in some sense the Creator of God himself Whether his power be greater than the power of Angels and Archangels For that it is so is expresly affirmed by Cassenaeus Whether as a Bohemian Priest said that a Priest before he say his first Mass be the Son of God but afterward he is the Father of God and the Creator of his body But against this blasphemy a book was written by John Huss about the time of the Council of Constance But these things are too bad and therefore we love not to rake in so filthy chanels but give only a general warning to all our Charges to take heed of such persons who from the proper consequences of their Articles grow too bold and extravagant and of such doctrines from whence these and many other evil Propositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently do issue As the tree is such must be the fruit But we hope it may be sufficient * to say That what the Church of Rome teaches of Transubstantiation is absolutely impossible and implies contradictions very many to the belief of which no faith can oblige us and no reason can endure For Christ's body being in heaven glorious spiritual and impassible cannot be broken And since by the Roman doctrine nothing is broken but that which cannot be broken that is the colour the taste and other accidents of the elements yet if they could be broken since the accidents of bread and wine are not the substance of Christ's body and bloud it is certain that on the Altar Christ's body naturally and properly cannot be broken * And since they say that every consecrated Wafer is Christ's whole body and yet this Wafer is not that Wafer therefore either this or that is not Christ's body or else Christ hath two bodies for there are two Wafers * But when Christ instituted the Sacrament and said This is my body which is broken because at that time Christ's body was not broken naturally and properly the very words of Institution do force us to understand the Sacrament in a sense not natural but spiritual that is truly sacramental * And all this is besides the plain demonstrations of sense which tells us it is bread and it is wine naturally as much after as before consecration * And after all the natural sense is such as our blessed Saviour reprov'd in the men of Capernaum and called them to a spiritual understanding the natural sense being not only unreasonable and impossible but also to no purpose of the spirit or any ways perfective of the soul as hath been clearly demonstrated by many learned men against the fond hypothesis of the Church of Rome in this Article SECT VI. Half Communion tho' confessed to be otherwise in Christs institution and primitive practice required upon pain of Excommunication The Question now is not so much whether it be a new as a better practice than what Christ instituted Council of Constance Cassander Aquinas c. acknowledge the Novelty Pope Gelasius calls it sacrilege Greek Church communicates the people in the Chalice OUR next instance of the novelty of the Roman Religion in their Articles of division from us is that of the half Communion For they deprive the people of the Chalice and dismember the institution of Christ and praevaricate his 〈◊〉 law in this particular and recede from the practice of the Apostles and though they confess it was the practice of the primitive Church yet they lay it aside and cur so all them that say they do amiss in it that is they curse them who follow Christ and his Apostles and his Church while themselves deny to follow them Now for this we need no other testimony but their own words in the Council of Constance Whereas in certain parts of the word some temerariously presume to affirm that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds of bread and wine and do every where communicate the Laity not only in bread but in wine also ---- Hence it is that the Council decrees and defines against this error that although Christ instituted after supper and administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine yet this notwithstanding ---- And although in the primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds Here is the acknowledgment both of Christs institution in both kinds and Christs ministring it in both kinds and the practice of the primitive Church to give it in both kinds yet the conclusion from these premisses is We command under the pain of Excommunication that no Priest communicate the people under both kinds of bread and wine The