Selected quad for the lemma: water_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A34974
|
Roman-Catholick doctrines no novelties, or, An answer to Dr. Pierce's court-sermon, miscall'd The primitive rule of Reformation by S.C. a Roman-Catholick.
|
Cressy, Serenus, 1605-1674.
|
1663
(1663)
|
Wing C6902; ESTC R1088
|
159,933
|
352
|
She delivers her mind sincerely candidly ingenuously But if I should ask him what his Church holds it would cost him more labour to give a satisfactory Answer than to make ten such Sermons 6. There are among Christians only four ways of expressing a presence of Christ in the Sacrament 1 That of the Zuinglians Socinians c. who admit nothing at all real here The Presence say they is only figurative or imaginary As we see Bread broken and eaten c. so we ought to call to mind that that Christs Body was crucified and torn for us and by Faith or a strong fancy we are made partakers of his Body that is not his Body but the blessings that the offring his Body may procure 2. That of Calvin and English Divines who usually say as Calvin did That in the holy Sacrament our Lord offers unto us not onely the benefit of his Death and Resurrection but the very Body it self in which he dyed and rose again Or as King Iames We acknowledge a presence no lesse true and real then Catholics do only we are ignorant of the manner Of which it seems he thought that Catholics were not So that this presence is supposed a Substantial presence but after a spiritual manner A presence not to all but to the worthy receivers Offred perhaps to the unworthy but only partaken by the worthy A presence not to the Symbols but the Receivers Soul only Or if according to Mr. Hooker in some sence the Symbols do exhibit the very Body of Christ yet they do not contain in them what they exhibit at least not before the actual receiving 3. Of the Lutherans who hold a presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as real proper and substantial as Catholics do but deny an exclusion of Bread For Bread say they remains as before but to and with it the Body of our Lord every where present is in a sort hypostatically united Yet some among them dâ—ny any reverence is to be exhibited to Christ though indeed substantially present 4. That of Roman Catholics whose sense was let down before whereto this only is to be added That believing a real conversion of Bread into our Lords Body c. they think themselves obliged in conformity to the Ancient Church as to embrace the Doctrine so to imitate their practise in exhibiting due reverence and worship not to the Symbols not to any thing which is the object of sense as Calvinists slander them but to our Lord himself only present in and under the Symbols 7. Now three of these four Opinions that is every one but that of English Protestants speak intelligible sense Every one knows what Zuinglians Lutherans and Roman Catholics mean But theirs which they call a Mystery is Indeed a Iargon a Linsey-Wolsey Stuff made probably to suiâ— with any Sect according to interests They that taught it first in England were willing to speak at least and if they had been permitted to mean likewise as the Catholic Church instructed them but the Sacrilegious Protectour in King Edwards daies and afterward the Privy Council in Queen Elizabeths found it for their wordly advantage that their Divines should at least in words accuse the Roman Church for that Doctrine which themselves believed to be true But now since the last Restitution if that renew'd Rubrick at the end of the Communion be to be esteem'd Doctrinall then the last Edition of their Religion in this Point is meer Zuinglianism to which the Presbyterians themselves if they are true Calvinists will refuse to subscribe Thus the new Religion of England is almost become the Religion of New England 8. 〈◊〉 remains now that I should by a few authorities justifie our Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation or real substantial Presence to be far from deserving to be called a Novelty of â—our hundred years standing By Catholic Doctrine I mean the Doctrine of the Church not of the Schools the Doctrine delivered by Tradition not Ratiocination Not a Doctrine that can be demonstrated by human empty Philosophy On the contrary it may be confidently assorted that all such pretended demonstrations are not only not concluding but illusory because that is said to be demonstrated by reason which Tradition tells us is above reason and ought not to be squared by the Rule of Philosophy The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is truly real and Substantial but withall Sacramental that is Mystical inexplicable incomprehensible It is a great mistake among Protestants when they argue that we by acknowledging a Conversion by Transubstantiation pretend to declare the modum conversionis No that is far from the Churches or the Antient Fathers thoughts For by that expression the onely signifies the change is not a matter of fancy but real yet withal Mystical The Fathers to expresse their belief of a real conversion make use of many real changes mentioned in the Scripture as of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of water into wine c. But withal they adde That not any of these Examples do fit or properly represent the Mystical change in the Sacrament Sence or Reason might comprehend and judge of those changes but Faith alone must submit to the incomprehensiblenesse of this When Water was turn'd into Wine the eyes saw and the Palat tasted Wine it had the colour extension and locality of Wine But so is it not when Bread by consecration becomes the Body of Christ For ought that Sence can judge there is no change at all Christs Body is present but without locality It is present but not corporally as natural bodies are present one part here and another there The Quomodo of this presence is not to be inquired into nor can it without presumption be determin'd This is that which the Church calls a Sacramental Mystical presence But that this presence is real and substantial a presence in the Symbols or Elements and not only in the mind of the worthy receiver the Fathers unanimously teach And indeed if it were not so none could receive the Body of Christ unworthily because according to Protestants it is not the Body of Christ but meer Bread that an impenitent Sinner receives And St. Pauls charge would be irrational when he saies such An one receives judgment to himself in that he does not discern the Body of our Lord. Besides if the change be not in the Elements but in the Receivers Soul what need is there of Consecration What effect can Consecration have Why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest administer this Sacrament What hinders that such a Presence may not be effected in the mind every Dinner or Supper and as well when we eat flesh and drink any other Liquor besides Wine at our own Table as at that of our Lord. 9. Now whether their Doctrine or ours be a Novelty let Antiquity judge If I should produce as he knows I may hundreds of Testimonies that by conversion a change is made of the Bread into
the Body and Wine into the Blood of Christ he would think to escape by allowing a change to be made but only in the Act of worthy receiving Therefore I will onely make use of such Authorities as demonstrate this change to be made before communicating that it remains when the Sacrament is reserved and that immediately after consecration before any participation of the Symbols both the Priest and People did perform an act of Adoration to Christ beleived to be really and substantially though mystically present 10. In all ancient Liturgies as Blondel himself though a Huguenot confesses the prayer in the consecration of the Elements was That God would by his holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and the Wine the Blood of our Lord. And that before communicating whilst it was on the Altar it was esteem'd and worshiped as the true Body of our Lord St. Chrysostome will witnesse Let us saith he who are Citizens of Heaven imitate but even the barbarous Magi who worshipped our Lord an Infant c. Thou seest him not in the Manger but on the Altar Thou dost not see a woman holding him but the Priest standing by him and the Spirit with great vertue hovering over these Mysteries proposed Thou not only seest the Body it self as the Magi did but thou knowest also the vertue of it c. The same Body which is the most precious and most honour'd thing in Heaven I will shew thee placed upon Earth c. Neither dost thou only see it but touchest and eatest it and having received it thou returnest home with it c. Hence Optatus saith What other thing is the Altar but the Seat of the Body and Blood of Christ. A yet more irrefragable witnesse hereof is the General Council of Nice wherein Act. l. 3. c. de Divinâ mensâ are these words In this Divine Table let us not abase our intentions so as to consider the Bread and Wine set before us but raising up our mind by Faith let us understand that upon that holy Table is placed the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the World which is unbloodily immolated by the Priest and receiving his precious Body and Blood let us truly believe that these are the Symbols of our Redemption And that the Elements once consecrated and after reserved yet remain the Body of Christ though not participated St. Cyril of Alexandria expresly â—ectifies I hear saith he there are others who affirm that the Mystical Eulogy if any thing of it remain till another day doth profit nothing to sanctification Bur they are mad who say these things For Christ is not alter'd neither is his holy Body changed but the vertue of Benediction and quickning grace perpetually remains in it And as touching Adâ—ration of our Lord as acknowledged substantially present on the Altar St. Ambrose expresly asserts it Adore the foot-stool of his feet Therefore by the footstool is understood the Earth and the Earth the flesh of Christ which at this day also we adore in the Mysteries and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Iesus And from St. Ambrose the same is taught as expresly by St. Augustin discoursing on the same Text Adorate Scabellum pedum ejus Who moreover adds Christ hath given his flesh to be eaten by us for our Salvation Now no man eats this except he first adore it Yea moreover he saies We do not only not sin by adoring it but we should sin if we did not adore it And in an Epistle to Honoratus he affirms That the rich of the Earth and proud are somtimes brought to the Table of our Lord and there receive of his Body and Blood but they onely adore it they are not satiated with it because they do not imitate him by humility For of the humble it is said Edent pauperes saturabuntur 11. The same may be inferr'd by the wonderfull niceness and scrupolosity observed in the Primitive Church in the handling communicating and reserving these Mysteries what a crime was it esteem'd in the Primitive times if but a crum or drop of the consecrated Elements should fall to the ground For fear of that till about the year six hundred they were received by the Communicants not in their Fingers as among the Reformed but in the inside plain of their hands and in a silver Pipe c. But I will conclude this point with a brief Answer to the Doctors Allegations 12. Whereas therefore he says It is evident that Transubstantiation waâ— never taught by our Saviour since in the same breath wherewith he pronounced these words This is my Blood he explain'd himself by calling it expresly the Fruit of the Vine On the contrary I do confidently pronounce it to be evident that those words were neither spoken by our Lord in the same breath after the Consecration of the Chalice nor had they any regard to the Sacrament 'T is true they are mentioned by St. Matthew after the Consecration but he knows that in St. Luke who promised to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those words are mentioned before any Consecration began and the occasion of them is evidently the eating of the Paschal Supper c. For this is his Narration When the hour was come he sate down and the twelve Apostles with him And he said unto them with desire I have desired to eat this Passeover with you before I suffer For I say unto you I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfill'd in the kingdom of God And he took the Cup and gave thanks and said Take this and divide it among your selves For I say unto you I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine until the kingdom of God shall come Now after all this follows his own last Supper the Mystical consecration and communion of his blessed Body and Blood For the Text thus continues And he took Bread saying This is my Body c. likewise also the Cup after Supper saying This Cup c. This being the order of the words no Text can possibly with more evidence conâ—ute the Doctor than this which himself cites for what can be clearer if before Consecration our Saviour said He would drink no â—ore of the fruit of the Vine then that what he drank after was not of the fruit of the Vine But besides this though our Lord should have called it after Consecration the fruit of the Vine as Saint Paul calls the other Symbol Bread this does not argue against a Change in their nature For Moses his Rod after it was changed into a Serpent is call'd a Rod still because it had been one Exod. 7. 12. and Io. 2. 9. it is said That the Master of the Feast tasted the Water that was made Wine 13. Is not now the Doctor 's Insincerity evident his insincerity even in the Pulpit has he not palpably mis-inform'd his Majesty and so illustrious