Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	aaron_n	heavenly_a	substance_n	30	3	9.6069	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56667	A full view of the doctrines and practices of the ancient church relating to the Eucharist wholly different from those of the present Roman Church, and inconsistent with the belief of transubstatiation : being a sufficient confutation of Consensus veterum, Nubes testium, and other late collections of the fathers, pretending the contrary.	Patrick, Simon, 1626-1707.	1688 (1688)	Wing P804; ESTC R13660	210,156	252

that Wine into his Blood as he did before in the Wilderness before he was born Man when he turned the heavenly Food into his Flesh and that Water flowing from the Rock into his Blood. P. 474. Many Persons ate of the Heavenly Food in the Desart and drank of the Spiritual Drink and yet as Christ said are dead Christ meant not that Death which no Man can avoid but he understood eternal Death which several of that People for their Unbelief had deserved Moses and Aaron and several others of the People that pleased God ate that heavenly Bread and did not die that everlasting Death tho' they died the common Death They saw that the heavenly Food was visible and Corruptible but they understood that visible thing spiritually and they tasted it spiritually Jesus said Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life He did not command them to eat that Body which he had assumed nor to drink that Blood which he shed for us but by that Speech he meant the Holy Eucharist which is Spiritually his Body and his Blood and whosoever tasteth this with a believing Heart shall have that Eternal Life Under the old Law the Faithful offered divers Sacrifices to God which had a future signification of the Body of Christ which he hath offered in Sacrifice to his heavenly Father for our Sins This Eucharist which is now consecrated at God's Altar is a Commemoration of the Body of Christ which he offered for us and of his Blood which he shed for us As he himself commanded Do this in remembrance of me Christ once suffered by himself but yet his Passion by the Sacrament of this Holy Eucharist is daily renewed at the Holy Mass Wherefore the Holy Mass is profitable very much both for the Living and also for the Dead as it hath been often declared c. The rest of the Sermon being of a moral and allegorical Nature I omit Besides this Sermon in Publick we have also two other Remains of Elfrike the Abbot in the Saxon Tongue * Published at the end of the foresaid Sermon printed by John Day Also in the Notes on Bede 's Eccl. Hist p. 332 333 334. which speak the very same Sense and deserve to be inserted as far as they concern this Argument of the Eucharist and the change made in it The first is an Epistle to Wulffine Bishop of Shyrburn in which is this Passage The Eucharist is not the Body of Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which he suffered but that Body when he consecrated Bread and Wine for the Eucharist the night before his Passion and said of the Bread he Blessed This is my Body and again of the Wine he blessed This is my Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Now then understand that the Lord who was able to change that Bread before his Passion into his Body and that Wine into his Blood Spiritually that the same Lord by the Hands of the Priests daily consecrates Bread and Wine for his Spiritual Body and for his Spiritual Blood. The second an Epistle of Elfricke to Wulfstane Arch-Bishop of York in which among other things against too long reserving the Eucharist he says thus Christ himself consecrated the Eucharist before his Passion Vid. p. 334. Hist Eccles Sax. Lat. Bedae he blessed Bread and brake it saying thus to his Apostles Eat this Bread it is my Body and again he blessed the Cup filled with Wine and spake thus to them Drink ye all of this it is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Our Lord who consecrated the Eucharist before his Passion and said that Bread was his Body and Wine truly his Blood he also daily consecrates by the Priests hands Bread for his Body and Wine for his Blood in a Spiritual Mystery as we read in Books Yet notwithstanding that Lively Bread is not the same Body in which Christ suffered nor that Holy Wine the Blood of our Saviour which was shed for us in bodily thing or sence in re corporali but in a Spiritual sence in ratione Spirituali That Bread indeed was his Body and also that Wine his Blood just as that heavenly Bread which we call Manna which fed God's People forty Years viz. was his Body and that clear Water was his Blood that then flowed from the Rock in the Wilderness As Paul writes in his Epistle They all ate the same spiritual Meat and drank the same spiritual Drink c. The Apostle that says what you have heard They all ate c. he do's not say corporally but spiritually Christ was not as yet born nor his Blood shed then it was the People of Israel did eat that Spiritual Meat and drank of that Rock neither was that Rock Christ Corporeally tho' he spake so The Sacraments of the Old Law were the same and did spiritually signify that Sacrament or Eucharist of our Saviour's Body which we now consecrate This Last Epistle Elfricke wrote first in the Latin Tongue to Wulfstane containing tho' not word for word yet the whole Sence of the English Epistle and that Paragraph of it which I have inclosed between two Brackets was look'd upon as so disagreeable to the present Faith of the Roman Church that some had rased them out of the Worcester Book but the same Latin Epistle being found in Exceter Church it was restored I was once about to have added some Citations here out of Bertram's Book de corpore sanguine Domini out of which many passages in the Saxon Sermon foregoing were taken But they are so many that I must have transcribed and the Book it self is small and so well worth the reading especially with the late Translation of it into English and a Learned Historical Dissertation before it giving a large account of the Difference betwixt his Opinion and that of Transubstantiation printed An 1686 that I shall rather refer the Reader to it where he may abundantly satisfy himself Instead of it I will only add one Testimony more out of Rabanus Arch-bishop of Mentz in an Epistle to Heribaldus * Epist ad Herib c. 33. de Eucharist Which we are beholden to the Learned Baluzius for giving it us entire in Appendice ad Reginonem p. 516. a Passage having been rased out of the Manuscript out of which it was first published Thus he says As for the Question you put Quod autem interrogastis utrum Eucharistia postquam consumitur in secessum emittitur more aliorum ciborum iterum redeat in naturam pristinam quam habuerat antequam in Altari consecraretur superflua est hujusmodi Quaestio cùm ipse Salvator dixerit in Evangelio Omne quod intrat in os in ventrem vadit in secessum emittitur Sacramentum Corporis Sanguinis ex rebus visibilibus corporalibus conficitur sed invisibilem tàm corporis quàm animae

Tho' the Body of Christ in the Sacrament has all its Quantity and Colour and other sensible Qualities yet as it is in the Sacrament it is neither there visibly nor quantitatively * Quantum ad situm extensionem ejus ad locum as to its situs and extension unto Place 4. Tho' the Body of Christ be in it self greater than a Consecrated Host yet according to the Esse Being it has there it is whole in that Host nor only whole in the whole consecrated Host but also whole in every part thereof 5. If those Accidents of the Consecrated Host be corrupted and it should happen that of them Worms or any other Animal be generated there is a great Miracle in their Generation For either the Materia prima is created anew out of which the substantial Form of those Animals is produced as many Divines now think or according to S. Thomas which seems to be a greater Miracle The Quantity that was of the Consecrated Host supplies the place of the Materia prima and in it is produced the substantial Form of those Animals which are generated from thence 6. The very Conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ which is properly called by Divines Transubstantiation is a great Miracle for such a Transmutation is found in no other thing and is besides all the Order and Course of Nature and can be made by no Created Power but by God's Omnipotency alone 7. The Manner by which such Transubstantiation is made is not without a Miracle for it is made by the Words of Consecration pronounced rightly and as it ought by a Priest Therefore as naturally supposing the last disposition in Matter to produce the Form of Fire the Form of Fire is infallibly produced in that Matter So the Words of Consecration being pronounced by the Priest Christ himself is infallibly in that Consecrated Host 8. After Consecration the whole Substance of Bread and Wine ceasing to be yet their Accidents do not cease but remain Neither do they remain inhering in any other Subject but per se existunt exist by themselves which is truly besides and above the Nature of Accidents whose esse as the Schools say is inesse because they can neither be produced nor remain naturally without a Subject 9. Lastly Those Accidents of the Consecrated Host tho' without the Substance of Bread and Wine yet have the same natural Virtue which Bread and Wine had before Consecration viz. the Virtue of nourishing encreasing and strengthning the Body of the Person that receives it when yet Nutrition is made by conversion of the Substance of the Food into the Substance of the Living Creature By reason of which Miracles he says the Church sings thus in the Hymn for Corpus-Christi day Quod non capis Quod non vides Animosa firmat fides praeter rerum ordinem Etsi sensus deficit Ad firmandum cor sincerum Sola fides sufficit Praestat fides supplementum sensuum defectui That is What never yet was understood Nor ever seen by any Creature A confident Belief makes good Tho' cross to all the Laws of Nature Tho' Sense will not be brought t' allow it A Heart sincere may be secure And waving all its Scruples sure Since Faith alone 's enough to do it For Faith supplies the Senses want And makes good Measure where that 's scant As for the Fathers they are so far from consenting to this heap of Miracles in the Eucharist that we have reason to think as to some of them they never entred into their thoughts nor never troubled themselves about them and for the most of them tho' they are direct Consequences of Transubstantiation yet they are opposed and contradicted by the Fathers as shall be shewn in Particulars afterwards Here it shall suffice to say in general That the Fathers give us this as a Character of the old Hereticks to urge God's Omnipotency to countenance and give a colour to their Figments and absurd Opinions Thus Gr. Nazianzen says of the Apollinarians * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 51. That being pressed with these Reasonings they fly to this That to God it is possible And Tertullian when Praxeas also urged God's Omnipotency gives this excellent † Contr. Praxeam c. 10. Si tam abruptè in praesumptionibus nostris hâc sententiâ utamur quidvis de Deo confingere poterimus quasi fecerit quia facere potuerit Non autem quia omnia potest facere ideo credendum est illum fecisse etiam quod non fecerit sed an fecerit requirendum Answer to him If we may so abruptly use this Sentence viz. That to God all things are easie in our Presumptions we may then feign any thing we please of God as if he had done a thing because he was able to do it But because God can do all things we are not to believe he has done that which he has not done but we are to inquire whether he has done it or no. Thus Gr. Nyssen * Gr. Nyssen in Hexaemeron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asserts That the Will of God is the Measure of his Power And Clemens of Alexandria † Stromat l. 4. propè finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God who is Omnipotent will effect nothing that is absurd And Origen ‖ L. 5. contr Cel● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When we say That God can do all things we know how to understand all things not of such things as cannot exist and are unintelligible Obj. If any object That the Fathers often bring in Instances of Gods miraculous Power as St. Ambrose does in the Red Sea and the River Jordan and in the miraculous Conception of our Saviour c. to create Faith in Men as to the great Change that is wrought in the Eucharist Ans I answer True indeed But then it is to be remembred what shall hereafter be more fully declared that the Change there is not terminated upon the Substance of the Elements nor is God's Power shewn upon them to alter their Nature from what they were before so as to destroy them but it is an addition of Grace to their Nature and an advancement of them to produce wonderful Effects upon us in the use of them So that now the Element of Water in Baptism is no more a common thing but is employed by God to wash away our Sins to cleanse our Souls and to regenerate and renew us And in the Eucharist the Bread and Wine which in themselves are the Food of our Bodies are advanced to be a Means to communicate the Body and Blood of Christ to us for the nourishing and refreshing our Souls and to make us Partakers of the saving Effects of his Death and Passion which are only Miracles of God's Grace And the Fathers urge the forementioned Miracles in Nature to assure us of these Wonders of Divine Grace And this they do not only in the case of the Eucharist

but of Baptism also where yet none assert any Conversion of the Substance of Water into any other thing Thus S. Ambrose * De in qui initiantur c. 9. ad finem Si ergo superveniens Spiritus S. in Virginem conceptionem operatus esf generationis munus implevit Non utique dubitandum est quod superveniens in fontem vel super eum qui baptismum consequitur veritatem regenerationis operetur Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the intervention of any Man as S. Matthew tells us She was found with Child of the Holy Ghost If then the Holy Spirit coming upon the Virgin made her to conceive c. we need not question but that the same Spirit coming upon the Water of Baptism or on him that is baptized do's produce true Regeneration And P. Leo Mag. † De Nativit Dom. Ser. 4. Christus dedit aquae quod dedit-Matri Virtus enim Altissimi obumbratio Spiritus S. quae fecit ut Maria pareret Salvatorem eadem facit ut regeneret unda credentem Christ gave to the Water what he gave to his Mother for the Power of the most High and the Overshadowing of the H. Spirit which caused Mary to bring forth our Saviour the same causes the Water to regenerate a Believer Excepting therefore these Wonders of God's Grace the Fathers knew no other Miracles in the Sacraments and these Wonders are common to both the Sacraments and not peculiar to one of them only This even Card. Cajetan * In 3. part q. 75. art 1. Non est disputandum de divina potentia ubi de Sacramentis tractatur Ibid. art 2. Stultum est ponere in hoc argumento quicquid Deus potest facere was so sensible of that he tells us We must not dispute concerning God's Power when we treat of Sacraments And again It is a fcolish thing to assert in this Argument whatsoever God can do He was not ignorant of what S. Austin had said long before † Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 10. Quia haec hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt who speaking of Signs taken to signifie other things and instancing in the Bread taken and consumed in the Sacrament adds But because these things are known to men as being made by men they may have Honour given them for their relation to Religion but cannot raise Astonishment as Miracles or Wonders Which he could never have said if he had believed the Wonders and Miracles of Transubstantiation I 'le conclude this Head with another Saying of his * Lib. 3. cont Julian c. 3. Haec sunt sententiarum portenta vestrarum haec inopinata mysteria Dogmatum novorum haec paradoxa Pelagianorum haereticorum mirabiliora quàm Stoicorum Philosophorum Mira sunt quae dicitis nova sunt quae dicitis falsa sunt quae dicitis Mira stupemus nova cavemus falsa convincimus which may be as well applied to the absurd Paradoxes and Miracles which the Roman Church advances in this Case of the Eucharist as ever it was to those he there confutes about Baptism These are the Prodigies of your Opinions these are the uncouth Mysteries of New Dogma's these are the Paradoxes of Pelagian Hereticks more wonderful than those of the Stoick Philosophers The things you say are Wonderful the things you say are New the things you say are False We are amazed at your Wonders we are cautious against your Novelties and we confute your Falsities But this Difference being more general we go on to more particular ones CHAP. II. The Second Difference The Church of Rome differs from the Fathers in determining what that thing is which Christ calls MY BODY THE Trent Catechism (a) Ad Paroch part 2.37 §. Haec vero Si panis substantia remaneret nullo modo dici videretur Hoc est Corpus meum tho' it do's not determine what the word THIS refers to only telling us that it must demonstrate the whole Substance of the thing present yet it expresly denies that it refers to the Substance of Bread for it adds If the Substance of Bread remained it seems no way possible to be said that THIS IS MY BODY So Bellarmine confesses (b) De Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. sec Nonus that this Proposition This Bread is my Body must be taken figuratively that the Bread is the Body of Christ by way of signification or else it is plainly absurd and impossible And he acknowledges (c) Ib. lib. 2. cap. 9. §. Observandum that this Proposition The Wine is the Lord's Blood teaches that Wine is Blood by similitude and likeness And elsewhere (d) Lib. 3. cap. 19. It cannot be a true Proposition in which the Subject is supposed to be Bread and the Predicate the Body of Christ for Bread and Christ's Body are res diversissimae things most different And a little after If we might affirm disparata de disparatis different things of one another you might as well affirm and say that something is nothing and nothing something that Light is Darkness and Darkness Light that Christ is Belial and Belial Christ neither do's our Faith oblige us to defend those things that evidently imply a Contradiction So also Vasquez (e) Disp 180. cap. 9. n. 91. Si pronomen Hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem fatemur etiam fore ut nulla conversio virtute illorum ●●eri possit quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debet If the Pronoun THIS in Christ's Words pointed at the Bread then we confess it would follow that no Conversion could be made by virtue of these Words because the Bread of which it is affirmed sc that it is Christ's Body ought to remain Now that which the present Roman Church dare not affirm because if it be taken properly it is untrue absurd impossible as implying a Contradiction we shall now shew that the Fathers plainly affirm it who yet could not be ignorant of this Absurdity From whence it necessarily follows that they took the whole words THIS IS MY BODY figuratively as the Protestants do since they cannot be taken otherwise if Bread be affirmed to be Christ's Body as the Romanists confess Now that the Fathers affirmed that Bread is Christ's Body is certain by these following Testimonies S. Irenaeus (f) Adv. Haeres l. 5. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord confessed the Cup which is of the Creature to be his Blood and the Bread which is of the Creature he confirmed it to be his Body Clement of Alexandria (g) Paedag. lib. 2. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our Lord blessed the Wine saying Take drink this is my Blood the Blood of the Grape For the Holy River of Gladness so he calls the Wine do's allegorically signifie the Word i. e. the Blood of the Word shed for many for the remission