Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	bread_n	drink_v	show_v	4,670	5	5.5934	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61588	A rational account of the grounds of Protestant religion being a vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's relation of a conference, &c., from the pretended answer by T.C. : wherein the true grounds of faith are cleared and the false discovered, the Church of England vindicated from the imputation of schism, and the most important particular controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined / by Edward Stillingfleet ...	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1665 (1665)	Wing S5624; ESTC R1133	917,562	674

imaginable to reconcile it with the Institution of Christ. Some therefore say That all these are words only of invitation and not of command and that they only give a right and not oblige men to do it But if these be only words of invitation what precept is there any where extant for the celebration of the Eucharist That they are an invitation we deny not but we say they are such an invitation as imply a duty to come too When a Father bids his Children come and sit down at Table take and eat their meat this is an invitation but such as by reason of the authority of the person carry a command with them So it is here Christ invites to come to take eat and drink but so that it implyes a command that men should come or else it must be wholly left at mens liberty so that it is no sin for men to neglect or refuse to come And if the Institution of Christ only gives men a liberty to take eat and drink without any obligation to these things as a duty How comes the administration of the Eucharist at all to become a duty since there are no other words of command then what are contained in the Institution Which others being sensible of they most unreasonably distinguish between Taking and eating which they make an absolute command and Drinking all of this which they say is only a conditional precept and the reason they give is because St. Paul saith This do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me and so say they Do this doth not imply a command for the doing it but only the relation which that action hath to the death of Christ when they do it for those words as oft as you do it do suppose it not to be simply necessary but only shew when they do it to what purpose it should be done But if there be any weight in this it will as well hold still concerning the participation of the bread as well as the cup for as the Apostle saith This do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me so he adds in the words immediately following For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew forth the Lords death till he come If therefore it notes only the relation of the action to its end without a command for performance in the one it must do so in the other also And so all the Sacrament will be a meer matter of liberty in the Church whether men will observe it or no. But Bellarmin with wonderful subtilty hath found a command for the one and not the other which is That in Luke after the bread Christ saith This do in remembrance of me but omits it wholly after the cup by which saith he we are to understand that Christ commanded that the Sacrament should be administred to all under the species of bread but not under that of wine And this he is so transported with That in a rapture he admires the wonderful providence of God in the Scripture who by this means hath taken away all possibility of evasion from the Hereticks So it should seem indeed when even his Brethren the Jesuits can scarce hold laughing at this subtilty Since St. Paul puts that expression This do in remembrance of me not after the bread but after the cup. And therefore may we not more justly admire at the Providence of God in thus suffering men who will not see the truth under a pretence of subtilty to infatuate themselves And although it be added here As oft as ye do it yet both Vasquez and Suarez ingenuously confess that contains under it a command for the doing it For saith Vasquez Qui praecipit ut opere aliquo commemoratio fiat alicujus beneficii accepti ex modo ipso praecipiendi praecipit etiam ut fiat opus ipsum Quis hoc non videat He that commands that by something to be done a commemoration should be made of a benefit received from the manner of commanding it he doth command that very action to be done Who doth not see this And Suarez saith those words Do this or with that addition In remembrance of me or with that condition As oft as ye do it ad eundem sensum referuntur come all to the same purpose So that still it follows if there be a command for one there is for the other also But yet there is a subtilty beyond any of these which is That Christ in those words in Luke after the distribution of the bread Hoc facite Do this did make the Apostles Priests and therefore although they did receive the bread as believers yet they received the cup as Priests and so that belongs only to the Priests and not to the people What will not these men prove which they have a mind to But it is their unhappiness that their own subtilties do them the most mischief as appears by these things consequent from hence which are repugnant to their own principles 1. That Priests not consecrating ought to receive the Cup as well as those that do For it is plain that the Apostles did not consecrate now but only receive and therefore this belongs to them as receiving and not as consecrating And by the same reasons that Priests not-consecrating may receive others may receive too 2. That if they were made Priests by those words after the distribution of the bread then they have no power to consecrate but only the bread For the words are Hoc facite Do this i. e. that which Christ had then done Otherwise if those words be taken with reference to the Cup then if the Apostles received the bread as believers they received the Cup so too for these words Do this must not relate to their receiving but to their power of consecration 3. If this be taken generally Do this and so giving them a power to do all that Christ did then it will amount to a precept for all who administer to follow Christs example in the Institution And therefore as he did administer the Cup as well as the Bread to all that were present then all others will be bound to do so if their power of administration be derived from these words Do this and they referr to the whole action of Christ. But I know what Answer will be here given That these words relate to the Sacrifice and not to the Sacrament Hoc facite implying their power of sacrificing as to which they say both elements are necessary but not to the Sacrament But 1. Not to enter on the Dispute about the Sacrifice if both elements be necessary to it then it was great reason that the words makeing them Priests should come after both elements and therefore it cannot in reason be deduced from those words which are spoken only after the bread 2. If these words relate to the Sacrifice and not to the Sacrament By what authority

wine into the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ and that this conveniently properly and most aptly is call'd Transubstantiation Now if this Authour speaks wholly of a real but spiritual presence of Christ and if he asserts that the substance of bread and wine do remain still you can have no pretence at all left that this Authour asserts your Doctrine of Transubstantiation For the first he expresly saith That these things must not be understood after a carnal sense viz. unless ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man ye shall have no life in you for Christ himself hath said His words are spirit and life And nothing can be more evident then that this Authour speaks not of any corporeal but spiritual presence of Christ by the effects which he attributes to it calling it inconsumptibilem cibum that food which cannot be consumed and the reason he gives of it is because it feeds to eternal life and therefore he saith it is immortalitatis alimonia that which nourisheth to immortality which cannot possibly be conceived of the corporal presence of Christ since you confess the body of Christ remains no longer in the body then the accidents of the bread and wine do And after he tells us What the feeding upon the flesh of Christ is viz. our hunger and desire of remaining in Christ by which the sweetness of his Love is so imprinted and melted as it were within us that the savour of it may remain in our palat and bowels penetrating and diffusing it self through all the recesses of soul and body And so just before he saith Christ did Spiritualinos instruere documento instruct us by a spiritual lesson that we might know that our abiding in him is our eating of him and our drinking a kind of incorporation by the humility of our obedience the conjunction of our wills the union of our affections And in another place denyes That there is any corporal union between Christ and us but a spiritual and therefore adds afterwards As often as we do these things we do not sharpen our teeth to bite but break and divide the holy bread by a sincere Faith All which and many other places in that Authour make it plain that he doth not speak of such a corporal presence as you imagine but of a real but spiritual presence of Christ whereby the souls of Believers have an intimate union and conjunction with Christ which he calls Societatem germanissimam in which respect they have communion with the body of Christ. But I need mention but one place more to explain his meaning in which he fully asserts the spiritual presence of Christ and withall that the substance of the elements doth remain That immortal nourishment is given us which differs from common food that it retains the nature of a corporeal substance but proving the presence of a Divine power by its invisible efficiency So that what presence of Divine power there is is shewed in regard of the effects of it not in regard of any substantial change of the bread into the body of Christ for in reference to that efficiency he calls it immortal nourishment and afterwards That as common bread is the life of the body so this supersubstantial bread is the life of the soul and health of the mind But I know you will quarrel with me for rendring corporalis substantiae retinens speciem by retaining the nature of a corporal substance for you would fain have species to signifie only the accidents of a corporeal substance to remain This being therefore the main thing in dispute if I can evince that species signifies not the bare external accidents but the nature of a corporeal substance then this Authour will be so far from asserting that he will appear point-blank against your Doctrine of Transubstantiation Now I shall prove that species was not taken then for the meer external shape and figure but for the solid body it self especially of such things as were designed for nourishment Thence in the Civil Law we read of the species annonariae and of the species publicae largitionales and fiscales and those who had the care of corn are said to be curatores specierum and thence very often in the Codes of Justinian and Theodosius there is mention of the species vini species olei species tritici But lest you should think it is only used in this sense in the Civil Law not only Cassiodore and Vegetius use it in the same sense for the species tritici and species annonariae but that which comes home to our purpose St. Ambrose uses it where it is impossible to be taken for the meer external accidents but must be understood of the substance it self speaking of Christs being desired to change the water into wine he thus expresses it Vt rogatus ad nuptias aquae substantiam in vini speciem commutaret that he would change the substance of water into the species of wine Will you say that Christ turned it only into the external accidents and not the nature of it So when St. Austin sayes that Christ was the same food to the Jews and us significatione nonspecie he opposes species to a meer type and therefore it imports the substance and reality of the thing And so the translator of Origen opposes the regeneratio in specie to the baptismus in aenigmate and the manna in aenigmate to the manna in specie in both which being opposed to the figure it denotes the reality And one of those Authours whom you cite in the very same Book and Chapter which you cite uses species sanguinis for the substance of blood for he opposes it to the similitudo sanguinis for when the person objects and sayes That after the cup is consecrated speciem sanguinis non video I do not see the nature or substance of blood he answers him Sed similitudinem habet But it hath the resemblance of it for as saith he there is the similitude of his death so there is the similitude of his blood These may be sufficient to shew that species corporalis substantiae does not relate to the external shape and figure but to the nature and reality of it So that his meaning is although it remains still the same substance of bread and wine yet there is such an invisible efficiency of Divine power going along with the use of it as makes it to nourish the souls of men to eternal life And now it will be no matter of difficulty at all to Answer the places you bring out of this Authour The first is This common bread chang'd into flesh and blood giveth life But how little this place makes to your purpose is easie to discern because we do not deny a Sacramental change of the bread into the flesh and blood of Christ but only that substantial change which you assert but that Authour sufficiently

as his reason but the departing from the Institution of Christ and this is done by one as well as the other But he adds That there was a precept for that Do this And so say we was there as plain for the other Drink ye all of this So that the parity of reason is evident for the one as well as the other Upon the same ground doth Pope Julius afterwards condemn the using milk instead of wine because contrary to Christs Institution and so he doth the dipping the bread in the Chalice From whence we inferr that they looked on Christs Example and Institution in the administration to be unalterable But most express is the Testimony of Pope Gelasius who finding some from the remainders of Manichaism did abstain from the Cup gives express order That they who were infected with this odde superstition either should receive the whole Sacrament or abstain wholly from it because the dividing one and the same mystery cannot be done without great sacriledge To this Bellarmin tells us two Answers are commonly given one That these words are meant of Priests another That they relate only to those superstitious persons but both of them are sufficiently taken off by the reason assigned which is not fetched either from their Priesthood or Superstition but only from the Institution of Christ that it would be sacriledge to part those things which Christ by his Institution had joyned together Thus we see the sense of the Church is clear not only for the practice but the command too and the sinfulness of the violation of it Although to you one would think it were wholly needless to prove any more than the Vniversal Practice since the Tradition of the Church is equal with you with an unwritten word but that is when it makes for your purpose and not otherwise For in this case though the Institution be express the universal practice of the Church for at least a thousand years unquestionable yet because it contradicts the present sense and practice of your Church all this signifies nothing at all with you So true is it that it is neither Scripture nor Antiquity which you really regard but Interest and the Present Church And what Cusanus like a downright man spake out in this case is that you must all at last take sanctuary in That the Scriptures must be interpreted according to the current practice of the Church and therefore it is no wonder if they be interpreted at one time one way and another time another way And though this seem a very great absurdity yet it is no more than is necessary to be said by such who maintain things so contrary to Scripture and the practice of former ages of the Church But you are so far from thinking this contrary to the practice of the Church in former ages that you say Not only in S. Thomas his time but in all times of the Church it was both publickly allowed and commonly by some practised even in Churches to receive under one kind only A bold Assertion and which is confidently denied by very many of your own Communion For not only Cassander often confesses that for above a thousand years after Christ no instance can be produced of publick Communion in one kind But Father Barns acknowledges not only that Communion in both kinds is much more agreeable to Scripture Fathers and the Vniversal Church but that per se loquendo jure divino praescribitur taking it in it self it is commanded by a Divine Law But I know these men are too honest for you to own them but as to the universal practice of the Church it is confessed by Ruardus Alphonsus à Castro Lindanus and many others But we need no more than your S. Thomas himself even in that very place where you say He rather makes for you than against you for when he saies that Providè in quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur ut populo sanguis non detur It was a custom providently observed in some Churches not to give the Sacrament in the form of wine to the Laity He thereby shews indeed that in his time about A. D. 1260. this custom did in some places obtain but yet so that the universal practice had been to the contrary for so much is confessed by him in his Commentaries on S. John where his words are secundum antiquam in Ecclesiâ consuetudinem omnes sicut communicabant corpori ita communicabant sanguini quod etiam adhuc in quibusdam Ecclesiis servatur According to the anceint custom of the Church all did communicate in both kinds which as yet is observed in some Churches Now Whether the universal practice of the Church in former times or the practice of some Churches in his time were more agreeable to the Divine Institution we may appeal to Aquinas himself who elsewhere gives this account Why the elements of bread and wine were made use of and delivered severally That they might denote a complete refection and fully represent the death and passion of our Saviour On the same accounts Bonaventure and Alensis make both kinds necessary to the Integrity of the Sacrament And the latter who was Master to the two former saies expresly That whole Christ is not contained sacramentally under either kinds but his flesh under that of bread and his blood under that of wine Than which nothing can be more destructive to the Doctrine of Concomitancy And it is learnedly proved by Pet. Picherellus that the bread was appointed to represent not the body in its compleat substance but the meer flesh when the blood is out of it according to the division of the Sacrifices into flesh and blood from whence it appears that the Sacrifice of Christs death cannot be represented meerly by one kind and that whole Christ is not contained under one in the administration of it And therefore Alensis rightly determines that the res Sacramenti cannot be perfectly represented by one kind and thence sayes He that receives but in one kind doth not receive the Sacrament perfectly No wonder therefore that he tells us That some religious persons in his time when the contrary custom through the superstition of people had somewhat prevailed did earnestly desire that the Sacrament might again be received in both kinds Thus we see when this custom did begin reason and argument was still against it and nothing pleaded for it but only some superstitious fears of some accidental effusions of the blood of Christ. But you are the man who would still perswade us That Communion in one kind was not only publickly allowed but by some practised even in Churches in all times of the Church And therefore in reason we must give attendance to your impregnable demonstrations of it For otherwise say you How is it possible that the Manichees should find liberty and opportunity to communicate amongst Catholicks in Catholick Churches without being perceived since they never drank