Selected quad for the lemma: death_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A26931
|
Full and easie satisfaction which is the true and safe religion in a conference between D. a doubter, P. a papist, and R. a reformed Catholick Christian : in four parts ... / by Richard Baxter.
|
Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.
|
1674
(1674)
|
Wing B1272; ESTC R15922
|
117,933
|
211
|
Saint and yet not the benefits or effects As if Christs flesh and blood could be in a mans body without his benefit When he hath promised that he that eateth him shall live by him Yet see the measures of their faith and Church Saith Aquinas 3. q. 80. a. 3. ad 2. Vnless perhaps an Infidel intend to Receive that which the Church giveth though he have not true faith about other Articles or about this Sacrament then he may receive sacramentally CHAP. VI. The fourth Argument This Miraculous Transubstantiation is expresly contrary to the Word of God in Scripture Arg. 4. THe Papists say that there is no bread after the words of Consecration Gods word saith There is Bread after the Consecration Therefore the Papists speak contrary to the Word of God I. In 1 Cor. 11. It is called expresly BREAD after consecration no less than three times in three verses together 26 27 28. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and Drink this cup ye shew the Lords death till he come Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup Here they that call for express words of Scripture for our doctrine without our consequences may see their own faith expresly contradicted and our opposition justified The Holy Ghost here expresly calleth it Bread And yet no expresness nor evidence will satisfie them P. By Bread is meant that which was Bread before or else that which nourisheth the soul as Bread doth the body And so it is metonymically only called Bread as Christs Flesh is called Bread in Joh. 6. R. Why then do you call for express texts of Scripture as our proof when that expresness signifieth nothing with you but you can say It is a metonymie or a metaphor at your pleasure But you say so against notorious Evidence The Apostle calleth it Bread so often over and over as if he had foreseen your inhumane heresie He calleth it The Bread which is to be Eaten joyned with Drinking the Cup never once calling either of them the Flesh or Blood of Christ but as he reciteth Christs words which he expoundeth Yea he telleth us that eating this bread and drinking this cup is to shew the Lords death till he come where he calleth us to look back at Christs death as past in our Commemoration and to look forward to his personal coming as future but never telleth us that we must kill Christ and eat him our selves when we have made him nor that his body is there present under the accidents of Bread and Wine But the rest of the Scriptures as expresly justifie our doctrine 1 Cor. 10.15 The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion or Communication of the blood of Christ And the Bread which we break is it not the communion or participation of the body of Christ Here it is the Cup and the Bread after Consecration if the Holy Ghost may be believed And in the next words the Apostle repeateth it in his reason For we being Many are One Bread and One Body For we all partake of one Bread or Loaf Is not here express proof So Act. 20.7 When we came together to break Bread And v. 11. He ascending and breaking bread and eating c. Here it is twice more called Bread after the Consecration which ever went before the Breaking So Act. 2.42 46. It is twice more called Breaking of Bread And what else can the recitation of Christs institution mean 1 Cor. 11.23 24. Panem accepisse fregisse to have taken Bread and having given thanks to have broken What is it that he brake It s non-sence if it have no accusative case that it respects And plain Grammatical construction tells us then that it must be that before mentioned What he Took he blessed and brake and gave But he took Bread and the Cup The same is in Mat. 26 26 27. and the other Evangelists II. The Scriptures expresly Act. 2 c. make the Killing of Christ and drawing his blood to be the heynous sin of the Jews for which some Repented and others were cast off Therefore it is not to be believed that Christ did first kill or tear himself and shed his own blood or that his disciples did kill him or tear his flesh and shed his blood before the Jews did it And if they tore his flesh and drank his blood and yet killed him not the event altered not the fact The Jews did but break his flesh and shed his blood If you fly to a good intention Paul will come in for some further excuse for his persecution III. 1 Cor. 10.21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table and of the table of Devils Here note 1. That the same phrase is used of the Participation of the Lords mysteries and the Devils But it was not the flesh and blood or the substance of Devils which the Idolaters ever intended to partake of but only their sacrifices 2. It is here called only the Table and the Cup and not the flesh and the blood 3. It is said that They could not partake of both whereas according to the Papists doctrine if a man should partake of the Idols sacrifice in the morning and of the Lords Table in the evening without repentance he should really partake of Christs own flesh and blood which the Text saith cannot be done P. It meaneth only You cannot Lawfully or you ought not to partake of both but not that it is impossible or never done R. No doubt but it meaneth that They ought not or cannot Lawfully but that 's not all The text plainly meaneth You cannot have communion with both You may take the bread and wine at your peril but you cannot partake of it as a sacramental feast which God prepareth you and so partake of Christ therein And the same is said expounding this 2 Cor. 6.15 What concord hath Christ with Belial and what agreement hath the temple of God with Idols Intimating that Communion with God and Idols Christ and Belial are so far inconsistent But by the Papists doctrine an Idolater and Son of Belial may partake of the very substance of Christs body and blood into his body as verily as he partaketh of his meat and drink IV. The Scripture teacheth us expresly to judge of sensible things by sense Luk. 24.39 Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have And when he had thus spoken he shewed them his hands and his feet And v. 43 he did eat before them to confirm their faith But they could have no more sensible evidence of any of this than we have of the being of Bread and Wine or some
order of nature Thou blindest the providence of God himself as if he had made mens lying and deceitful senses to be the Lords in understanding honouring dispensing and enjoying all his works Is not the whole Condition of man subadministred by these And after We may not call those senses into question lest Christ himself must deliberate of their certainty or must distrust them Lest it may be said that he falsly saw Satan cast down from Heaven or falsly heard the voyce of his Father testifying of him or was deceived when he touched Peters Wives Mother or perceived not a true taste of the Wine which he Consecrated in the memorial of his blood Many such places are in Tertullian 4. Origen is large and plain to the same purpose in Matth. 25. calling it Bread and a Typical and Symbolical Body which profiteth none but the worthy receivers and that according to the proportion of their faith and which no wicked man doth eat c. Many more such places Albertinus vindicateth 5. Cyprians Epistle to Magnus is too large this way to be recited As Even the Sacrifices of the Lord declare the Christian Vnanimity connexed by firm and inseparable love For when the Lord calleth Bread his body or his body bread made up of many united grains c. And when he calleth the Wine his Blood c. So Epist ad Caecil 6. Eusebius Caesar demonstr Evang. l. 1. c. 10. Celebrating daily the memorial of the body and blood of Christ Seeing then we receive the memorial of this Sacrifice to be perfected on the Table by the symbols of his body and most precious blood And l. 8. He delivered to us to use Bread as the symbol of his own body 7. Athanasius's words are recited by Albertinus l. 2. p. 400 401 c. 8. Basil de Spir. Sanct. saith Which of the Saints hath left us in Writing the words of invocation when the Bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of blessing are shewed 9. Ephrem in Biblioth Photii p. 415. Edit August saith The body of Christ which believers receive loseth not his sensible substance and is not separated from the intelligible grace And ad eos qui filii Dei c. Take notice diligently how taking Bread in his hands he blessed it and brake it for a figure of his immaculate body and he blessed the Cup and gave it to his Disciples as a figure of his pretious blood 10. Cyrillus vel Johan Hierosol Catech. Mystag calls the bread indeed Christs body but fully expounds himself de Chrysmate Cat. 3. pag. 235. For as the Bread of the Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more Common Bread but is the Body of Christ So also this Holy Oyntment is no more meer Oyntment nor if any one had rather so speak common now it is consecrated but it is a Gift or Grace which causeth the presence of Christ and the Holy Ghost that is of his Divinity As the Oyntment is Grace or the Holy Ghost just so the Bread is the body of Christ as he saith after Cat. 4. It is not only what we see Bread and Wine but more 11. Hierom cont Jovinian l. 2. The Lord as a type or figure of his blood offered not water but wine 12. Ambrose de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. This therefore we assert How that which is Bread can yet be the body of Christ And If Christs speech had so much force that it made that begin to be which was not how much more is it operative that the things that were both Be and be changed into something else And As thou hast drunk the similitude of death so thou drinkest the similitude of pretious blood 13. Theodoret in Dialog Immutab dealeth with an Eutychian Heretick who defended his Error by pleading that the bread in the Eucharist was changed into the body of Christ To whom saith Theodoret The Lord who hath called that meat and bread which is naturally his Body and who again called himself a Vine did honour the visible signs with the appellation of his body and blood not having changed their Nature but added Grace to Nature And in Dialog 2. In confus he saith The divine Mysteries are signs of the true body And again answering the Eutychians pretence of a change he saith By the net which thou hast made art thou taken ☞ For even after the Consecration the Mystical signs change not their nature For they remain in all their first SVBSTANCE figure and form and are Visible and to be Handled as before But they are understood to be the things which they were made and are believed and venerated as made that which they are believed to be Would you have plainer words 14. Gelasius cont Nest Eutych saith Verily the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we take is a Divine thing for which and by which we are made partakers of the divine nature ☞ And yet it ceaseth not to be the Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine And certainly the Image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the Mysteries What can be plainer 15. Cyril Alexandr in John 4. cap. 14. saith He gave to his believing disciples fragments of Bread saying Take Eat This is my body 16. Facundus lib. 9. cap. 5. pag. 404. as cited by P. Molin de Novitate Papismi We call that the body and blood of Christ which is the Sacrament of his body in the consecrated Bread and Cup. ☞ Not that the Bread is properly his body and the Cup his blood but because they contain the Mysterie of his body and blood But I am so weary of these needless Transcriptions that I will trouble my self and the Reader with no more Albertinus will give him enow more who desireth them And no doubt but with a wet finger they can blot out all these and teach us to deny the sense of words as well as our senses D. But you said also that the Present Church and its Tradition is against Transubstantiation as well as the Antient How prove you that R. Just as I prove that the Protestants are against it By the present Church I mean the far greater part of all the Christians in the world The Greeks with the Muscovites the Armenians the Syrians the Copties the Abassines and the Protestants and all the rest who make up about twice or thrice as many as the Papists That they hold that there is true Bread and Wine after Consecration all impartial Historians testifie both Papists and Protestants and their own several Countreymen and also Travellers who have been among them And their Liturgies even those that are in the Bibliotheca Patrum put out by themselves do testifie for those Countreys where they are used Though as Bishop Vsher hath detected by one words addition they have shamelesly endeavoured to corrupt the Ethiopick Liturgy about the Real presence But I need no more proof of that which