Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
doctrine_n body_n bread_n transubstantiation_n 2,166 5 10.9952 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A56737 A discourse concerning the adoration of the host, as it is taught and practiced in the Church of Rome wherein an answer is given to T.G. on that subject, and to Monsieur Boileau's late book De adoratione eucharistiæ, Paris 1685. Payne, William, 1650-1696. 1685 (1685) Wing P898; ESTC R6993 45,831 68

There are 4 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

credo nec servio but only as it is hypostatically united to the Divine Nature i. e. so intimately and vitally united to it as to make one Person with it with God himself one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so one Object of Worship and if the Sacramental Symbols or Species are to be adored with true latria not per se or upon their own account but by reason of the intimate Union and Conjunction which they have with Christ as they say not only with Christs body for that alone is not to be worshipt much less another thing that is united to it but with Christs Person and then there must be as many Persons of Christ as there are consecrated Wafers then these Species being thus worshipt upon the same account that Christs humanity is as Gregory de Valentia owns they must This Worship saies he belongs after a certain manner to the species as when the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is worshipt in the humanity which he assumed the Divine Worship belongs also to the created Humanity Pertinet per accidens suo quodam modo ea veneratio ad Species quemadmodum suo modo etiam hoc ipso quod adoratur Divinum verbum in humanitate assumptâ pertinet ejusmodi Divinus cultus ad illam humanitatem creatam secundario neque in hoc est aliqua Idololatria Valentia Disput 6. Quest 11. de ritu oblat Eucharist must be also united to Christ the same way that his Humanity is united to his Divinity so as to become with that one entire object of Worship as the Species are according to them with Christ in the Eucharist that is they must become one suppositum or one Person with Christ This is so weighty a difficulty as makes the greatest Atlas's of the Roman Church not only sweat by sink under it Valentia a De Idol l. 2. c. 5. owns the wonderful Conjunction the Species have with Christ but denies their being hypostatically united to him but then how are they to be worshipt Since it is owned by him and the Schoolmen that the very Humanity of Christ is to be worshipt only upon the account of its hypostatical Union and tho God be very nearly and intimately present in other Creatures yet they are not to be worshipt notwithstanding that presence because they do not make one suppositum or hypostasis with him or are not hypostatically united to him Bellarmine being pincht on this side removes the burden to t'other that is as sore and can as little bear it Christ says he b Longe a liter est Christus in Eucharistia in aliis rebus Deus Nam in Eucharistia unum tautum Suppofitum est idque Divinum caeteraque omnia ad illud pertinent cum illo unum quid faciunt licet non eodem modo Bellar. de Euch. l. 4. c. 30. is much otherwise in the Eucharist than God is in other things for in the Eucharist there is but one only suppositum and that Divine all other things there present belong to and make one thing with that If they do so then sure they are hypostatically united with Christ as T. G's learned Adversary charges upon Bellarmine from this place if they make but one suppositum with him and but one with him let it be in what manner it will they must be hypostatically united to him Bellarmines Licet non eodem modo tho not after the same manner is both unintelligible and will not at all help the matter 't is only a Confession from him that at the same time that he says they are hypostatically united to Christ and make one suppositum with him and one object of Worship that he does not know how this can be and that his thoughts are in a great streight about it so that he doubts they are not hypostatically united at the same time that he yet saies they are so for this is no way imposed upon him as T. G. saies notwithstanding his non eodem modo If in the Incarnation of Christ one should say That the Soul and Body of Christ are both united to his Divinity but that both were not united after the same manner but the Soul in such a manner as being a Spirit and the Body in another yet so that both made but one Suppositum with it and that Divine and that all his humane Nature belong'd to that and made one with that tho not after the same manner would not this be still an owning the hypostatical Union between Christs Divinity and his Soul and Body and so must the other be between Christs Divinity and his Body and the Species if they make one Suppositum and are as they hold to be worshipt as such Thus I have taken care to give you their Doctrine and state the Case with some exactness tho I am sensible with too much length but that is the way to shorten the Controversie and by this means I have cut off their common retreats and stopt up those little lurking holes they generally run to and in which they are wont to Earth themselves As that they worship only Christ in the Sacrament or Christ under the accidents of Bread and Wine and that 't is only Christ or the Body of Christ with which his Divinity is always present is the formal object of their Adoration in the Sacrament and that their Worship is given to that and not to the consecrated Elements or to the remaining Species of Bread and Wine it appears from their own Doctrine and Principles to be quite otherwise and if we take them at their own words they are sufficient to bear witness against them and condemn them of Idolatry but this will be found to be much greater and grosser when the whole foundation of this Doctrine of theirs of the Worship of the Host proves upon Examination to be false and one of the most thick and unreasonable Errors in the World to wit the belief of Transubstantiation or that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are converted into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ so that there remains nothing of the substance of the Bread and Wine after Consecration but only the Flesh and Blood of Christ corporally present under the Species and Accidents of Bread and Wine If this Doctrine be true it will in great measure discharge them from the guilt of Idolatry for then their only fault will be their joyning the Species which how thin and ghostly soever they be yet are Creatures together with Christ as one Object of Worship and unless they alter their Doctrine on this point from what it is now I see not how they can justifie their worshipping with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Worship due only to God not only the adorable substance of Christs Body but the very Veils and Symbols under which they suppose that to lye and yet when they teach as they do the adoring of the Sacrament they must adore the
visible and outward part of it as well as the invisible Body of Christ for without the remaining Species it would not according to them be a Sacrament and they have not gone so far yet I think as to deny that there are any remaining Species and that our senses do so far wholly deceive us that when we see something there is really nothing of a visible Object And the same Object which is visible is adorable too according to them If Christs Body were substantially present in the Sacrament tho it were lawful to adore it as there present but by no means either the substance or Species of Bread with it yet it is much to be doubted whether it were a duty or necessary to do so It would be present so like a Prince in Incognito that he would seem not to require that Honour which we ought to give him under a more publick appearance God we know is present in all his Creatures but yet we are not to Worship him as present in any of them unless where he makes a sensible Manifestation of himself and appears by his Shechinah or his Glory as to Moses in the burning Bush and to others in like manners and it would be very strange to make the Bread in the Eucharist a Shechinah of God which appears without any Alteration just as it was before it was made such and especially to make it such a continuing Shechinah as the Papists do that Christ is present in it not only in the action and solemn Celebration but extra usum as they speak and permanenter even after the whole Solemnity and Use is over that he should continue there as a praesens Numen as Boileau expresly calls it a de Euchoristiae Adorat p. 140. and be showed and carried about and honoured as such and dwell in the Species as long as they continue as truly as he dwelt in the Flesh before that was crucified this is strange and monstrous even to those who think Christ is present in the Sacrament but not so as the Papists believe nor so as to be worshipped I mean the Lutherans But to bring the matter to closer issue the Papists themselves are forced to confess that if the Bread remain after Consecration and be still Bread and be not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ that they are then Idolaters So Fisher against Oecolampadius l. 1. c. 2. in express words So Coster in his Enchiridion de Euch. c. 8. In tali errore atque Idololatria qualis in orbe terrarum nunquam vel visus vel auditus fuit Tolerabilior est enim error eorum qui pro Deo colunt Statuam auream aut argenteam aut alterius materiae imaginem quomodo Gentiles Deos suos venerabantur vel panum rubrum in hastam elevatum quod narratur de Lappis vel viva animalia ut quondam Aegyptii quam eorum qui frustum panis Coster Ench. c. 8. S. 10. Longe potiori ratione excusandi essent infideles Idololatrae qui Statuas adoraverunt Ib. If the true Body of Christ be not present in the Sacrament then they are left in such an Error and Idolatry as was never seen or heard for that of the Heathens would be more tolerable who Worship a golden or silver Statue for God or any other Image or even a red Cloth as the Laplanders are said to do or living Animals as the Egyptians than of those who worship a piece of Bread And again Those Infidel Idolaters would be more excusable who worshipt their Statues To whom I shall add Bellarmine a Sacramentarii omnes negant Sacramentum Adorandum Idololatriam appellant ejusmodi Adorationem neque id mirum videri deber cum ipsi non credant Christum reipsa esse praesentem panem Eucharistiae reipsa nihil esse nisi panem ex furno Bellarm. de Euch. l. 4. c. 29. who saies It does not seem strange that they call the Adoration of the Sacrament Idolatry who do not believe that Christ is there truly present but that the Bread is still true Bread If then the Bread do still remain Bread in the Host and the Elements in the Eucharist are not substantially changed into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ then it is confest Idolatry and it is not strange according to Bellarmine that it should be so and then sure it will be true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bread-worship too if that be Bread which they Worship and be not the natural Body of Christ that which is there present that they adore and if that be only Bread then they adore Bread And here I should enter that controversie which has given rise to most of their abominable Abuses and Errors about the Eucharist the making both a God of it and also a true Sacrifice of this God instead of a Sacrament which Christ intended it and that is their Doctrine of Transubstantiation but a great man has spared me this trouble by his late excellent Discourse against it to which I shall wholly refer this part of our present Controversie and shall take it for granted as any one must who reads that that unless in Boileau's Phrase a Homo opiniosus cui tenacit as Error is sensum communem abstulit Boil p. 159. he be such a Bigot whose tenaciousness of his Error has quite bereaved him of common Sense which is an unlucky Character of his own Friends that Doctrine is false and therefore that the charge of Idolatry in this matter is by their own Confession true But there are some more cautious and wary men amongst them who out of very just and reasonable Fears and Suspicions that Transubstantion should not prove true and that they may happen to be mistaken in that have thought of another way to cover and excuse their Idolatry and that is not from the Truth but meerly from the Belief of Transubstantiation As long say they as we believe Transubstantiation to be true and do really think that the Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood and so Worship the Sacrament upon that account tho we should be mistaken in this our belief yet as long as we think that Christ is there present and design only to Worship him and not the Bread which we believe to be done away this were enough to free us from the charge of Idolatry To which because it is the greatest and the best Plea they have and they that make it have some misgivings I doubt not that Transustantiation will not hold I shall therefore give a full Answer to it in the following Particulars 1. All Idolatry does proceed from a mistaken belief and a false supposal of the mind which being gross and unreasonable will not at all excuse those who are guilty of it there were never any Idolaters but might plead the excuse of a mistake and that not much more culpable and notorious one would think than the
that he would draw St. Pauls command of examining our selves before we eat to mean our adoring when or what we eat and that not discerning the Lords body and being guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ is the not worshipping the Sacrament which he never so much as touches upon among all their other faults Are there not many other ways of abusing the Sacrament besides the not worshipping it this is like his first Argument out of Ignatius his Epistles x l. 1. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. ad Smyr at ipsemet nos docet nihil nos diligere debere praeter Solum Deum that because he says the Sacrament ought to be loved therefore he meant that it ought to be adored At which rate I should be afraid to love this Gentleman however taking he was lest I should consequently adore him or because I am not to abuse him therefore it would follow that I must worship him 2. This Adoration was not in use in the Primitive Church as I shall show 1. From those Writers who give us an account of the manner of celebrating the Eucharist among the Ancient Christians 2. From the oldest Liturgies and Eucharistick forms 3. From some very antient Customs 1. Those most ancient Writers 1. Justin Marty 2. Apolog. versus finem Apostol Constitut l. 8. c. 11 12 13 14. 3. Cyril Hierosol Cateches mystagog c 5. 1. Justin Martyr 2. The Author of the Apostolick Constitutions And 3. St. Cyril of Hierusalem who acquaint us with the manner how they celebrated the Eucharist which was generally then one constant part of their publick worship they give no account of any Adoration given to the Sacrament or to the consecrated Elements tho they are very particular and exact in mentioning other less considerable things that were then in use the Kiss of Charity in token of their mutual Love and Reconcilliation this Justin Martyr mentions as the first thing just before the Sacrament y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Apol. 2. In St. Cyril's time z Catech. mystagog 5. Apostol Constit l. 8. c. 11. the first thing was the bringing of Water by the Deacon and the Priests washing their hands in it to denote that purity with which they were to compass Gods Altar and then the Deacon spoke to the people to give the holy Kiss then Bread was brought to the Bishop or Priest and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Martyr Wine mixt with Water in those hot Countries and after Prayers and Thanksgivings by the Priest to which the people to joyned their Amen b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Martyr Ib. The Deacons gave every one present of the blessed Bread and Wine and Water and to those that were not present they carried it home this says Justin Martyr we account not common Bread or common Drink but the Body and Blood of Christ c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. the blessed Food by which our Flesh and Blood is nourisht that is being turned into it which could not be said of Christs natural Body nor is there the least mention of any worship given to that as there present or to any of the blessed Elements The others are longer and much later and speak of the particular Prayers and Thanksgivings that were then used by the Church of the Sursum Corda lift up your heart which St. d Cyril Hierosol mystagog Cat. 5. Cyril saies followed after the Kiss of Charity of the Sancta Sanctis things holy belong to those that are holy then they describe how they came to Communicate how they held their hand e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. when they received the Elements how careful they were that none of them should fall upon the Ground but among all these most minute and particular Descriptions of their way and manner of receiving the Sacrament no account is there of their adoring it which surely there would have been had there been any such in the Primitive Church as now is in the Roman We own indeed as Boileau objects to us f L. 2. P. 106. that from these it appears that some things were then in use which we observe not now neither do the Church of Rome all of them for they are not essential but indifferent matters as mixing Water with Wine the Priest's washing the Kiss of Charity and sending the Sacrament to the absent but the Church may alter these upon good reasons according to its prudence and discretion but Adoration to the Sacrament if it be ever a Duty is always so and never ought upon any account to be omitted nor would have been so by the Primitive Christians had they had the same Opinion of it that the Papists have now 2. From the oldest Lyturgies and the Eucharistick Forms in them it appears that there was no such Adoration to the Sacrament till of late for in none of them is there any such mention either by the Priest or the People as in the Roman Missal and Ritual nor any such Forms of Prayer to it as in their Breviary Cassander g Cassandri Lyturgic has collected together most of the old Liturgies and Endeavours as far as he can to shew their agreement with that of the Roman Church but neither in the old Greek nor in the old Latin ones is there any instance to be produced of the Priests or the Peoples adoring the Sacrament as soon as he had consecrated it but this was perfectly added and brought in a-new into the Roman Lyturgy after the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was establisht in that Church which has altered not only their Lyturgy but even their Religion in good part and made a new sort of Worship unknown not only in the first and best times of the Church but for above a thousand years after Christ Boileau finding this tho a negative Argument press very hard upon them and sure it cannot but satisfie any reasonable man that there is no Direction in the ancient Lyturgies for adoring the Sacrament and it is very hard to require us to produce a Rubrick against it when no body thought of that which after Superstition brought in He would fain therefore find something in an old Liturgy that should look like that of their own and no doubt but he might have easily met with abundant places for their worshipping and adoring God and Christ at that solemn Office of the Christian worship the blessed Sacrament and therefore out of the Liturgy called St. Chrysostomes which he owns to be two hundred years later then St. Chrysostome he produces a place h Boil l. 2. p. 74. ex Chrysost Liturg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein it is said That the Priest and the Deacon worship in the place they are in and likewise the people but do they worship the Sacrament Is that or only God and Christ the object of their worship there Is there any such thing to determine this as they have taken
Instit l. 2. c. 2. Besides this it seems it is the whole Body of a man then which is eaten and swallowed down instead of Bread for sure the same thing is not one thing when it is worshipt and another thing when it is eaten and then how barbarous and inhumane as well as absurd and ridiculous must this appear to any man that is not used to swallow the most substantial Nonsense as well as the whole Body of a man for a Morsel and then all the former Absurdities which I mentioned do return again of the Eating that which we worship which the Apologists thought so wild and extravagant in the Egyptian God eaters Well then there is no other way but to say we don't eat him as we eat other food y Boil c. 10. l. 2. Comestionem substantiae corporis Christi non esse naturalem so might the Egyptians have said too if they had pleased tho how they can otherwise eat him 't is hard to understand but only in the heretical sense of Spiritual and Sacramental Eating unless they will at the same time say They do not eat him truly and naturally and yet do eat him so and they are so used to Contradictions in this point that I don't know whether they will make any more Bones of this than of the rest or of the substantial Body of a man himself when they have got so large a Faith or rather so large a Swallow But how is it that ye do not eat him after a natural and carnal manner and yet it is a carnal Body that ye so much contend for and that ye really and truly eat and 't is a Carnal mouth and throat he is put into and sometimes a very foul and wicked one And yet this must by this carnal way eat the very Body of Christ as well as the most faithful But we do not grind this Body with our Teeth nor chew him in our Mouths as our other Food nor digest him in our Stomachs nor cast him out into the draught if ye do not as ye pretend being ashamed of the most shameful and abominable Consequences of it and yet a very great many among you have owned all that z Retract Bereng sub Nicol. 2 in Concil Rom. Verum corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri Sic Gualt Abbaud apud Boil p. 177. as not knowing how it could be otherwise and how if this eating be Spiritual and Sacramental Christs presence may not be so too which is the Heresie on the other side a Iste in omnibus veritatem subtrahit dum asserit omnia fieri sc fractionem attritionem corporis Christi in Eucharistia non substantia sed in specie visibili forma panis Sacramento tantum Gualter adversus Abailard apud Boil 179. and ye seem to make strange Monsters of your selves that have spiritual Teeth and can spiritually and not naturally eat a natural and a carnal Body and if ye do not thus eat it as ye eat other meat when ye take it into your Mouths and into your Stomacks and do every thing to it that you do to your other food which is as like eating as if it were very true and natural eating and if it be not Bread which is thus eaten when it is just as like other Bread as is possible then it is certainly the most phantastick Food and the most phantastick way of eating it that can be imagined then there must be a new way of eating which is not eating and a new way for a Body to be present and yet not present as a Body and I will add there must certainly be then a new understanding which is no understanding that can understand or believe all this But further ye have found it necessary for your purpose of Adoring the Host to keep the Body of Christ confined to it and inclosed in it as a Prisoner till the Species corrupt and so the prison is as it were opened and the Body let loose and when that is gone whether ye think it be the Species or the Substance of Bread that corrupts I would gladly know and surely then when the Body is gone there is no need of such a miracle to keep the Accidents without a Subject if it be Bread what think ye of this sudden Transmutation from Bread to Flesh and from Flesh to Bread again and this latter without any words from the Priest but since Christs Body must be so permanently in the Host not only in the act and use of the Sacrament but at all other times ye are then forced to own that as it is eaten in the Communion as well by those who have no faith as by the most faithful Christians so if any other Animals should happen to eat the Host taking it no doubt heretically for meer Bread that yet they truly take the Body of Christ and eat it after some manner or other but whether it be after a natural manner in them or no I don't know how you have resolved but most of the Schoolmen have agreed that Scandalous question b An mus vel Porcus vel canis comedens hostiam suscipit corpus Christi Bishop Jewels reply Artic. 24. See Burchard de Correct Miss upon those Questions De vino in calice congelato de musca vel aranea vel veneno mixto cum sanguine de vomitu post receptionem Sacramenti Quando cadit corpus Christi Quando cadit sanguis Christi fol. 51 52. in the Affirmative Whether if a Mouse or a Hog or a Dog eat the Host they do partake of Christs Body Or as Thomas Aquinas your most Angelick Doctor says consequently to this Opinion of yours c Aliter derogaret veritati-corporis Christi p. 3. qu. 79. It would otherwise derogate from the truth of this Sacrament and Christs presence in it So that wherever the Species are there is always Christs Body and whatever happens to them happens to that also If they fall to the ground Christs Body does so to and so if they lie in a hollow Tooth or hang but in the least crum or drop upon a Communicants Beard there according to their principles they and the Body must be worshipt with Latria and if they be in a Mouse or Flies body that has got to them the adorable Object still goes with the Species till they be corrupted and whither the Species be corrupted or no if they be poysoned as they have somtimes been or whether Christ be there with the Accidents of the Poyson I can't tell but when the Species are in the pix he is as fast there as he ever was in his Sepulcher and to all appearance as dead and senseless and if the Species be Burnt or Gnawn or vomited out of the Stomack before they are corrupted all these misfortunes belong as truly to Christs Body as to them and so worse indignities may be thus offered every day to Christ glorious Body than ever were offered to it in its state of Humility and Contempt upon Earth when it was Spit upon and Scourged and Pierced and Crucified by the Jews But Good God! that men should think to Honour and Adore Christ and his Body by thus exposing them to the danger of the vilest Abuses that humane reason should be so decayed and besotted as to believe and defend such palpable Absurdities that Christianity should be so shamefully and abominably exposed to all the World by such an extravagant Doctrine and such an obnoxious practice and unreasonable Idolatry as this is God Almighty open all our Eyes that we may not be given up to blindness of Mind and darkness of Understanding and to the belief of Lies as most Idolaters generally were but may it please him who is the God of Truth to bring into the way of Truth all such as have erred and are deceived in this or any other matter in which charitable and constant Prayer of our Church which is much better than Cursing and Anathematizing its Adversaries I hope as well as its Friends will not refuse to joyn with it FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THere are several mistakes of the Press but most of them are so Plain and Obvious that it is hoped that every Reader will immediately see and correct them without any trouble and without any particular account of them Five Sermons of Contentment one of Patience and one of Resignation to the Will of God By Isaac Barrow D. D. late Master of Trinity Colledg in Cambridg Never Published before in Octavo Printed for Brabazon Aylmer