Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
ground_n authority_n church_n reason_n 1,707 5 5.2951 4 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
A33215 A paraphrase with notes upon the sixth chapter of St. John with a discourse on humanity and charity / by W. Claget. Clagett, William, 1646-1688. 1693 (1693) Wing C4389; ESTC R24224 72,589 201

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

but produce this Text for themselves against our Usage and Doctrine saying That if our Lord had not treated of receiving the Sacrament in these words he would not have distinguished between eating and drinking least of all between eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood but since he so accurately distinguisheth between these things he insinuates his Discourse to be concerning the reception of the Eucharist c. But says the Cardinal these things are easily thrown off by observing that in this very Chapter Jesus said not long before He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst For in these words which 't is plain do not belong to the Sacrament of the Eucharist our Lord plainly distinguishes Hunger from Thirst which is equivalent to his distinction between eating and drinking For Hunger refers to eating and Thirst to drinking Therefore from the distinction between eating and drinking no solid Argument can be drawn to infer the Discourse to be of the Sacrament of the Eucharist In like manner the distinction between Flesh and Blood availeth nothing to their purpose but rather against them because the Flesh is not distinguished from the Blood after any sort but only as they are separated as Meat from Drink But 't is evident that the real separation of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament is represented only But in the Death of Christ it was actual and according to the thing it self And if it be urged that the Flesh and the Blood are here discoursed of under the Notion of Meat and Drink and not according to what they were in their own Nature and that for this reason the Discourse runs upon the Flesh in the Sacrament and the Blood in the Sacrament separated one from another The Answer to this is afforded by what has been already said viz. that our Lord had spoken of himself before as of one that takes away Hunger and of one that takes away Thirst and yet 't is not also inferred from hence that he spake of himself as under that species of the Sacrament whereby he takes away Hunger and that species of the Sacrament whereby he takes away Thirst For he discourses of the Flesh and Blood † Partibus mortis suae which are parted at his Death as they are to be embraced by the Mind being the Meat and Drink of the Soul Because unless our Spirit be sustained by the Death of Christ as by Meat and be delighted with it as with Drink there is not the Life of the Spirit in us And now Sir having given you so large an Account of this great Man's Opinion in his own Words I shall content my self to say in general that if it were needful others might be produced for the same even Popes Cardinals Bishops and Doctors who as far as I can discern were for number as well as quality not inferiour to those who maintained the contrary side before the Council of Trent Nay that Council it self would have better informed those that told you the Church has still understood this part of the Chapter as treating of the Eucharist There were warm Discourses in the Congregation between the Divines concerning the Interpretation of these Passages But at last it was concluded neither to affirm or deny them to be meant of the Eucharist but it was agreed however to deny that the necessity of communicating in both kinds could be inferred supposing that the Eucharist was meant that is to say it was carried by the Majority And to gratifie those that thought it was not meant it was to be acknowledged that they had Fathers and Doctors of their Opinion For the Matter all things considered was accommodated as well as it could be in these words (u) Sed neque ex Sermone illo apud Jo●nnem sexto recte coligitur utriusque spe●●i communionem à Domino Praecepram esse ●●cunque juxta varias sanctorum Patrum Doctorum Interpretationes inteliigatur Conc. Trid. Sess 21. cap. 1. Nor from that Discourse in the 6th of St. John is it rightly gathered that the Communion of both kinds was enjoined by our Lord however that Discourse be understood according to the various Interpretations of the Holy Fathers and Doctors I doubt I have said more than enough upon your short intimation of that Pretence that the Church has always interpreted these places of the Eucharist But I hope you will make this construction of it that I am one of those who bear a due regard to the Authority and Tradition of the Universal Church as I believe you to be another For which Reason I thought it more needful to remove so great a Prejudice out of your way as the belief of the foresaid Insinuation would have been And I am confident you now see that in maintaining the Eucharist not to be intended by our Saviour in any part of this Chapter any more than other parts of Christianity I am not obliged to encounter the Authority of All the Ancients or of the whole Church nay that in this matter I do not so much as entrench upon the Authority of the Council of Trent it self Indeed that Council would have me to believe that not one of the various Interpretations of the Fathers and Doctors makes against the Communion in one kind But I hope I may be excused if I can believe that which several Men of high Rank in their own Church were not able to believe And as for that Doctrine that Christ is properly eaten in the Eucharist I ought to be excused too if I can by no means believe it or else those Fathers must be condemned who believed the Capernaites to be a perverse sort of Men for turning our Saviour's words in this Chapter to so inhumane and absurd a sense as if he had exhorted them to eat a Man's Flesh according to the propriety of those words For no Man can say that this is either inhumane or absurd who believes the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that Christ is properly eaten in the Eucharist So that for what I can see this Chapter of St. John instead of affording a solid Argument for that Conclusion when it comes to be well considered upon the Grounds of Reason and Authority does at last yield a Terrible Objection against it I have thought of all these Things with the liberty of one that loves Truth not without due regard to the Ancient Doctors of the Church Our common Master hath taught me to call no man Master upon Earth yet I never refused the help of his Ministers to guide me into the knowledge of this Truth And since I have been able to use that help I have still valued in the first place that assistance which is offered me from the Primitive Bishops and Fathers And this Liberty I have been encouraged to use in the Church of England not only for judging of Points which she has not determined but those also which she has