Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A66150
|
A defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the Church of England against the exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, and his vindicator : the contents are in the next leaf.
|
Wake, William, 1657-1737.
|
1686
(1686)
|
Wing W236; ESTC R524
|
126,770
|
228
|
to state the Case and to that end would fain know what we mean when we say that Christ is not Corporeally present in this Sacrament Or how that which is not the thing it self is yet more than a meer figure of it In answer to which I shall need seek no farther than those Testimonies I before alledged out of the publick Acts of our Church to satisfie him See the Church Catechism Our Catechism affirms That the inward part or thing signified in this Holy Supper is the BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST which are VERILY AND INDEED taken and received by the faithful in the Lords-Supper And the meaning of it our 28th ‖ Article 28. Article expounds thus The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lord's Supper ONLY AFTER A SPIRITVAL AND HEAVENLY MANNER and the means by which this is done is FAITH So that to such as rightly and worthily and with Faith receive the same The Bread which we break is as St. Paul declares it The Communion of the Body of Christ and the Cup of Blessing which we bless The Communion of the Blood of Christ In a word We say that the faithful do really partake of Christs Body after such a manner as those who are void of Faith cannot tho' they may participate the Outward Elements alike Whom therefore our Church declares * Article 29. To receive only the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ but to be no way partakers of Christ but rather as St. Paul again says to Eat and Drink their own Damnation not discerning the Lords Body *†See the Appendix N. V. in which St. Chrysostom gives the very same account of it These are the Words of our Church and the meaning is clearly this Christ is really present in this Sacrament inasmuch as they who worthily receive it have thereby really convey'd to them our Saviour Christ and all the benefits of that Body and Blood whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs This great effect plainly shews it to be more than a meer Figure yet is it not his Body after the manner that the Papists imagine †Rubrick at the end of the Communion Office Christ's Body being in Heaven and not on the holy Table and it being against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one The Sacramental Bread and Wine then remain still in their very natural Substance nor is there any corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood at the holy Altar The Presence we allow is Spiritual and that not only as to the manner of the Existence ‖ Vindicat. p. 77 78. which the Vindicator seems to insinuate for we suppose it to be a plain Contradiction that a Body should have any Existence but what alone is proper to a Body That this Exposition is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Ch. of England the Authorities already cited shew See also the Homily concerning the Sacrament part 1. p. 283. c. and the same is the Explication which all the other Protestant Confessions have given of it as is evident by the Collation of them made by Bishop Cofins in his History of Transubstantiation cap. 2. where he has set down their Words at large p. 6. c. i. e. Corporal but as to the nature of the thing it self and yet it is Real too The Bread which we receive being a most real and effectual Communion of Christ's Body in that Spiritual and Heavenly manner which St. Paul speaks of and in which the Faithful by their Faith are made partakers of it Thus does our Church admit of a real Presence and yet †Vindic. p. 80. neither take the Words of Institution in their literal Sense * Ibid. p. 79. and avoid all those Absurdities we so justly charge them with As to the Authorities of their own Writers which I alledged to shew that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had no Grounds neither in Scripture nor Antiquity He is content to allow that the Scriptures are not so plain in this matter but that it was necessary for the Church to interpret them in order to our understanding of it Vind. p. 80 81. And for Antiquity he desires us to observe 1st That the Council of Trent having in the first Canon Ibid. p. 82. defined the. true real and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the most holy Sacrament brings this Transubstantiation Sess 13. Can. 2. or Conversion of one Substance into another as the natural Consequence of it Can. 2. If any one shall say That the Substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist together with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and shall deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of the Wine into the Blood the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholick Church does most aptly call Transubstantiation let him be Anathema The design of the Council in which Canon is evidently this To define not only the real and substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist against the Sacramentaries which before was done ‖ Can. 1. but also the manner or mode of his Presence against the Lutherans in two Particulars 1st Of the Absence of the Substance of the Bread and Wine 2ly Of the Conversion of their Substance into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species only remaining But this the Vindicator will not allow but advances an Exposition so contrary to the design of the Council and Doctrine of his Church that it is wonderful to imagine how he could be so far deceived himself or think to impose upon others so vain and fond an Illusion It is manifest Vindic. p. 83. says he that the Church does not here intend to fix the manner of that Conversion but only to declare the matter viz. That the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ becomes truly really and substantially Present the Bread and Wine ceasing to be there truly really and substantially Present tho the Appearances thereof remain Now this is so evidently false that Suarez doubts not to say 't is HEREST to affirm it Forasmuch says he See Suarez cited below as the Council not only determines the Presence of Christ's Body and Absence of the Substance of the Bread but also the true Conversion of the one into the other thus establishing not only the two former but this last also as an Article of Faith Our dispute therefore is not only as this Author pretends about the real Presence of Christ's Body Vindic. p. 83. and Absence of the Substance of the Bread which he calls the thing it self but also about the Manner how Jesus Christ is Present viz. Whether it be by that WONDERFUL and singular CONVERSION which their Church calls so aptly TRANSUBSTANTIATION Now
accipi debet tropicè ut Panis sit Corpus Christi significativè aut est planè absurda Impossibilis nec enim fieri potest ut Panis sit Corpus Christi Et l. 3. c. 19. p. 747. Non potest fieri ut vera fit propositio in quâ Subjectum supponit pro Pane praedicatum autem pro Corpore Christi c. Bellarmine †Hoc est impossibile quod Panis fit Corpus Christi de Consecrat d. 2. c. 55. p. 2393. in Gloss Gratian and others do confess and the Vindicator himself seems contented with it Only he believes That all my Logic will never be able to prove that the Pronoun THIS must necessarily relate to Panis * In the Aethiopian Church they give the Holy Eucharist with this Explication Hic Panis est Corpus meum Ludolphi Hist l. 3. c. 5. n. 56. Bread and not to Corpus Body How far my Logic has been able to do this I must leave it to others to determine but for the Vindicator's satisfaction I do assure him that Bellarmine looks upon it to be Good Logic. And because it is in the middle of the citation I referred to and which he has almost intirely transcribed excepting only the part I am now speaking of I will not charge him with unsincerity in the omission but I must needs say 't was indiscreet to put the issue of the Question upon what his Cardinal had so freely confessed †Bellarm de Euchar. l. 3. c. 19. p. 746. Lit. D. Dominus accepit in manibus panom eumque benedixit dedit discipulis de eo ait Hoc est Corpus meum Itaque panem accepit panem benedixit panem dedit de Pane dixit Hoc est corpus meum The Lord says he took Bread in his hands and blessed it and gave it to his Disciples and said of it This is my Body Therefore he took BREAD and blessed BREAD and gave BREAD to his Disciples and said of BREAD This is my Body And in ⸪ Id. l. 1. c. 11. p. 517. Lit. B. Siquis digito aliquid ostendat dum Pronomen effert valdè absurdum videtur dicere Pronomine illo non demonstrari rem praesentem Atqui Dominus accepit Panem Illum porrigens ait Hoc est Corpus meum videtur igitur demonstravisse Panem Neque obstat quòd propositio non significat nisi in fine totius prolationis Nam etsi ita est de propositione quae est Oratio quaedam tamen demonstrativa pronomina mox indicant certum aliquid etiam antequam sequantur caeterae voces Et sanè in illis verbis Bibite ex hoc omnes valdè durum est non demonstrari I D. quod Erat sed I D. tantùm quod futurum erat another place arguing against this very Opinion of the Vindicator That THIS in that proposition belongs to BODY not the BREAD which he held in his hand says That if a Man points with his finger to a thing whilst he utters a pronoun demonstrative 't were absurd to say that any thing else should be referred to but that thing Our Lord took Bread and reaching it out to them said Take Eat THIS is my Body He seems to have pointed to the BREAD and therefore must have shewn some certain thing even before the other words were pronounced From which put together I think we may frame this Argument If the Relative THIS in that Proposition This is my Body belong to the Bread so that the meaning is This Bread is my Body then it must be understood Figuratively or 't is plainly absurd and impossible But the relative This in that proposition This is my Body does belong to the Bread forasmuch as Christ took Bread and blessed Bread and gave Bread to his Disciples and therefore said of Bread This is my Body Therefore That proposition This is my Body must be understood figuratively or 't is plainly absurd and impossible How far the Vindicator will approve this Logick I cannot tell but the first proposition is their common concession and he himself seems contented with it The second is Bellarmine's own grant nay what he contends for and indeed what the connexion of the Words do evidently require And then for the conclusion I believe a very little Logick will be enough at any time to make good the sequel of it But the Vindicator has an Exception against all this Vind. p. 75. and tells us That it will all argue nothing against them unless I beg the Question and suppose that no real change was made by those words I presume it is as much a begging of the Question for him to suppose there was as for me that there was not We do not now enquire how to expound the Proposition supposing there were such a change made as they imagine but the Question is Whether these Words do necessarily imply any such change nay rather do not oblige us to take them in a figurative sense to shew that there is none However he is resolved he will suppose the Question first and then prove it tho' I must not We will suppose says he and that not incongruously That our Blessed Saviour in changing the Water into Wine might have made use of these words THIS IS WINE or LET THIS BE WINE I hope he does not look upon these two to be one and the same But in short If our Saviour had said Let this be Wine the meaning must have been Let this which is now Water become Wine If he had said This is Wine and the conversion not yet made it would have been false If after the conversion no more than this This that is contained in these Pots is Wine or This which before was Water now is Wine And so in the point before us Had our Blessed Saviour said LET THIS BE MY BODY and a conversion had been thereupon as truly made as of the Water into Wine we should have made no doubt but that it was a command for that which before was Bread to become his Body If we take the Words as they are THIS IS MY BODY and no conversion made before they were pronounced the Proposition in the literal sense must plainly be false If a real conversion had first been made as when the Water was turned into Wine then would it signifie no more than this This which before was Bread is now my Body So that all this will as little avail him as he says the other did us unless he also beg the Question and suppose a real change made by these words which he knows is the very thing which we deny as we shall have reason to do till they can prove that what we are sure was Bread is converted into the Body of Christ And thus much for his disputing Vindicat. p. 77 78 79 80. Before he enters on an Examination of those Authorities I produced to shew the novelty and uncertainty of Trany-substantiation he is willing