Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A23646
|
England's distempers, their cause and cure according to the judgment of famous princes, peers, parliaments &c., occasioned by a book of a learned frier, accusing the whole nation of perjury for abjuring transubstantiation and sent unto the author for a reply / written in defence of the true catholike faith by R.A.
|
R. A. (Richard Allen)
|
1677
(1677)
|
Wing A1043; ESTC R32701
|
10,647
|
29
|
Vbiquity is not ubique good Mr. Frier But the direct answer is this Although both Natures are united in one Person yet the essential properties of either are reserved to each nature and not communicated So that as Christ God-man died but not the Godhead so also Christ God-man is every where but not the Manhood That follows in Concreto which does not follow in Abstracto 4. Another ground for Corporal Presence is our Incorporation into Christ Ephes 5.30 We are Members of his Body flesh and bones and 1 Corinth 10.16 The breaking of bread is the communion of the Body of Christ By corporal presence But it is Communio not Commixtio as their own Learned say and Communio effectivè operans not needing Corporal presence but only the presence of a Supernatural Sacramental Grace Power and Vertue from his Body Our Saviour's words are plain to this purpose Joh. 6.35 He that believeth in me shall never thirst never hunger but be satisfied with my body and blood by Faith in believing And ver 56. He that eateth my flesh c. dwelleth in me and I in him What manner of dwelling it is the Apostle tells you Ephes 5.17 Christ dwells in our hearts by Faith And sure the Apostle knew the minde of Christ better than all the Friers in the world 5. They have another Argument From the long continuance of their Doctrine in the Church ever since the Apostles time It hath been disproved already and proved That the Church in all Ages taught the contrary till a few years before our age Another Argument they have from the promise of Christ To keep his Church from errour The promise is true and holds good but their Argument so vain that I will not spend Paper about it Now the Doubts Difficulties and Absurdities that accompany Transubstantiation are Locatum sine loco Quantum sine quantitate c. In a place possessing no place a body without quantity or other accidents and accidents subsisting of themselves without a body or subject Fraction or breaking in the Sacrament and yet nothing broken but only in shew or appearance And the Apostle calls it breaking of Bread because it seems so to the eye If there be any Jugglers in the world these are plain Jugglers who cast a mist of senseless words before mens eyes to make them believe they see that which is not The Frier professeth to keep close to our Saviour's words but where then doth our Saviour say This is my spiritualized Body or This is a Spirit Or This is my body under the species of bread Or where doth St. Paul say The species of bread which we break c. The Frier may be ashamed of these shifts I desire the Reader to take notice of Three things 1. That Species a word used by the Fathers is taken by them for substance of bread and is commonly taken so at this day for substance especially by Physicians 2. To Consecrate never signified to Transubstantiate but only to dedicate a common thing to a sacred use 3. It is an usual manner of Speech in Scripture when it speaks of Sacraments to call the Sign by the name of the thing signified IV. My Fourth and last Assertion is That the Doctrine of the Sacrament held by the Church of England is most agreeable to Holy Scripture and to all pure Antiquity We may call it Transmutation a word found often in old Writers and alloweth a change great and marvellous not in substance but in Vertue Power and Operation There must be a wonderful Change else there could not follow such a powerful Operation But this change is not in substance for that remains still unchanged For proof whereof I refer the Frier to the usual Argument of the Fathers against the Eutychian Hereticks and from thence downward to all Learned Writers even their own best Doctors let him search and see We acknowledge that the very Body and Bloud of Christ are in the Sacrament truely received truely eaten c. We contend not about the matter but the manner we receive the very Body of Christ by Faith in a Spiritual divine manner The Frier promiseth to give my little History another broad side but to save a labour he fairly yields the cause pag. 10. of his Book in these words His natural Body to eat in a spiritual divine manner and pag. 9. His true body existing in a spirtual divine manner and so I hope we shall agree at last CHAP. II. Of Consubstantiation THis Opinion also hath been the occasion of much Superstition and cause of much Trouble especially in Germany upon this occasion Zuinglius observing how near the Decree of Pope Nicholas and his Council of Lateran drew to the Capernaites he withdrew as much to the other side shewing his Arguments to one Carolostadius Carolostadius uttered the same in his own name at Wittenberg and other places allowing less than Zuinglius did nothing but Bread and Wine with bare figure and signification of Christ's Death He offered a Defence of his opinion against Luther but Luther drew him so far from his grounds of bare figure that he was ashamed of his attempt and recanted his Errour Luther made the Question publick and allowed the corporal presence of Christ's Body and Blood joyntly and together with the Bread and Wine calling it Consubstantiation Oecolampadius and at last Zuinglius oppose against Luther at Zurich and this Contention continued very sharp between them and their Co-partners above fourty years At last the Reformed Ministers of France in their Synod at Charenton 1631. took this Doctrine of Consubstantiation into consideration and conceiving there was no great venome in it by their publick Act they received the Lutherans into their Communion God send Peace and Truth Unity in Verity CHAP. III. Of Roman Catholicks THis glorious Title makes a great gap in our Nation and many thousands are dazled and drawn away with the splendour of it meerly for want of a right understanding For this title doth no way belong to those that appropriate the same to themselves but most properly to Protestants especially of the Church of England For St. Paul was the first Founder of the Church at Rome where he planted the Christian Faith once famous all the world over Rom. 1.8 Spoken of throughout the world and that was Catholick enough Now this very same Catholick Faith that St. Paul taught the Romans we of the Church of England teach and profess to a syllable let St. Paul himself in all his holy Epistles be our Judge And therefore we are the true Roman Catholicks and not they that have deserted the true Roman Faith The common talk of St. Peters Chair at Rome where they say he sate as Bishop twenty five years are but vain words without proof For what should St. Peter's Chair do in St. Paul's Church planted by him to whom was committed the Gospel of the Uncircumcision as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter Galat. 2. and thereupon
requiring of me a Reply My Reply is That the very first words of his Book are a notorious untruth as all the Nation can witness and but little truth in the rest save in two or three places where the poor Infidel confesseth his Ignorance of the true Faith and some other things that every School-boy knows A full Reply I shall give him in four Assertions 1. That Transubstantiation was never heard of or known in the Church till above 1000 years after Christ neither name nor thing 2. That it was never generally received by Learned Papists themselves till the Council of Trent 3. That their Grounds and Reasons for it are too weak to support it and that monstrous weight of Doubts and Difficulties that depend upon it 4. That the Doctrine of the Church of England in this point is most agreeable to Holy Scriptures and to all pure Antiquity and may be called Transmutation I. To the first the Frier saith It was ever known and believed in the Church quoad rem though not quoad nomen i. e. by certain equivalent terms and for that cites Five Fathers all rejected for spurious by their own Learned Men. His equivalent Terms are Mutatio Transmutatio Transelementatio the two first we admit in the same sense that the Fathers used them the last is a change Etiam ad materiam primam saith a famous Schoolman and will not serve his turn There be other terms used by the Fathers that will do him as little good but I shall take no notice of more than he sends me Anno Christi 420. About this time lived St. Augustine who Lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ printed at Paris Anno 1517. saith Those words Except ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man c. are a Figure and a little before hath these words Literam sequi signa pro rebus quae his significantur accipere servilis est infirmitatis This I am sure of let the Frier make the best construction of it he can St. Augustine was a famous Bishop sate in several Councils and was President of some himself and must needs know the Catholick sense of the Church at that time better than our Frier Anno 850. About this time lived Bertram a famous Presbyter who in his Book De Corp. Sang. Christi saith That according to their substance the Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament after Consecration The bold Frier calls this an Impertinency when the whole University of Doway in their censure of it could neither deny the Book nor answer it Anno 1057. About this time lived Berengarius Archdeacon of Anjou who denied Transubstantiation Pope Nicholas 2. Concil Lateran 2. made him recant and make this publick Confession That the very Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament was truely and sensually broken and bruised in pieces with the teeth of the Faithful and this Confession the Pope and Council allowed for Catholick Our bold Friar saith it is false I shall prove him a Liar presently For this Confession is recorded by Lombard l. 4. dist 12. D. and De Conser dist 2. Ca. Ego Berengarius And their own Carranza testifies That the Pope did force and compel him to it And that it was allowed for Catholick by Pope and Council appears clearly because Lanfranc of Canterbury who sate in that Council sharply rebukes Berengarius for recanting that Confession as afterwards he did This Confession was as near the Capernaites as could well be But where is now our bold Friars Catholick sense of the Church for Transubstantiation Here is no appearance of it name or thing according to the Friars own terms Anno 1150. About this time lived Peter Lombard Bishop of Paris the likeliest man alive to know the Catholic sense of the Church because he made it his study and business to search the Fathers and collect Sentences out of their Writings and yet he saith l. 4. dist 11. A Si autem quaeritur c. If it be demanded what manner of Conversion is in the Sacrament or of what kind Definire non sufficio I am not able saith he to determine We acknowledg a Conversion as well as they but if Lombard in all his reading could not learn what manner of Conversion it was then it may be the same that we allow and the Fathers understood no other II. My second Assertion is That Transubstantiation was never generally received by Learned Papists themselves till the Council of Trent For their most eminent School-men some of them Cardinals say That they receive it out of reverence to the Church because she hath so decreed but otherwise in their own judgment rather approve that Opinion which saith That the substance of Bread and Wine remains in the Sacrament as most agreeable to holy Scripture and right Reason and that Transubstantiation was a rash Opinion having no ground in Scripture This was the more common Opinion of the Schoolmen for above 200 years The Friar saith I wrong the Doctors and will prove it I know not when But let him unmask himself that I may see the right face and then I shall return him his own challenge and let him put it to trial when he dares III. My third Assertion is That their own Reasons or Grounds for Transubstantiation are too weak to support it and the monstrous weight of Doubts and Difficulties that depend upon it Their general ground is the power and truth of Christ God Almighty who made all the world by his word hence they infer Possibility Verity Necessity The Answer is that an Argument from the Creation is but à particulari ad particulare and holds not nor à posse ad esse from Possibility to Verity as to say It may be so therefore it is so or God can do this and that therefore he doth it or it is done all such Arguments are inconsequent irrational and ridiculous An Argument may well follow from the Will of God to his Power but not from his Power to his Will Particular Reasons or Grounds they have 1. The Time when Christ spake the words a time say they when all Figures were ended but that is apparently false for there is a plain Figure in the Cup which they neither deny nor can avoid 2. Some argue thus The Bread which Christ gave in his last Supper came down from Heaven But Bakers bread came not down from Heaven therefore he gave not Bakers bread but the substance of his own Body It is retorted thus The substance of Christ his natural Body was taken of the B. Virgin and came not down from Heaven But the bread which Christ gave came down from Heaven Therefore the Bread which Christ gave was not the substance of his natural Body Considering the weakness of their Argument and inconvenience of the retort they fly to other grounds as 3. To Ubiquity through Personal Vnion of both Natures But this overthrows the grounds of their own assertion For as they handle the matter their