Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	bread_n	remain_v	substance_n	8,998	5	9.2009	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96332	A demonstration that the Church of Rome, and her councils have erred by shewing, that the councils of Constance, Basil, and Trent, have, in all their decrees touching communion in one kind, contradicted the received doctrine of the Church of Christ. With an appendix, in answer to the XXI. chapter of the author of A papist misrepresented, and represented.	Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.	1688 (1688)	Wing W1721A; ESTC R226161	116,790	130

46. c. 2. p. 518. in the Church of God in the Mystical distribution of the spiritual Nourishment the Body and the Blood of Christ is taken But adds That Ser. Sancto de jejun Sept. mensis Ser. 89. the Lord saying Vnless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no Life in you we ought so to communicate of this Holy Table as not to doubt of the Truth of the Body and Blood of Christ Gelasius also saith Disp de duabus naturis Christi Bib. patrum Tom. 4. p. 432. That the Sacraments we take of the Body and Blood of Christ are a Divine Thing whence by them we are made partakers of a Divine Nature and yet the Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine doth not cease to be or to remain and in this Decree that the taking of both Species is the taking of one and the self-same Mystery which therefore is not celebrated by taking of one Species only and that the not receiving of the Cup when the Bread hath been taken is the dividing of one and the self-same Mystery or the destroying of its Unity so that he argues against this practice from a Reason essential to the Mystery and which respects the Unity thereof which by the practice of receiving in one kind only is destroyed Having thus demonstrated that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church till the 12th Century taught Cap. 1. That the Laity by divine Precept were obliged to receive both kinds when they were capable of doing so Cap. 2.6 That they condemned all variation from the matter of the Institution and the Doctrine of Concomitance Cap. 3.5 That they conceived the Receiving of the Cup by the Laity was requisite to their shewing forth the Lord's Death their Vnion to Christ the increase of Grace the Remission of their Sins the Sanctification and Salvation of their Souls and Bodies and lastly Cap. 4. for their receiving an entire Communion That they constantly exhorted the People having received the Bread to take the Cup also Cap. 6.5 declaring that it was Vnlawful Erroneous and even Sacrilegious to receive the one without the other if they were capable of receiving both and having fully answered and confuted all that J.L. hath offered to the contrary Cap. 8. I shall conclude in these words of Mr. Condom on this subject a little varied viz. Thus many constant practices of the Primitive Church P. 160. thus many different Circumstances whereby it appears in particular and in publick and always with an universal approbation and according to the established Law that she gave the Communion under both Species so many Ages before the Council of Constance and from the origin of Christianity till the time of this Council do invincibly demonstrate that this Council did thwart the Tradition of all Ages P. 161. when it defined that the Communion under one kind was as good and sufficient as under both and that in which manner soever they took it they neither contradicted the Institution of Jesus Christ nor deprived themselves of the Fruit of this Sacrament In his Second Part P. 194. Sect. 4th he lays down this as a principle which alone carries along with it the decision of this Question P. 195. viz. That in all practical Matters we must always regard what has been understood and practised by the Church P. 196. That the true means to understand God's Holy Law is to consider in what manner it has been always understood and observed in the Church Since there appears in this Interpretation and perpetual Practice a Tradition which cannot come but from God himself P. 200. and that Sence thereof which hath always appeared in the Church is as well inspired as the Scripture it self Now by this as he well saith P. 203. our Question is decided for in the sacred Ceremony of the Lord's Supper we have seen that the Church hath always believed and taught for a Thousand years and upwards that the Laity by divine Precept and for the ends forementioned were obliged to receive both Species that the Fathers exhorted them to do so and did both by express Declarations and by many Customs and determinations sufficiently condemn the contrary Practice when any Hereticks or Superstitious Persons did decline the Cup. That they did generally so Interpret our Saviour's Institution that it as well concerned the Laity as Clergy and with one voice asserted it was not lawful to vary from it or celebrate the Mystery otherwise than it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles and practised in the Primitive Church Behold what has been always practised behold what ought to stand for a Law in opposition to all the Definitions of the Councils of Constance Basil Trent and all their Non obstante 's to our Lord's Institution and to the Practice of the Primitive Church FINIS

intire Sacrament is taken under either Species The Fathers and the School-Men do expresly say the contrary viz. Epiphanius §. 1. The Council held in Trullo P. Julius P. Gelasius the Council of Braga §. 2. Paschasius Corbeiensis Algerus and St. Bernard §. 3. Alexander Halensis Thomas Aquinas Bonaventure Albertus Magnus Durantus Petrus de Palude Gulielmus de monte Laudano Lyra Carthusianns Andreas Frisius §. 4. The Inferences from these Sayings § 5. WHereas the Trent Council asserts Sess 21. cap. 3. l. 4. de Sacr. Ench. c. 22. s. utraque That a true Sacrament is taken under either Species that is as Bellarmine Interprets it An intire Sacrament nothing is more repugnant to the plain Judgment of Antiquity than these Assertions And though the silence of all Antiquity in this matter is a full demonstration that they held no such Doctrine seeing no reason can be given why they had they embraced this Doctrine which is frequently inculcated by all the Roman Doctors who write upon this Subject should never say with the like plainness as they so often do That an entire Sacrament is given under one Species only or any thing to that effect or give themselves the trouble to Answer that Enquiry which so disturbs the Roman Doctors and which they see themselves so much concerned to Answer viz. Why then did our dear Lord himself distribute and institute this Sacrament to be received under both kinds I say though this be a sufficient prejudice against that Assertion of the Council of Trent and though it will more fully be confuted by an impartial Reflection on what we have Discoursed of the constant Declaration of the Church that to give the consecrated Bread dipp'd in the Cup was not to give a compleat Sacrament with many things of the like nature yet shall I wave all these Advantages at present and shew from the plain Sayings both of the Ancients the Writers of the middle and chiefly of the latter Ages or the Doctrine of the Schools that they conceived the Reception of both Species by persons capable was requisite to the integrity of this Sacrament § 1 Epiphanius speaking of the Encratites saith That in this Mystery they use only Water and wholly do abstain from Wine the censure which he passeth on them for so doing is this That having the Form they deny the Power of Godliness (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Haer. 47. §. 3. Pag. 401. for whosoever saith he doth omit one part of a work by the omission of that one part doth really omit the whole The Inference he maketh from that Rule is this That the Mysteries they celebrate by Water only are really no Mysteries but only false Mysteries in imitation of the true in which they are convinced by the Right words of our Saviour saying I will not henceforth drink of the Fruit of the Vine § 2 The General Council held in Truillo being informed that the Armenians did celebrate the Mysteries in pure Wine not mixed with Water declares that the did (b) Can. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imperfectly shew forth the Mystery Now let it be observed from St. Paul that it is not by offering only but by partaking of this Bread and drinking of this Cup that we do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shew forth the Lord's Death and then it clearly follows that if he who distributes Wine without Water imperfectly shews forth the Mystery he that gives neither Wine nor Water must do it more imperfectly When some in the Diocess of Squillaci out of some unknown Superstition would have taken the Bread without the Cup (c) Apud Ivon decret part 2. c. 89. Gelasius decrees that they should either take the entire Sacrament or be entirely driven from it he therefore evidently determined that taking of one Species only was not taking an entire Sacrament In the Fourth Century (d) See cap. 2. § 2 Pope Julius in the Seventh Council of Braga in the Eleventh Micrologus in the Twelfth Peter Lombard do with one voice deny that the Bread dipp'd in the consecrated Wine can be administred pro complemento Communionis for an entire or compleat Communion and therefore much less could they think that the Communion was entire when ministred only in dry Bread. The great Sticklers for Transubstantiation averr the same thing Sect 3. Paschasius Corbeiensis saith That (e) De Corp. Sang. Dom. c. 11. therefore we are fed with and made to drink of these two only in the way that our whole Man which consists of two Substances integrè reparetur may be entirely repaired both therefore were in his judgment needful to an entire reparation of the whole Man. Algerus in Answer to this Question Why the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated rather in Bread Wine and Water than in any other kinds of Bodies saith That because we so live by Bread and drink that we can want neither of them (f) Utrumque in Sacramento suo esse voluit De Sacr. Euch. l. 2. c. 5. our Lord would have both be in his Sacrament least if either of them should be wanting as by this imperfect sign of Life he should seem to be represented not as full but as imperfect Life And a little after he saith This is done proptr commodiorem aptitudinem Sacrametalis perfectionis for the more commodious representation of the Sacramental perfection The Species of Bread and Wine is propounded saith (g) De coena Domini f. 321. b. St. Bernard that it might be taught that there is a full and perfect refection in taking the Body and the Blood of Christ a full refection of Meat and Drink the principal Substances of Meat and Drink being Bread and Wine § 4 But above all the School-Men do declare against this Doctrine of the Trent Council (h) In iv sent q. 40. membr 3. Art 2. q. 53. membr 1. Alexander of Hales saith That whole Christ is not under either Species Sacramentally but the Flesh only under the Species of Bread the Blood under the Species of Wine only for to the perfection of the Sacrament is required a representation according to the Institution but in one kind the matter of the Sacrament is not entirely and perfectly I say there is not a perfect Sacrament as to the Sacramental Perfection of it (i) Sum. part 3. q. 76. Art. 2. Adv. Gent. l. 4. c. 61. in 1. Cor. c. 11. Aquinas saith That though Christ is contained under both Species yet is it convenient to the use of this Sacrament that the Body of Christ should be delivered apart for Food to the Faithful and his Blood for Drink both saith he is of the perfection of this Sacrament for the perfection of refection for the representation of Christs Passion and for the effecting of the Salvation both of Soul and Body 1. For its perfection for it being a Spiritual Refection it ought to have spiritual Meat and

spiritual Drinke for corporal Refection is not perfected without both these And as he elsewhere saith because spiritual effects are done under the likeness of visible it was fit that this spiritual nourishment should be delivered to us under the Species of those things which Men do ordinarily use for corporal nourishment and therefore this Sacrament is delivered to us under the Species of Bread and Wine 2. For the signification of it for it is a memorial of the Lord's Passion whereby his Blood was separated from his Body and therefore in this Sacrament the Blood is offered by it self And elsewhere Because the Completion of our Salvation was made by the Passion and Death of Christ by which is Blood was separated from his Flesh separatim nobis traditur Sacramentum corporis ejus sub specie panis sanguis sub specie vini the Sacrament of his Body is delivered N. B. to us apart under the Species of Bread and the Blood under the Species of Wine that so in this Sacrament might be the memory and representation of our Lord's Passion 3. For the healthful Effect of it for the Body is offered to shew that it is of force to save the Body and the Blood is offered to shew that it is of force to save the Soul for the Soul is in the Blood. (k) In 4. Sent. dist 8. q. 2. dist 11. q. 2. Bonaventure saith That as to the signification both Species are of the integrity of this Sacrament because the matter of the Sacrament is expressed in neither of them by it self but in both together which appears thus Here Christ is signified as Meat perfectly refreshing them that eat him Sacramentally and Spiritually but a perfect Refection is not in Bread alone or Wine alone but in both he therefore is signified as perfectly refreshing not in one Species only but in both And again This Sacrament though it contains two Signs and two Words yet because a perfect Sign ordained for one thing sc the Vnion of the Body Mystical results from them therefore the Sacrament is one and the reason of this Integrity and Ordination comes from Nature for neither is Bread nor Wine apart fully Refectory but both and one full Refection in nature comes from both and so they are disposed to signifie one Refection but this is compleated by the Divine Institution which by one Institution hath appointed these two Signs to signifie one perfect Refection and so it is one Sacrament on the account of nature and of Divine Institution (l) In 4. Sent. dist 8. Art. 13. Albertus Magnus lays down this general Rule The Sacrament of the Church causeth nothing in Grace which it doth not signifie in Similitude and that the Sacraments of the New Law are the cause of nothing of which they bear not a sensible Image and thence infers That the Vnion of the Mystical Body is not perfectly caused and signified but by a double Sign and therefore by virtue of the Sacrament we ought to have both And in his Comment upon the Sixth of John he saith That as in the Flesh is received what is vivifying and restorative of the spiritual and divine Life lost in us so by the Blood is received the Aspersion and cleansing of our inward parts And making the enquiry why to that manducation Spiritual Drink was necessary to be added he answers it is so because Meat cannot be without Drink In his Comment on (m) c. 22. f. 321. St. Luke Some saith he more curious than devout enquire to what end was the Sacrament of the Blood instituted after the Sacrament of the Body since the Body of Christ is not without the Blood nor the Blood without the Body But to this we say that though these are as to their nature undivided yet have they different Effects for one by Christ is ordained to incorporate the Blood for the washing away of Sins whence it is said That without shedding of Blood there is no Remission And that which they say that the Body is not without the Blood is true but yet by virtue of the Sacrament the Sacramental Body is not in the Blood nor the Sacramental Blood in the Body That therefore we might have a Supper Sacramentally perfect it was necessary that it should be instituted that the Body and Blood should be Sacramentally had this therefore is the cause and manner of the Institution so our King and Priest saves us out of the Flour and out of the Wine-Press (n) Rat. l. 4. c. 54. f. 126. Durantus saith That the Church instituted the Sacrament to be taken after the consecration of both Species to shew that he who receives the Hoast only receives not the whole Sacrament Sacramentally For although the Blood be in the consecrated Hoast yet is it not Sacramentally there because the Bread signifies the Body not the Blood the Wine signifies the Blood not the Body wherefore because the Sacrament under one kind is not compleat according to the Sign the Sacrament ought to be compleat before the Priest use it And again (o) Ibid. c. 4● f. 106. Although under the Form of Bread the Blood may be taken with the Body and under the Form of Wine the Body may be taken with the Blood yet according to Innocent the Third neither the Blood under the Form of Bread nor the Body under te Form of Wine is drunk and eaten because as neither Blood is eaten nor the Body drunk so neither under the Form of Bread is drunk or eaten under the Form of Wine Cassunder informs us of (p) De com sub utraque specie p. 1034. Petrus de Palude that he asserted That the matter of the Sacrament ought to be double viz. the matter of Bread and Drink because the effect of the Sacrament ought to be perfectly represented by the matter in a way agreeable to natural things because the Sacraments effect what they do figure but the effect of the Sacrament is full Refection of the Soul and therefore the matter representing this ought to do it by perfect Refection of the Body which only is by Meat and Drink (q) Lyturg. p. 77. Guilielmus de monte Landano as he there cites him adds That he who receives the Body receives the whole Truth but not the whole Sacrament and therefore in many places they Communicate with Bread and Wine that is with a whole Sacrament The (r) De commu sub utraque specie ibid. Dean of Lovain as he cites him saith That with respect to the Sacrament and the perfection of it it is more convenient that the Communion should be made under both kinds for this is more consonant to the Institution and integrity of it to corporal Refection to the Example of Christ and the Primitive Church And again He freely confesseth that the Laity communicating under one kind only receive not a full Sacrament which consists of two Parts This Sacrament saith (s) In 1 ad Cor.