Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	ghost_n	holy_a	trinity_n	3,214	5	9.7060	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A71279	A compendious discourse on the Eucharist with two appendixes.	R. H., 1609-1678.	1688 (1688)	Wing W3440A; ESTC R22619	186,755	234

Son of God is properly called man from the union of the Humanity and Deity in the person of Christ as they are liable to much exception so are they unnecessary since the third opinion is justifiable without them § VIII Observe in the 4th place concerning the last opinions that for the manner of Christ's real presence with the signs Obs 4 they are not so gross as some apprehend or represent them for they both of them hold Christ's body not to be there physica or locali i. e. ad modum corporum sensibili praesentia or inclusione 1. Thus saith Conc. Trid. sess 13.1 c. Neque enim haec interse pugnant juxta modum existendi naturalem Salvatorem nostrum in coelis assid●re ad dextram Patris nobis substantia sua adesse praesentem sacramentaliter ea existendi ratione quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus possibilem tamen esse Deo cogitatione per fidem illustrata assequi possumus c. Bellarm. de Euchar. 1. l. 2. c. 3. l. 5. c. 10. c. and elsewhere in that treatise Christum non esse in Eucharistia ut in loco vel ut in vase aut quod sub aliquo velo sed eo modo ut panis prius sed non ita ut accidentia panis inhaereant Christi subtantiae non coexistere aut commensurari loco non esse ita ut habeat ordinem ullum ad corpora circumstantia non esse sensibile visibile tangibile extensum non adesse mobiliter extensive corporaliter as we understand this word to exclude not naturam but modum corporis See many like expressions concerning it quoted by Blond 10. c. p. 321. out of Romanists That nothing belonging formerly to the substance of the bread c can be attributed to it as to be white round c but only words that signifie its presence as contineri manere sub speciebus sumi in Eucharistia ore recipi c. Dr. Holden p. 316. Verum reale corpus Christi profitemur esse in hoc Sacramento non more corporeo passibili sed Spirituali invisibili nobis omnino incognito Spirituli i. as opposed to corporali but by no means as opposed to reali which neither the second opinion will tolerate therefore that 8th Canon Conc. Trid. sess 13. Siquis dixerit Christum in Eucharistia exhibitum spiritualiter tantum manducari non etiam sacramentaliter realiter anathema sit by the second opinion cannot be censured 2. The same expressions the Lutherans have which you may find in the pacifick Discourses of Bishop Davenant Morton Hall c see Davenant adhort ad pacem Eccles cap. 11. lessening the difference between the several parties of the Reformed but by the same reason may be also urg'd as lessening that between the Reformed and Romanist Christum adesse signis but invisibiliter intangibiliter c. Again about oral manducation recipi quidem ore c. Therefore do they as others detest the Capernaitan error 3. See what Bishop Forbes saith de Euchar. 1. l. 28. s Nemo sanae mentis c. Urg'd in Discourse concerning the Rubric of the Eng. Lit. § 48. Hear likewise what Bellarmin confesseth in recogn operum p. 81. upon some men disallowing his conversion not productive but adductive saying non esse vere conversionem sed translocationem which Dr. Taylor also presseth p. 269. namely Quod conversio transubstantiatio pertineant ad panem non ad corpus Christi Quod corpus Christi nec translocari dici potest cum neque deserat locum suum in coelo neque incipiat esse sub speciebus ut in loco sed ut substantia sub accidentibus remota tamen inhaerentia Quod per consecrationem Eucharistiae non producatur de novo sed praexistat c. Sed quicquid sit de modis loquendi illud tenendum est Conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi esse substantialem sed arcanam ineffabilem nullis naturalibus conversionibus per omnia similem quam solus Deus facere potest qui solus in totam entis naturam absolutam potestatem habet And if we may believe Dr. Tailor in the place sorequoted p. 269.270 and see the same in Blondel p. 197. c. that by conversion or Transubstantiation the Romanists mean only a local succession of Christ's body into the place of bread and nothing to be produced but a new ubi or presentiality whilst it is only made present where it was not before a thing which excepting that clause into the place of bread himself cannot deny unless he saith Christ is no more really present in the time of the Sacrament than out of it tho perhaps some terms may seem to be used unproperly yet the difference and cause of offence is made still less it being then only about the place of the presence of Christ's body for as for annihilation or ceasing to be of the bread this is granted possible to be done and if not done an error no way dangerous 4 Those therefore who dispute against the two last Opinions as professing such gross things as I have shewed above they expresly reject beat the Air and have no Adversary at least not Councils nor the moderater and modester party of their Writers with whose Concessions only the desirous of Christ's Peace ought to debate matters of difference but if they say such gross things follow naturally from their profess'd Tenents tho these Consequences be denied and renounc'd by them here to preserve their Charity towards the Defenders of the Fourth Opinion I must put them in mind of that Rule which Daille hath so much enlarg'd upon in his Apology for the Separation of the Reform'd Churches from that of Rome printed in English c. 9. and in his Letter to Monsieur de Monglat in Answer to Chaumonts Remarks upon his Apology p. 15 16. and in his Considerations upon Chaumonts Reply p. 31 c. to preserve Charity towards the Defenders being Brethren of the Reformaon of the Third Opinion He in these places saith That tho Adoration of the Sacrament should necessarily follow from the Lutheran Tenent of Christ's Presence with the Signs as Bishop Morton saith it doth De Pace Eccl. p. 9. again Tho a Destruction of the Human Nature of Christ necessarily follows from the Lutheran Tenent of the Ubiquity thereof as he himself confesseth it doth again Tho the Destruction of the Trinity of Persons should necessarily follow from the Tenent of the Greek Church denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as he quotes many of the Schoolmen to affirm it doth yet since these opinions destroy or oppugn to such principles or Fundamentals for the destruction of which only see his c. 7. a Separation of Communion may be made par ses suittes non par ses theses c ' est a dire qu' elle induit cette ruine mais ne la pose pas And since such men still

es Lutheriens Quell est donc la cause de nostre separation d'auec elle l'adoration de l' hostie c. 3. He holds that Adoration follows necessarily the tenent of the presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist Quant au droit qu' on le peut qu' on le doit adorer attenduque le corps de Christ est un suiet adorable Which shews Adoration to be rightly grounded on Christ's corporal presence be it after what manner soever that of the Romanist or that of the Lutheran for le corps de Christ est suiet adorable Apol. 9. c. 4. He resolveth Apol. 10. c. the Jews worshipping before the Ark or footstool Psal 99.5 and Psal 132.7 into worshiping God as especially present there upon the Ark symbolum praesentiae Dei as Rivet calls it or between the Cherubims ver 1. And if we compare adorate scabellum there as the Vulgar read it with adorarunt vitulum Exod. 32.8 to worship the true God of Israel in the Calf is judged idolatry to worship the same God before the Ark or between the Cherubims none 5. So he grants Apol 11. c. That when our Saviour was on ●arth a Disciple's giving divine honour upon mistake to another person much resembling him would be no idolatry so supposing the consecrated Host truly adorable should one see one exposed on the Altar that hapned not to be consecrated and worshiped neither would such a person be guilty of idolatry So he pronounceth him blameless that should give the honour and service due to his true Prince to a subject whom being very like he took for his Prince See concerning Adoration p. 11. The same thing I conceive it is in apparitions Had S John Rev. 22.28 taken the Angel for God appearing as some think he did but the Angel quickly rectified his mistake and so given him divine honours such as Abraham and many other Saints in the Old Testament gave to the Lord appearing this had bin far from an act of idolatry in him So had Mary Magdalen as she took our Saviour for a Gardiner worshiped a Gardiner like apparrelled c for our Saviour it had bin no idolatry But saith Daille should any worship the Sun for Jesus Christ as S. Austin mentions some that did or the Virgin Mary for a Goddess as the Collyridians are said to have done these will be guilty of high Idolatry I add further Should any worship not only an image but which Dr. Hammond hath observed in his Treatise of Idolatry sect 47. any glorified Saint or Angel by giving any of God's attributes to them as the knowledge of the secrets of mens hearts and of all other passages in this lower world and the ability likewise of working miraculous effects as they please and both these not from God's communicated but their own original power and should address his prayers to them as fancied such by him this man will certainly be an idolater Now the reason Daille gives in the same 11. chapter Apol. why in this worshiping the creature for God or Christ some are idolaters some not by Idolaters I mean sinful and formal idolaters as some call them for note that it is no otherwise in idolatry than in other sins there may be a material act or real adultery without fault suppose another man's wife conveyed into the husbands bed instead of his own as Leah was once into Jacobs so the real killing of his neighbour without any guilt suppose by the miscarrying of some instrument a man is using in his vocation and here an ignorance of such a fact without any faulty error in the judgment or obliquity of the intention excuseth the sin Daille's reason therefore for distinguishing guilty idolatry from that which materially may also be called so is not the good intention to worship only him who is truly God or Christ or the opinion and belief they have that the subject they worship is truly such for this as he in that Chapter and other Writers copiously express is common to the worst of Idolaters but the error or ignorance of the judgment from which flows this mistaking practise as that is only affected and culpable or innocent and excusable Of which thus he in that Chapter J ' avoue que l'ignorance excuse la i. e. in this very matter of Idolatry ou elle est involuntaire quand le suiet que nous mesconoissons est tellenent cachê c. mais la ou l'ignorance d'un objet procede non de l'obscurite difficulté de la chose mais de la malice ou de la negligence de l' homme alors tant s'en faut qu'elle excuse c. So he saith those that worshipp'd the Sun for Christ were unexcusable because l'ignorance de tous ces gens estoit visiblement affectes voluntaire née de leur vice seulement non de l'obscuritê des choses qu' ils ignoroient Therefore also afterward upon this reason as he excuseth him that should have worshipp'd one resembling our Saviour or an unconsecrated Host c. because non sa passion ou sa non chalance avoit cause cette mesprise c. So he blameth the Romanist mistaking and worshipping the Sacrament for Christ because l'erreur vient tout enliere de leur passion non d'aucune chose qui soit hors d'eux 6. Mr. Daille grants which I have touch'd before That as we may not reject the Communion of any for every erroneous Tenent when it offends against no principal or fundamental point of Religion see Apol. c. 7. so we may not reject it for Errors tho destructive of a Principle see Apol. c. 9. if it do this not immediately and directly but by some consequences thereof which consequences also are renounc'd and the Principle still maintain'd by those who hold the error Tho if you desire my opinion of this First I see not how any can hold a Principle and yet hold a contrary Tenent that directly and immediately opposeth it for no man is so sottish as to hold two things directly contradictory the one to the other See what he saith for this when press'd by Chaumont in his second Reply p. 81. So then when any one 's Tenent opposeth the Principle which also he holds by some consequence it must be and not be point blank Secondly I see not but that if one holding the Principle hold also another Tenent which by a consequence clear and manifest to others tho not to him ruineth the Principle such an one is to be rejected c. as if he denied the Principle And thirdly The judgment of the clearness of such consequences private men must leave to the Church and her Councils Esse two men as interessed and prepossessed ordinarily pretend contradictories both to be clear For example If the Lutheran Tenent of the ubiquity of Christ's humanity or the Greek Tenent of the Holy Ghost not proceeding from the Son should seem to a General Council the one by a clear consequence tho not acknowledg'd by the Party to ruine Christ's true humane nature the other to destroy the Trinity Such