Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	aaron_n	ancient_a	holy_a	14	3	4.1653	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20769	Certaine treatises of the late reverend and learned divine, Mr Iohn Downe, rector of the church of Instow in Devonshire, Bachelour of Divinity, and sometimes fellow of Emanuell Colledge in Cambridge. Published at the instance of his friends; Selections	Downe, John, 1570?-1631.; Hakewill, George, 1578-1649.	1633 (1633)	STC 7152; ESTC S122294	394,392	677

say that he brought forth Bread and Wine and not to God as an Oblation but to Abraham for his refection If he had offered vp Bread Wine as a Sacrifice to God how commeth it to passe that the Apostle comparing the Priesthood of Christ and Melchizedeck so particularly maketh no mention at all thereof For certainly the point being so materiall and the place so fit it must needs bee great ignorance or negligence to omit it To say nothing that if your owne reason be good the Sacrifice of Melchizedeck shall be inferiour to that of Aaron Bread and Wine being of lesse value and not so evidently representing the death of Christ as the slaying of Beasts doth Secondly you say that the true Flesh of Christ is contained in this Sacrament and that the ancient Fathers with one consent testifie the same which in your sense and meaning is vtterly false For neither is the Flesh of Christ vnder the Accidents of Bread by Transubstantiation neither doth any of the ancient Fathers testifie it as in the sequele God willing shall more plainely appeare Thirdly where you say and many others as my Author setteth downe it seemeth that in this point you beleeue but by an Attornie pinning your Faith vnto the credit of I knowe not whom The true flesh of Christ say you is contained in the Sacrament How knowe you that By the ioint consent of Fathers And how know you they consent therein My Author tells me so And what may he be Peter or Paul or one of them vpon whom clouen tongues descended I trow no but some equivocating Priest or Iesuite A sure rock I promise you to stay your faith vpon You say lastly that the Bloud of the Testament described Exod. 24. Heb. 9. was fulfilled when Christ said This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud False For then hee did but institute the Sacrament of his death and fulfilled it the day following when really hee suffered death vpon the Crosse. And what reason haue you to thinke it was performed in a Commemoratiue sacrifice wherein your selues confesse there is no effusion of Bloud rather then in the true Sacrifice vpon the Crosse wherein the pretious bloud of the sonne of God was plentifully shed N. N. Out of all which Figures is inferred that for so much as there must bee great difference betwixt the Figure and the thing prefigured no lesse if we beleeue S. Paul then betweene the Shadow and the Body whose Shadow it is it cannot be imagined by any probability that this Sacrament exhibited by Christ in performance of the Figures should be only creatures of Bread and Wine as Sacramentaries doe imagine for then should the Figure be either equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured it selfe For who will not confesse but that Elias his Bread made by the Angell that gaue him strength to walke fortie daies vpon the vertue thereof was equall to our English Communion Bread and that the Manna was much better I. D. The Antecedent being as we haue shewed vntrue it is no matter what Consequence soeuer you deduce from it Neverthelesse let vs for the present suppose it to be true What inferre you therevpon The Real Presence and Transubstantiation How so I pray you Because otherwise the Figure would be either equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured which is absurd and contrary to the rule of S. Paul This indeed I confesse would bee absurd but how doe you shew it to be so in this particular By a double instance of Elias his bread and Manna whereof you say the one was equall the other more excellent then our English Communion Bread But still I deny the consequence the weaknesse whereof if you see not in this I hope you will in the like Argument The Cloud the Red sea and Circumcision were all as you say Figures of Baptisme and the Figure is euer inferiour to the thing Figured If therefore Baptisme be only Water and suffer no Transubstantiation at all the Figure is equall or more excellent then the thing Figured For the Water of the Cloud the Red sea was equall to the Water of Baptisme and the Foreskin in Circumcision is much better as being part of the Flesh of man What say you now Doth this Argument follow yea or no If yea then haue wee a Real Presence also in Baptisme by Transubstantiation of Water which I suppose you will not admit If no then neither doth it follow in the Eucharist for the reason is exactly the same in both Would you yet more plainely see your errour It is this your Disiunction is not sufficient either there is a Real Presence or the Iewish Figures equall our Sacraments For there are diuers other waies wherein our Sacraments excell theirs although there be no such Presence at all What waies will you say Verily not in the worth or value of the outward Elements for therein they may be exceeded nor in the thing signified for it is one the same in both even Christ Iesus Wherein then Even in these particulars First their Sacraments respected Christ yet to be exhibited in the flesh our Christ alredy exhibited Now as the Faith of things future is ever more languid and faint then of things past so is the adumbration and shadowing of them vnto Faith more obscure also Secondly although Flesh may perhaps seeme better to expresse Christs body then Bread the killing of the sacrifice his death then the breaking of Bread yet in regard of the word annexed vnto ours plainly declaring what they are to what end instituted and what proportion there is betweene the signe and the thing signified ours must needs be more evident and cleare then theirs Even as a Picture to vse S. Chysostomes similitude when it is perfected and set forth with liuely colours better representeth the person of the Prince then when no more but the first lineaments thereof are drawne or it is yet but darkly coloured Thirdly in the Eucharist are figured two things the Death of Christ our Communion with him That without this availes no more to our soules health then the sight of meat without touching it to the nourishment of our bodies That is shadowed by the breaking of Bread and powring out of Wine Not so expresly will you say as by the Leviticall sacrifices Suppose it though in regard of the Sacramentall words the cleare knowledge we haue of this mysterie it is far otherwise Yet this I meane our Communion with Christ is as exactly represented by the Eating of Bread and Drinking of Wine as nothing can be more Finally seei●g the Iewes were strictly commanded to abstaine from Bloud and we on the other side are charged Sacramentally in the Wine to drinke Bloud and in the Bread to eate Flesh our Sacrament even in regard of the externall ceremonie is to bee preferred to the Iewish And thus you see wherein our Sacraments excell theirs Now where you affirme that

of it But before we come particularly vnto them we must needs premise a word or two touching the condition and enquire what it is to come after Christ. Among divers interpretations two there are which to me seeme most likely The first is if any will come after me that is if any will be my Disciple Thus S. Luke himselfe seemeth to expound it where speaking in a manner to the same purpose he saith whosoeuer beareth not his crosse and followeth mee cannot bee my Disciple Wherevnto reason also agreeth for Schollers vse not to goe before their Masters but to come after them whence vsually they are called Followers as the Followers of Plato the Followers of Aristotle In this sence then it is as if our Saviour should say If any will be my scholler But hee meanes a scholler not titularlie and in name only like Apothecaries boxes quorum tituli habent remedia pyxides venena which containe in them poisons hauing the titles of remedies but really and truely one that is so indeed and to speake plaine English a ●rue Christian. The second interpretation is if any will come after me that is if any will arriue at that end to the which I am aspiring before him namely eternall glory Neither is this vnlikely for Christ is the author and finisher of our Faith who for the ioy that was set before him endured the crosse despising shame and is set at the right hand of the throne of God Hee by his blood hath consecrated a new and liuing way for vs into the holy of holies whether he is ascended before vs there to prepare mansions for all such as will come after him And in this sense it is as if our Saviour should say if any will come to eternall life and glory after me Now whether of these two sences shall we take I suppose both for first the circumstances of the Text admit both secondly both agree with the analogie of faith thirdly the safest rule is not to straighten but to enlarge the meaning of the holy Ghost as much as may be and lastly what God hath ioyned together let no man put asunder Now no man can bee a Citizen of heauen vnlesse he be a Disciple of Christ here on earth The Schoole of Christ and the kingdome of heaven are contriued like Marcellus two Temples of Vertue and Honour For as none could enter into the Temple of Honour but he must first passe through the Temple of Vertue so neither can any man passe into the kingdome of glory but by the schoole of grace He that will be glorious there must first be gracious here There is no salvation but only by the Mediation of Christ his Mediation stands in his Priesthood Kingdome and Prophecie Hee is not a Priest to one a King to another and a Prophet to a third but he is all three vnto a man or he is none at all vnto him for Christ is not divided Whence it followeth that whosoeuer will be saued Christ must bee a Prophet vnto him and he must be a Disciple vnto Christ. The meaning then of this condition is as if our Saviour more fully and plainely had said If any will be my Disciple and by being my Disciple will come vnto the kingdome of heaven after me Now let vs descend in due order vnto the counsels and consider both the substance and necessity of them First of the first Let him deny himselfe What is that God saith the Apostle is faithfull he cannot deny himselfe that is he cannot say and vnsay for his promises are not Yea and nay but Yea and Amen neither can he say otherwise of himselfe then he is for he is truth it selfe cannot lye Must we thus deny our selues God forbid For then how can we resemble our heavenly Father and be perfect as hee is perfect for he neither doth nor can deny himselfe And seeing Christ is the expresse image of his Father and wee are to be conformed vnto the image of Christ it cannot be that he should advise vs to bee so vnlike either to his Father or himselfe as in this sense to deny our selues No this we leaue to cheating Priests and Iesuits who haue devised a new doctrine of Equivocation and Mentall Reservation If yee aske of a Priest art thou a Priest Hee will confidently and boldly deny himselfe and say I am no Priest reseruing in his minde of Baal or of Apollo which speech and reservation put together make vp they say one entire and true sentence I am no Priest of Baal or Apollo And this is the starting hole which these Foxes haue provided for themselues in the time of danger But O thou thrice blessed Lord and Saviour Christ and O yee blessed and holy Apostles and Martyrs of Christ how simple and ignorant were yee that yee knewe not this doctrine Had you knowne it how easily might you haue avoided those many troubles vexations and torments that yee endured Thou O Christ being demanded whether thou were the Christ mightst readily haue answered I am not with this reservation such as yee looke for yee Apostles and Martyrs of Christ being questioned whether yee were Christians might easily haue replyed we are not reseruing only in your mind such as yee slander vs to be devourers of young children incestuous and the like But the schoole of Machiavel and Loiola was not yet opened and Christians hitherto were trained vp only in the schoole of Christ all were of the minde of that Bishop who as Augustin saith was Firme both in name and deed who being demanded by persecutors for a Christian whom he had hidden answered roundly and without all Equivocation neither is it for a Christian to lie nor for a Bishop to betray a Christian and therefore I will not tell you I feare me when these Deniers of thēselues shall appeare before Christ at the last day mentall reseruation will hardly excuse them and because they would not be knowne to be the Priests of Christ for so they pretend neither will Christ knowe them to bee of his flocke But of this enough being but by the way To Deny then in this place is not litterally and properly to be vnderstood but thus to disclaime to renounce to reiect to despise to make no reckoning and to take no notice of When our Saviour threatneth that hee will deny them before his Father in heauen whosoeuer shall deny him before men what meaneth he but this Hee will renounce them and not owne them for his Even as it is said of Levi to his great honour He said vnto his Father and to his mother I haue not seene him neither did he acknowledge his brethren nor knewe his owne that is he regarded them not nor tooke any notice of them But what must wee thus Deny Our selues He saith not Father Mother Brother Sister Wife children Friends Honour Wealth Pleasure and yet these things must be denied too but hee

without Christ are vnprofitable neither can they be fruitfull at any time but onely in Christ who alone is the Substance and Foundation of them all Wherevpon I conclude that those ancient Sacraments of the Iewes directly looked vnto Christs and prefigured him but were not properly Figures of ours No were What say you then to the Fathers who affirme they were I say two things first that their Authoritie is not a sufficient ground to build our Faith vpon as we haue elsewhere shewed at large For it is but Humane testimonie and argueth as your owne Thomas saith not necessarily but only probably Neither is it reason seeing your selues so often sleight and reiect it even in those points wherein many times they consent that you should so peremptorily vrge it vpon vs and binde vs absolutely to beleeue all they say I say secondly that the Fathers calling the Sacraments of the old Law Figures of ours meane not that they were bare and naked signes without the truth but that in them the thing signified was more darkly and implicitly shadowed then in ours Or rather that they were Figures corresponding vnto ours in the same sense that the Apostle S. Peter intendeth it when he calleth Baptisme the Antitype of Noahs Arke For vnderstanding whereof you are to knowe that Types or Figures are sometimes compared with that truth or thing whereof they are Samplars as where the Holy place of the Tabernacle is said to bee the Antitype of Heauen figured thereby Sometime with some other Secondary samplar and Figure of the same thing as in this place of Peter where Baptisme is made the Antitype of that deliuerance which befell the Church by the Arke in the generall deluge of waters So that the Arke properly was not ordained to be a Figure of Baptisme but both it and Baptisme represent vnto vs our Salvation from the danger both of sinne and death by Christ Iesus therein mutually respecting and answering one the other The same may you also say of the Cloud and the Passing through the Red sea of Manna and the Rock and all the rest And that thus the Fathers heare one for all who to vse your owne words spake in the sense of them all This Bread saith S. Augustine which came downe from heauen Manna signified this Bread the Altar of God signified They were Sacraments divers in signes but in the thing signified alike Heare the Apostle I would not saith hee haue you ignorant Brethren that all our Fathers were vnder the cloud and all passed through the sea and all were baptized by Moses in the ●loud and in the sea and all eat the same spirituall meat The same spirituall I say but another corporall because they Manna We another thing But the same spirituall that we yet our Fathers not their Fathers to whom wee are like not to whom they were like And hee addeth And they all dranke the same spirituall drink They one thing we another as touching the visible nature yet the selfe same in the signifying spirituall vertue For how the same drinke They dranke saith he of the spirituall Rock following them and the Rock was Christ. Thence the Bread thence the drinke The Rocke Christ in the signe true Christ in the Word Flesh. Thus S. Augustine But if the Fathers serue not your turne you haue the Fathers of the Fathers even Christ himselfe and his holy Apostle S. Paul who both affirme that Manna was an expresse figure of this Sacrament And if Manna why not by the same proportion other Sacraments also Indeed now you dispute not Topically but Apodictically you cannot but prevaile if it be true that you say But what are the words I pray you wherein this may appeare Certainely none at all For neither the one nor the other either expresly or implicitly make it a Figure of this Sacrament but of Christ himselfe and his Flesh. For as for the sixt of Iohn it is cleare that our Saviour speaketh not therein of the Eucharist or of Sacramentall Manducation but only of the Spirituall eating of his Flesh by Faith I saith he am the Bread of life hee that commeth vnto mee shall not hunger and hee that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst Where although to continue the Allegorie hee might haue said He that eateth me shall not hunger and he that drinketh me shall not thirst yet hee chose rather to vse the words of Comming and Beleeuing to teach vs that hee speaketh not of an Oral eating and drinking by the Mouth but only of a Spirituall by Faith And this is so plaine that Bellarmine himselfe confesseth these words Properly not to belong vnto the Sacrament but to the faith of the Incarnation Againe that Eating is meant without which there is no life Except saith hee yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his Blood there is no life in you But without Sacramentall eating a man may haue life in him Spirituall eating therefore is meant And thus also doe sundry of your owne Rabbies vnderstand this place as namely Gabriel Cusan Cajetan Tapper Hesselius Iansenius and others As for that place of S. Paul it is evident that the Apostle putteth no difference betweene the old Sacraments and the New saue only in regard of the externall signes for otherwise he affirmeth the same thing to be Signified and Exhibited in both to wit Christ. And so doth S. Augustine vnderstand it They did eat the same spirituall meat saith he it had sufficed to haue said they did eat a spirituall meat but he saith the same I cannot finde how we should vnderstand the same but the same that wee doe eat And againe Whosoeuer in Manna vnderstand Christ did eat the same spiritual food that we doe But whosoever sought only to fill their bellies of Manna which were the Fathers of the vnfaithfull they haue eaten and are dead so also the same drinke for the Rock was Christ. Therefore they drank the same drinke that we doe but spiritual drink that is which was receiued by Faith not which was drawne in with the Body If happily you stand vpon those words These things are types vnto vs you may knowe that hee saith not they were types of our Sacraments but Examples to vs that we sin not as they did For as they perished in the wildernesse notwithstanding their Sacraments so may we doing as they did notwithstāding ours Which argument if that you say be true would be of no force at all For the Corinthians might thus haue replied though their Sacraments availed not them yet ours may vs because ours are Substance theirs but Shadows But enough of the Antecedent Yet before I proceed to the Consequence some of your By-speeches are also to be examined First you say that Bread aud Wine was mysteriously offered to Almighty God by Melchizedeck But both the Original and your Vulgar translation made authenticall by the Councell of Trent