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	approach_v	wine_n	24	3	9.5884	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36765	An historical treatise, written by an author of the communion of the Church of Rome, touching transubstantiation wherein is made appear, that according to the principles of that church, this doctrine cannot be an article of faith.; Traitté d'un autheur de la communion romaine touchant la transsubstantiation. English	Dufour de Longuerue, Louis, 1652-1733.; Wake, William, 1657-1737.	1687 (1687)	Wing D2457; ESTC R5606	67,980	82

Body Typical or Symbolical Many things might be said also of the Word made Flesh and true nourishment the which whosoever eats shall never dye and which no wicked person can eat for could it be that he which continues wicked should eat of the Word incarnate seeing he is the Word and Bread of Life it would not have been written Whosoever eateth this Bread shall live Eternally When he saith of the Bread of the Eucharist that it sanctifieth not of it self it cannot he understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ but of the Bread which remains When he saith This Bread sanctified by the invocation of God and by Prayer remains in its material being it means plainly That it remains in its former substance When he saith That this Bread as to the matter of it goes down into the Belly and is cast into the draught as the other meats This not being to be understood of Jesus Christ without Blaspheming is necessarily to be understood of the Bread. When he calls this Bread the Typical Body it shews plainly That this not being the true Body it is not Transubstantiated When having spoken of the Typical Body he after speaks of the Word made Flesh which cannot but give life to those which eat and receive him he sufficiently distinguisheth the Bread of the Eucharist from Jesus Christ the former of which may be mortal but the latter can never be so to those who receive and eat him This passage is so clear and evident that Sixtus Senensis in his Bibl. l. 6. annot 66. found no better expedient than to say That 't was probable This passage had been corrupted by the Hereticks Gennebrard and Du Perron suspected Erasmus to have ill translated it But the learned Monsieur Huet nominated to be Bishop of Soissons saith It evidently appears by the Original Greek that this passage is no way changed The same Origen saith in Tom. 32. of his Commentary on S. John that the morsel of Bread Christ gave to Judas and those he gave the Apostles saying Take Eat were of the same sort Now if the morsel given to Judas was true Bread as it is granted and if the Bread given the other Apostles was not true Bread then the one and the other were not of the same kind The same Origen in the Seventh Homily on Leviticus saith That Jesus Christ before his Passion drank Wine but being ready to suffer he refused to drink it Ubi vero tempus advenit Crucis suae accipiens inquit Galicem benedixit dedit Discipulis suis dicens Accipite Bibite ex hoc Vos inquit bibite quia non accessuri estis and altare ipse autem tanquam accessurus ad altare dicit Amen dico vobis quia non bibam de generatione vitis hujus usque quò bibam illud novum vobiscum in Regno Patris mei Origen affirms That our Saviour in celebrating the Eucharist did not drink Wine because he was ready to approach the Altar of his Passion and that the Apostles did drink Wine because they were not yet ready to approach to the Altar of Martyrdom And that in this sense the Figure of the Old Testament was accomplished where 't was forbidden to Aaron and his Priests to drink Wine when they were about to approach to the Altar All this Discourse is false if Jesus Christ spake not these words of true Wine I will not drink c. and if what the Apostles drank was not true Wine Let us see now what St. Cyprian saith The Sacrifice of the Lord recommends to us Unity for when Jesus Christ called his Body the Bread which is made of several Grains he recommended the Unity of Christian People and when he called his Blood the Wine made of several Grains and Grapes he represented one Flock united by the Band of Charity Now these words where Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood is as if he had said of the Bread This is my Body and of the Wine This is my Blood. And if hereunto we add the words of the Jesuite Salmeron who said If Jesus Christ had said This Bread is my Body and this Wine is my Blood it would have obliged us to have understood these words in a figurative sense because the Bread cannot be a humane Body nor the Wine Blood but in a figurative Sense Bellarmine saith the same If Jesus Christ had said This Bread is my Body this proposuion must be understood in a figurative Sense otherwise the Expression would be absurd and impossible Now as we see S. Cyprian saith that Jesus Christ said of the Body That 't is his Body and of the Wine That 't was his Blood it must be concluded therefore that Jesus Christ said of the Bread and Wine That they were his Body and Blood that is to say That the Bread and Wine were his Body and Blood in Figure both the one and the other being represented and signified by the Bread and Wine And therefore in his Epistle to Cecilius where at large he proves the Wine must be mingled with Water he saith If there be no Wine in the Cup the Blood of Jesus Christ cannot be represented to us because 't is the Wine that represents to us the Blood of Jesus Christ. And again Vini ubique mentio est ideo ponitur ut I omini Sanguis Vino intelligatur He saith of the Water that Sola Christi sanguinem non potest exprimere In aqua vidimus populum intelligi in Vino ostendi Sanguinem Christi So that seeing St. Cyprian saith That the Wine representeth expresseth sheweth and makes us see the Blood of Jesus Christ as the Water representeth expresseth and shews us the Christian People it cannot be imagin'd that St. Cyprian believed the Wine was destroy'd but on the contrary he believed that after Consecration the Wine remained and that 't was true Wine that he called his Blood according to what he saith in the same Letter Quia in parte invenimus Calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod Sanguinem suum dixit That the Fathers of the FOURTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation EUstathius Patriarch of Antioch upon these words of Solomon in the Proverbs Eat my Bread and drink the Wine which I have prepar'd saith That the wise Man by the Bread and Wine did foreshew the Antitypes of the Body of Jesus Christ Now that which is a Type is an Image what is an Image cannot be the thing but in Figure so that the Bread is not destroy'd because it is the Type and the Image Eusebius of Caesarea interpreting these words of Genesis Chap. 49. Vers. 12. His Eyes shall be red with Wine and his Teeth white with Milk saith That the first words signifie the Joy that the mystical Wine doth cause in the Disciples of Jesus Christ when he saith to them Take Drink ye ALL

it is said The Lord in the Type of his Blood did not offer Water but Wine These words are indeed Jovinian's but St. Jerom sinds no fault with them For he himself saith the same upon the 31 Chapter of Jeremy Vers. 12. on these Words They run after God's Creatures the Wheat the Wine and the Oyl the Bread and the Wine saith he whereof is made the Bread of the Lord and wherein is accomplished the Type of his Blood. Now saith St. Ambrose The Type is not the Truth but it is the shadow of the Truth There must then be in the Eucharist Bread and Wine distinct from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to be the Types and Figures of it The same Father in his Letter to Hedibia Let us hear that the Bread which the Lord broke and gave his Disciples was the Lord's own Body saying Take Eat This is my Body and a little after he saith If the Bread that came down from Heaven is the Body of the Lord and the Wine which he distributed among his Disciples his Blood c. St. Jerom saith That Jesus Christ brake and distributed Bread to his Disciples that he gave them Bread and that the Bread and Wine were his Flesh and Blood. It cannot then be said That what Jesus Christ gave in communicating his Disciples was not Bread and Wine and when he saith both the one and the other was his Body and Blood it cannot be understood but only figuratively for we see above in St. Cyprian that the Jesuites Salmeron and Bellarmine do confess That if Jesus Christ said of the Bread This is my Body it must be meant This Bread is the Figure of my Body the one not being capable of being the other but figuratively And the Reason is given by Vasquez when he saith If the Pronoun This in the words of Consecration be understood of the Bread undoubtedly by virtue of it there can be wrought no Transubstantiation because of necessity the Bread must needs remain Si Pronomen hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem fatemur fore ut nulla conversio virtute illorum fieri posset quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debeat The same S. Jerom in his Commentary upon the 26 Chapter of St. Matthew saith Jesus Christ having eaten the Paschal Lamb took Bread which strengthens the Heart of Man and proceeded to the accomplishment of the Sacrament of the true Passover that as Melchisedeck had offered Bread and Wine in Figure he also himself would represent the truth of his Body According to this Father the Bread and Wine represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and therefore are not properly and truly the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ but are something else besides them and by consequence remain in the Sacrament For to say as the Author of the Second Book of the perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharist doth against Monsieur Claude that St. Jerom means by representing to make a thing be present we before refuted this Fancy in Tertullian who speaks just as St. Jerom And the terms sufficiently declare that St. Jerom's meaning is That Jesus Christ made use of Bread and Wine to signifie and shew forth his Body and Blood as Melchisedeck had done that is to say as he had represented both the one and the other by the Oblation of Bread and Wine St. Austin in his Sermon to the newly Baptized which it's true is not found in his other Works but was preserv'd and is cited by St. Fulgentius de Baptismo Aethiop Cap. 7. What you see saith he upon the Altar of God you saw also the last Night but you were not yet aware of how great a thing it is a Sacrament That which you see is Bread and a Cup of Wine and it is also what your Eyes declare unto you but what your Faith should instruct you in is That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood. If you tell me Jesus Christ is born he was crucified he was buried he rose again and is ascended into Heaven whither he has carry'd his Body and is at present on the right hand of God from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead how then can the Bread be his Body and the Cup his Blood these things my Brethren are called Sacraments because one thing is seen in them and another thing is understood by them what is seen hath a Corporeal Substance what is understood hath a Spiritual Fruit. If then you desire to understand what the Body of Jesus Christ is hearken to the Apostle which saith You are the Body of Christ and his Members If then you are the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members it is the Mystery of what you are which is upon the Holy Table it is the Mystery of the Lord which you receive in saying Amen you answer and subscribe to what you are All you that are united in Charity you make but one Body of Jesus Christ of which you are the Members which is what is signified by the Bread compos'd of several Grains and by the Wine which is made of sundry Grapes For as Bread to be made a visible Species of Bread is made of sundry Grains collected together in one and the Wine c. St. Austin saith That the Bread is the Body of Christ which cannot be but improperly and figuratively as hath been shewed above for by Confession of Roman Catholick Doctors every Proposition that saith of the Bread That it is the Body must needs be typical and figurative He saith what is seen is Bread as our Eyes declare to us now what our Eyes report to us is true Bread as when one says What you see is true Gold and Silver or Marble and 't is what your Eyes testifie that is to say That one sees true Gold and true Marble and that one makes use of their Eyes to confirm it In the same sense he saith That Jesus Christ although in Heaven yet the Bread is the Body and the Wine the Blood because they are the Sacraments of it He saith What one sees hath a bodily species now in this Passage by bodily species he means the very Substance and not the Accidents For he saith afterwards speaking of Bread in general as Bread to be a visible species of Bread must be made of several Grains reduced into one lump now by the species of Bread it is plain St. Austin there means true Bread and a true Substance He saith What you see is Bread and a Cup now by Cup he doth not mean the appearance of a Cup he means a true Cup. He saith this Bread is the Mystery of the Lord. Which is nothing else but that 't is the Figure of the Lord as when he saith This Bread is the Mystery of Believers Mysterium vestrum in Mensa Domini accipitis That is to say That the Bread and Wine are the Figure of

and we know the Lord. If then after consecration we break Bread to distribute then of necessity the Bread must remain for to say that 't is the accidents which are broken and distributed S. Austin doth say the contrary when he affirms that one breaks and distributes what is on the Table being blessed and sanctify'd Now to bless and sanctify one shall never find to have signifi'd to destroy and change the substance The same Doctor in several places does always call the Eucharist the Sacrament of Bread and Wine he saith S. Paul doth teach the unity of the Church in the Sacrament of Bread when he saith We are all one Bread and one Body In the questions upon the Evangelists he saith Jesus Christ by the Sacrament of Wine recommends his Blood. In his Books against Faustus we are very far from doing what the Heathens did for their Gods Ceres and Bacchus although we have a ceremony of celebrating the Sacrament of Bread and Wine Now to what end were it to call the Eucharist a Sacrament of Bread and Wine if there did not remain Bread and Wine after Consecration for what means this manner of speech the Sacrament of Bread and Wine but the Bread and Wine which is the Sacrament As when the Apostle saith Rom. 4. v. 11. the sign of Circumcision What else doth this import but the Circumcision which is the sign When Tertullian de Baptismo calls Baptism Sacramentum aquae nostrae What else can that mean but our Water which is a Sacrament When S. Austin upon S. John Tract 11. saith The figure of the Sea figura Maris What more can this signify but the Sea which is the figure When it is frequently said the Sacrament of the Eucharist what else can that import but the Eucharist which is a Sacrament The same Father in his 52 Sermon de verbis Domini saith almost all do call the Sacrament the Body of Jesus Christ. Now if the Bread were the real Body of Jesus Christ wherefore should S. Anstin observe that all called it the Body of Jesus Christ For one cannot make such a remark but when one saith of a thing that 't is that which properly it is not It would be ridiculous to say almost all call Lewis 14 King the reason is because 't is not strange that persons should be called by their names but on the contrary it is very strange to call one by a name that doth not at all belong to him The same Father in his 26. Treatise upon S. John going to shew upon these words of the Apostle They did all eat the same Spiritual meat and drink the same Spiritual drink The relation and difference there is betwixt the Sacraments of the old and new Testament saith The Fathers did eat the same spiritual food as we do not the same corporal food as we do because they did eat Manna and as for us we eat something else They drank the same spiritual drink we do the same as to the signification but different as to visible and outward kind And upon S. John Treatise 45. If you consider the visible species it was another drink if you consider what was signify'd by their drink and ours it was one and the same thing Si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est si intelligibilem significationem cundem potum spiritualem biberunt And upon the 77. Psalm Their food was the very same with ours the same as to what it signify'd but different in kind Idem in mysterio cibus illorum qui noster Sed significatione idem non specie This reasoning does intimate That the Fathers under the old Testament did and we now do eat a corporal food and that we drink a corporal liquor Now by this corporal meat and drink we must understand either the accidents of Bread and Wine or the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or the Bread and Wine it self It cannot be spoken of the first because the accidents of Bread and Wine are only qualities or dimensions now qualities and dimensions are not corporal The quality is something which is incorporeal saith Nemesius of the Soul as concerning dimensions S. Austin de genesi ad literam saith We call that a Body which taketh up some space by its length by its breadth and by its depth Nemesius gives the reason of it because saith he nothing that is immaterial is a Body for all Bodies are material There being nothing material then in the Eucharist as is suppos'd there being nothing that takes up place that is large or long or deep There is nothing corporeal in the Sacrament and by consequence nothing that can be termed corporal meat or drink Moreover when Jesus Christ speaks of corporal nourishment and drink in the Eucharist as the Fathers under the old Testament had done he speaks of bodily meat and drink S. Austin did not understand the corporal meat and drink spoke of by the Fathers of the old Testament to be only the accidents of one and the other so that S. Austin speaking in the same terms of bodily meat and drink in relation to that of the Antients he did not mean meer accidents or qualities The Body of Jesus Christ nor his Hood cannot be this corporal nourishment which S. Austin compares to that of the Fathers under the Law for by bodily meat and drink which he saith we receive in the Eucharist he means a visible subject aliud illi aliud nos sed specie visibili si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est It remains then that in S. Austin's sense we understand by the corporal nature of the Eucharist the visible Bread the visible Wine and not their qualities and accidents The same Father in the third Book of the Trin. cap. 10. speaking of things that are taken to signify saith a thing is taken to signify either after such a manner as that the thing should subsist and remain some time as did the Brazen Serpent lift up in the Wilderness or as do the letters of the Alphabet or in such a manner as the thing taken to signify is not to subsist any long time but is to pass away and be destroy'd when the thing 't is to represent is passed away as the Bread of the Sacrament which being taken to signify passeth away and is consumed in receiving the Sacrament S. Austin there saith That the Bread of the Sacrament which is taken to signify passeth and is consumed in receiving the Sacrament Now if the Bread be destroyed and Transubstantiated by these words This is my Body then it passeth not away and is not consumed in the act of receiving The same Doctor in the seventeenth Of the City of God saith To eat Bread is in the New Testament the sacrifice of Christians and against the Enemy of the Law. l. 7. c. 20. Those saith he which read know what Melchisedeck offered where he blessed Abraham and those which are partakers see

had created from the beginning of the World which he creates every year by Propagation and Reparation which he sanctifies which he sills with Grace and Heavenly Benediction the which himself expounds to be Bread and Wine See here Nine or Ten Authors Contemporaries with Paschasius which are formally contrary to his Doctrine besides those which Paschasius himself speaks of in general in his own Writings To conclude the Ninth Century there might be added the manner that Charles the Bald and the Count of Barcelona signed the Peace which was done with the Blood of the Eucharist as is reported by Monsieur Baluze in his Notes on Agabard out of Odo Aribert in the year 844. It was in the same manner that Pope Theodore in the Seventh Century signed the Condemnation of Pirrbus the Monotholite as appears by Baronius on the year 648. § 15. That the Fathers of the TENTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation ALferick Archbishop of Canterbury about the year 940. in one of his Sermons to be seen in the Fourth Book of Bedes Ecclesiastical History cap. 24. which we have Copied in the Library of St. Victor saith The Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which he suffered but the Body of which he spake when consecrating the Bread and Wine he said This is my Body this is my Blood he adds the Bread is his Body just as the Manna and the Wine his Blood as the Water in the Desart was There is another Sermon cited by some under the name of Wolfin Bishop of Salisbury others say 't is of Alfric wherein the Author uses near the same Language This Sacrifice saith he is not the Body of Jesus Christ wherein he suffered for us nor his Blood which he shed but it is spiritually made his Body and Blood as the Manna that fell from Heaven and the Water that sprang out of the Rock Besides these two Testimonies which shew what was believed of the Sacrament in England there is a Sermon seen which was read every year to the People at Easter to keep in their minds the Idea of the Ancient Faith It is almost wholly taken out of Ratramne There is great difference saith this Homily betwixt the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered and the Body which is consecrated for the Eucharist for the Body wherein Jesus Christ suffered was born of the Virgin Mary and was provided with Blood Bones Nerves and Skin with bodily Members and a reasonable Soul but his spiritual Body which we call Eucharist is compos'd of several Grains of Wheat without Blood without Bones Nerves and without a Soul. The Body of Christ which suffer'd Death and rose again shall never dye more it is Eternal and Immortal but the Eucharist is temporal and not eternal it is corruptible and divided into sundry parcels ground by the Teeth and goes along with the other Excrements This Sacrament is a pledg and figure the Body of Jesus Christ is the Truth it self we have this pledg Sacramentally until we attain to the Truth and then the pledg shall be fulfill'd And a little lower If we consider the Eucharist after a corporal manner we see 't is a changeable and corruptible Creature but if we consider the spiritual Virtue that is in it we easily see that Life abides in it and that it gives Immortality to those that receive it with Faith. There is great difference betwixt the invisible Virtue of this Holy Sacrament and the visible Form of its proper Nature By Nature it is corruptible Bread and corruptible Wine but by the Virtue of the Word of God it is truly his Body and Blood yet not corporally but spiritually A little below he explains this change in saying Jesus Christ by an invisible Virtue did change the Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood but 't was after the same manner as he heretofore changed Manna and the Water that came out of the Rock into the same Body and Blood. Fulcuin Abbot of the Monastry of Lobes in the County of Liege who departed this Life in the year 990. speaking of the Eucharistical Table saith That 't is the Table on which is consumed the Sacred Body of our Lord which not being to be said of the proper Body cannot be understood but of the Bread which is called Body an Expression which in all likelihood this Abbot had learn'd of St. Austin who faith The Bread made for that use is consumed in receiving the Sacrament That which is set on the Table is consum'd the holy Celebration being ended Herriger Successor to Fulcuin and whom he that continued the History of the Abbots of Lobes mentions as a man whose Virtue and Knowledg was known even to Strangers He collected saith this Author several Passages of Catholick Fathers against Paschasius Ratbertus touching the Body and Blood of our Lord. The Ancient Customs of the Monastry of Cluny Reprinted by the care of Dom Luke D' Achery l. 2. ch 30. say The outside of the Challice is carefully rub'd lest there should the least drop of the Wine and Water remain and being consecrated it should fall to the ground and perish by which it appears they believed the Wine and water still remain'd after Consecration for the true Body of Jesus Christ cannot perish Again The Priest divides the Host and puts part of it into the Blood of one moiety he communicates himself and with the other he communicates the Deacon It cannot be so spoke of the Body of Jesus Christ then after the Priest has broke the Host he puts part of it into the Cup after the usual manner two parts on the Patten and covers both the one and the other with a clean Cloath but first of all he very carefully rubs the Challice and shakes it with the same hand with which he touched it fearing lest that breaking the Bread there should rest some part of the Body of our Lord which cannot be said of the true Body of Jesus Christ and elsewhere is prescrib'd what should be done If there chance to remain ever so little of the Body of our Saviour which is expounded to be a very little Crum as 't were indivisible and like an Atome To conclude treating of the Communion of sick Folks it is observ'd that the Body of our Lord is brought from the Church that it is broke and that the Priest holds on the Challice the part that he is to bring It must needs be that by the sence of these customs there must be Bread and Wine in the Sacrament that it may be broken and improperly called Body Ratherius Bishop of Verona saith As to the Corporal substance which the Communicant doth receive seeing that 't is I that do now ask the Question I must also answer my self and I thereto yield for seeing that to him that receives worthily it is the true Body altho one sees