Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	body_n	bread_n	real_a	1,600	5	9.1674	5	false

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

in Joh. p. 112 113. or hearkening to her Councils and Instructions by eating and by drinking of them Thus Wisdom cryeth in the Streets saith Solomon Come eat of my Bread and drink of my Wine that I have mingled Prov. ix 5. that is Go in the way of understanding v. 6. Eat you that which is good and let your Soul delight it self in Fatness that is Isa lv 2. Incline your Ear hear and your Soul shall live And by the Son of Syrach Wisdom is introduced speaking thus They that eat me shall yet be hungry and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty Ecclus xxiv 21. i. e. He that obeys me v. 22. Hence Philo the Jew informs us That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Joh. vi v. 51. to eat is a Symbol of Spiritual nourishment Add to this that of Mr. Leightfoot That the Talmudists make frequent mention of eating the Messiah and thereby understand only their being made partakers of his Benefits And that of Clemens of Alexandria upon that passage of St. Paul I have fed you with Milk Strom. l. 5. p. 579. and not with strong Meat viz. Milk is the rudiments of Faith or the Doctrines of the Catechism the first nourishment of the Soul strong meat a comtemplation which makes us to discern the divine power and essence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these Contemplations are the Flesh and Blood of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the meat and drink of the divine Word is the knowledge of the divine Essence Thirdly Observe that from these Metaphors our Lord proceeds to that contained in these words objected by the Roman Doctors v. 51. The Bread which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World that is It is my Body which I will give up unto death that by it the world may have life which is a greater Benefit exceedingly than that which you received from that Manna which Moses gave you in the Wilderness or from that meat with which I did so lately fill your Bodies The Jews taking these words in a gross sence as if our Lord had promised to give his real Flesh to be swallowed down their Throats and eaten by them as they had eaten Bread the day before and as their fore Fathers had eaten Manna in the Wilderness exclaimed against him as promising a thing absurd inhumane and imposible saying How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat to this our Saviour Answers v. 53. in words still more expressive of his violent and bloody Death for the salvation of Mankind viz. Except you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood c. Now these words are by some conceived to import thus much Vnless you with the Mouth of your Bodies do eat my real and corporeal Flesh and drink my proper Blood you cannot have eternal Life Having premised these Observations I shall now proceed to shew both from this Chapter and from other Reasons that our Lord spake not here of oral and corporeal eating of his natural Flesh and drinking of his proper Blood but only of doing of these things spiritually and that not only in the celebration of that Sacrament which by our Lord was Instituted for the remembrance of his Death and Passion but generally believing that by his Death and Passion he became the Saviour of the World and purchased Pardon and Salvation for all that heartily believed in him and would sincerely yield Obedience to his precepts And 1. Against the gross and for the spiritual Interpretation of these words I argue from the 51. v. thus The Flesh which Christ here promised to give for the Life of the World is the same with the Bread of God that cometh down from Heaven and giveth Life unto the World v. 33. for so we learn expresly from these words I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven if any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread which I will give is my Flesh that I will give for the Life of the World. And again having said He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life v. 54. and he that eateth me shall live by me v. 57. he adds immediately This is the Bread which came down from Heaven and he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Now our Lord hath expresly taught us that the eating of this Bread of Life imported only our believing on him v. 35. as hath already been made evident from our second Observation therefore the eating of his Flesh doth certainly import the same spiritual Action Moreover we are only to eat of Christ as Flesh in that importance of the Phrase in which we are to eat of Christ as Bread for as Christ saith he will give Flesh to eat so doth he say he will give Bread to eat as he saith He that eateth of my Flesh shall live for ever so he saith He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever but none can say that Christ was or could properly be Bread or eaten by the Mouth as such wherefore he being only figuratively and spiritually Bread could only figuratively and spiritually be eaten as Bread if therefore in the same importance only we are to eat his Flesh that also is to be eaten in a spiritual Sence 2. From these words v. 52. How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat 't is evident the Jews conceived that our Lord promised to give them his proper Flesh to eat and swallow down their Throats as they had done the Bread with which he fed them And it on all hands is agreed that they mistook the sence of Christ's words and fansied such a meaning of them as he did not intend but had our Lord intended the corporeal eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood 't is certain that it must be swallowed down their Throats as properly as was the Bread which they had eaten and therefore no Man who maintaineth this corporeal eating of Christ's Flesh to be intended here can suitably to his Opinion say That they imposed a false sence upon our Saviour's words since from this sence it does inevitably follow that Christ intended that his humane Flesh should properly be eaten and their words signifie no more Add to this one Consideration which shews what apprehensions the Fathers of the first Three Centuries had of this eating of the Flesh of Christ viz. when 't was objected to them by the Heathens that they did eat Man's Flesh they constantly in their Apologies reject the accusation as the vilest calumny and as a most abominable thing sufficient to discover that the Author of such an institution must be some wicked Damon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We Christians saith Apol. 2. p. 70. 1. 50. Justin Martyr do not own the eating of humane flesh it is an infamous thing and falsly is reported of us This is saith Ad Authol l. 3. p. 119 126. Theophilus the most wicked and inhumane of

30. Trid. Sess 43. cap. 3. these Councils jointly have determined That by force of that natural Connexion and Concomitance which is betwixt the parts of Christ's raised Body Christ's Body is entire under the Species of Wine and his Blood under the Species of Bread it being firmly to be believed and in no wise doubted that the whole Body and Blood of Christ is contained as well under the Species of Bread as under that of Wine and not the Flesh only under the Species of Bread nor the Blood only under the Species of Wine This whosoever shall deny let him be Anathema saith the Trent Council whosoever being learned will not declare upon Oath that he believeth and asserts this Doctrine of Concomitance he must suffer as an (a) Sess 13. can 1. Partinaciter dicentes oppositum tanquam haeresin sunt arcendi puniendi Sess 45. apud Bin. Tom. 7. p. 1124. Heretick saith the Council of Constance And yet this Doctrine which cannot be denied without incurring an Anathema nor disbelieved without the Crime of Heresie is in it self absurd and plainly contrary to Scripture and to Reason and that it was unquestionably unknown to all the Ancient Fathers and the whole Church of Christ is very easie to demonstrate That this Doctrine is absurd that it doth not expound but rather doth expose our Saviour's Institution to the derision of Men of Reason and Consideration will be evident from these following Arguments For § 1 1. This Novelty apparently destroys the energy of the words used in the Institution of this Sacred Ordinance in which our Lord when he had given his Body broken to his own Disciples and they had actually received it saith of the following Cup Drink ye all of this Matth. xxvi 27 28. for this is the blood of the New-Testament shed for you Whereas if he knew any thing of this Concomitance he must know also they had received this blood of the New-Testament already and therefore might have spared his Cup and Reason both This do as oft as you drink it came too late for they had done what he commanded in effect before he bid them do it Sess 13. c. 3. Tantundem sub alterutrâ specie atque sub utraque continetur as much is contained under either Species as under both saith the Trent Council i. e. whole and entire Christ his Body Blood his Soul and his Divinity and so as much as is delivered in and as much Grace conveighed by the Reception of one Species as both For I suppose that by participation of Christ in this entire manner we have entirely the Grace of the Sacrament Why therefore did our Lord institute the other Species so perfectly unnecessary to conveigh any thing of Christ or of his Grace unto us Why did he bless the Cup and blessing said with like Solemnity and with express injunction Drink ye all of this Or why did he permit his Church for a whole Thousand Years to give his Members a thing which might be oft of a pernicious influence to them who did receive it unworthily but could be of no spiritual advantage to them who did receive it worthily since after we have taken worthily the consecrated Body we have taken as much as when we have received the Blood also Mr. Condom sets down this as their Principle Treat of Communion in both Kinds p. 327. That he who hath received the Bread of Life has no need of receiving the sacred Blood seeing he has received together with the Bread of Life the whole Substance of the Sacrament and together with that Substance the whole essential virtue of the Eucharist Now from this Principle it follows with the clearest evidence that it was needless for our Saviour to have said to his Disciples after they had received the Bread of Life Drink ye all of this Cup. That his Institution of the Cup to be received after the Bread of Life was a needless Institution that the Church was imployed in a needless Action for a Thousand Years when she distributed the Cup to all Believers That when our Saviour said Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New-Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins he gave a needless reason of a needless Action exhorting them to do what they had wholly done already to the end here assigned by him of the drinking of it And can that Principle be true which casts such horrid Imputations on the Commands the Institution and the Reason of that Institution assigned by our Blessed Lord and on the constant Practice of the whole Church of Christ And indeed this new Capricio of Concomitance cannot well be thought of by a Roman Doctor but presently this Question stares him in the Face To what purpose then was the Institution of both Species they being conscious to themselves that the very natural and obvious Conclusion from it would be this That our Lord's Institution of both Species was to no purpose they therefore have invented a new Reason of the necessity of Consecrating both the Species apart Mr. Condom ibid. p. 179 180. viz. That the Separation once made upon the Cross of our Lord's Body and Blood might never cease to appear on the Holy Table Now is it not wonderful that Christ should stablish a continual representation of the separation of his Blood from his Body by Species which he commands us to believe contain his Body and his Blood united What a pretty Mystery do these Men make of the sacred Institution of our Lord. Bread and Wine never cease to appear unto our Senses and yet we must not believe this Appearance but by Faith believe there is no such thing the same Faith teacheth me that our Lord's Body and Blood are united there and yet I must believe our Lord designed the continual representation of them there as separate where Faith informs me there is no such thing Secondly This Doctrine of Concomitance seems even to ridicule our Saviour's words and make them run to this effect I say unto you This is my Body broken not by way of representation only but substantially so and yet I know my Body neither is substantially broken in this Sacrament nor can it ever be so I bid you take this Cup and to encourage you to do so I say This is my Blood shed or separated from my Body and yet I know that there is always in this Sacrament such a Concomitance as renders it impossible my Blood should be thus separated as I say it is But notwithstanding I institute a Mystery which by some broken Accidents of Bread annihilated or some few colours or bare Species of Wine without a subject shall give some faint resemblance of my Body broken and my Blood shed for you This is my broken Body that is under these broken Accidents of Bread lyeth my Body whole and united to my Blood and therefore not my Body broken for you This is my Blood shed

which we drink of Worthily is not needful to conferr Life Salvation or spiritual Blessing on the worthy Receiver of it That in all the Liturgies of the Ancient Church they should pray constantly that they who worthily Received this Cup might be filled thereby with all spiritual Benediction and heavenly Grace that in their Discourses on this Subject they should exhort the People after they had received the Bread to drink this Cup for their Sanctification for the remission of Sins for the obtaining Life and tell them it was necessary to be drunk of for all the ends here mentioned and yet believe it was not needful to conferr Grace and spiritualy Blessings on them And 4ly This they do generally prove from the Fifth Century by that known passage of our Lord Except you eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man you have no Life in you (u) Tom. 1. p. 580. Tom. 2. p. 431. St. Basil is express unto this purpose saying That the Baptized person ought to be nourished with the food of Eternal Life and that the communication of the Body and Blood of Christ is necessary to Eternal Life And proving both from these words Verily I say unto you except you eat c. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life St. Chrysostom upon this Text speaks thus Because they had said before it was impossible to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 2. p. 748. He here shews not only that it is not impossible but that it is very necessary and therefore introduceth these words He that eateth my flesh c. He continually speaks of the Mysteries shewing the necessity of the thing and that it always ought to be done Against the Pelagians saith P. Gelasius (y) Dominus Jesus contra Pelagianos coelefti voce pronunciat Qui non manducaverit c. Ubi utique neminem videmus exemptum nec ausus est aliquis dicere parvulum sine hoc Sacramento salutari ad aeternam vitam posse produci Ep. vniv Episc per Nicaenum Concil Tom. 4. p. 1177 1178. our Lord pronounceth that he who eateth not the Flesh of the Son of Man and drinks his Blood hath no Life in him where we see none exempt nor dares any say that an Infant can obtain Eternal Life without this Sacrament It is not only said Except a Man be born again of Water c. but unelss He eat and drink c. and that this is spoken of Eternal Life none can doubt because many who receive not this Sacrament have this present Life St. Austin Asserts above Twenty times the absolute necessity that Infants should partake of Christ's Body and drink his Blood by reason of these words (z) Omnino parvulorum salvator est Christus omnino nisi ab illo redimantur peribunt quum sine carne ejus sanguine vitam habere non possunt hoc sensit hoc credidit hoc didicit hoc docuit Joannes Tom. 7. l. 1. contra Jul. Pelag. ed. Frob. p. 949. Christ saith he is altogether the Saviour of Infants and unless they be redeemed by him they will utterly perish seeing without his Flesh and Blood they cannot have Life This St. John thought and believed learned and taught And again (a) An dicente Christo Si non manducaveritis c. dicturus fueram parvulum habiturum vitam qui sine isto Sacramento finiisset hanc vitam Ibid. l. 3. c. 1. p 991. d. 992. a. when Christ saith Vnless you eat his Flesh and drink his Blood you have no life in you can I say the Child can have Life who ends his Life without that Sacrament And a third time He having said Vnless you eat c. and he that eats my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life (b) Quo igitur vitam regni coelorum promittitis parvulis non renatis ex aqua spiritu Sancto non cibatis carne neque potatis sanguine Christi Where the Marginal Note is Eucharistia parvulis sub utraque specie Tom. 7. contr Pelag. Hypognost c. 5. p. 1405. b. c. How is it that you Pelagians promise the Kingdom of Heaven to Children not born of Water and the Spirit not fed with the Flesh of Christ nor having drunk of his Blood which was shed for the Remission of their Sins Behold he that is not Baptized and he that is deprived of the Vital Cup and Bread is divided from the Kingdom of Heaven And of what Sacrament he conceives our Saviour to have spoken in these words he more expresly tells us saying (c) Dominum audiamus non quidem hoc de Sacramento sancti lavacri dicentem sed de Sacra mento sacrae mensae suae quo nemo nisi rite baptizatus accedit Nisi manducaveritis c. Tom. 7. l. de peccat Meritis Remiss c. 19. p. 666. Let us hear our Lord speaking not of the Sacrament of Baptism N. B. but of the Sacrament of his Holy Table to which none comes who is not rightly Baptized Except you eat and drink c. What do we farther seek for Dares any Body say this Sentence belongeth not to Children or that they can have Life in themselves without the Participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ But he that saith this doth not attend that if that Sentence comprehends not all so that they cannot have Life without the Body and the Blood of Christ those of Riper Years are not obliged to regard it And to refer you to the (d) Vide Dallaeum de Cult Latin. l. 5. cap. 3. Margin for the rest his Conclusion is this (e) Siergo ut tot tanta divina testimonia concinant nec salus nec vita aeterna fine baptismo corpore sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est frustra fine his promittitur parvulis Lib. 1. de peccat Meritis Remiss c. 24. p. 670. If then so many divine Testimonies accord in saying That neither Salvation nor Life eternal is by any to be hoped for without Baptism and the Body and the Blood of our Lord they art in vain promised to Children without them Now here it is to be admired that Men of Sence and of Integrity should say St. Austin speaks all this of such a participation of the Flesh and Blood of Christ as may be had in Baptism when he not only speaks in divers of these places first of the Sacrament of Baptism and after of the Supper of the Lord but sometimes of this Sacrament by way of distinction from that of Baptism sometimes of the Sacrament of the Lord's Table and of that eating and drinking of Christ's Body and Blood quod per corpus geritur which is done by the Body And when this Text from the Fifth to the Twelfth Century was by the Fathers still interpreted of the Lord's Supper and Children were admitted to that Sacrament and to the drinking

believing Jews who heard these words and died before our Saviour's Passion Joh. vi 4. must of necessity be damned for our Lord saith with an asseveration to them Except you eat the flesh c. now this was said at least above a Year before our Saviour's Passion and so before the Institution of that Sacrament in which alone his flesh could be corporally eaten and therefore had it been intended of corporeal and sacramental eating it was impossible that any person of those Hearers could be saved who died in the ensuing year 2. These words interpreted in the corporeal Sence do plainly and inevitably inferr That they who do deprive the Laity all their whole lives of drinking of this blood expose them to inevitable damnation Christ having said Except you drink the Blood of the Son of Man you have no Life in you for though eating and drinking being taken figuratively do signifie the same thing viz. believing in a crucified Saviour yet being taken properly they cannot be reputed the same thing For albeit they who receive the body only may be well said to eat the flesh of Christ because they take something by way of Meat into their Mouths yet cannot they be said to drink his blood if they take nothing into their Mouths by way of Drink Since therefore eating and drinking are two distinct Actions so that he cannot properly be said to drink who only eats since the privation of Life is here connected with not drinking of Christ's Blood as much as with not eating of his flesh according to the corporeal Interpretation pretation of these words he must certainly be deprived of the Life here promised who doth not receive the Cup because he is deprived of drinking of the Blood of Christ 4. From Vers 54 56. the Argument runs thus whoseover eateth the Flesh and drinketh the Blood of Christ in the sence here spoken of abideth in Christ and Christ in him and therefore is a true and living Member of Christ's Body and he shall have Eternal Life and be partaker of an happy Resurrection and so no person can be either wicked here or deprived of Everlasting Life hereafter who in this sence here mentioned eats of the Flesh and drinketh of the Blood of Christ Now this is very true of eating Spiritually and by Faith as it imports believing on Christ for Vers 40 This saith Christ is the Will of him that sent me That every one who believeth on the Son may hve Everelasting Life and I will raise him up at the lat Day but then of Sacramental eating of Christ's Flesh it is as false for this was eaten by a Judas and continually is eaten by Millions who are both wicked here and will be damned hereafter this therefore cannot be the import of our Saviour's words and here observe 1. That our Lord speaks in the general whosoever eats 2. That he speaks thus not by way of Promise which might be conditional but by way of plain Assertion and declaration of a thing most certain And 3. That the Text shews the eating mentioned here can never be performed unprofitably no not without the greatest benefit for 't is opposed to the eating of Manna in the Wilderness on this account that whereas that gave only Temporal Life this would assuredly conferr Eternal whereas that was not able to preserve from Temporal this would preserve from Death Eternal 5. Moreover Vers 61 62. our Lord speaks thus Doth this offend you what if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before i. e. are you offended that I thus speak of giving you my Fleh to eat do you look on this Expression now as so absurd and unintelligible what then will you think of it when this Body shall be removed hence to Heaven i. e. HOw will you then be scandalized and think it still more difficult and more impossible to apprehend how you should eat my Flesh and drink my Blood provided you go on to understand my words in the gross carnal Sence For Athanasius In illud Evang Quicunque dixerit P. 979. saith well That Christ here mentioneth his ascent into Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That he might divert them from the corporeal sence and therefore argued thus Seing it will be hen impossible that you should corporally eat my Flesh when it is so far removed from you by this you may discern I speak of a spiritul eating of it Whence by the way we learn That Christ thought his Ascention into Heaven sufficient demonstration to the Jews his Flesh could not be eaten upon Earth and why it should not be so to the Christian I am yet to learn. 6. The 63. Vers affords us a more plain and certain Exposition of our Saviour's meaning in the precedent words for thus they run It is the Spirit that quickeneth the Flesh profiteth nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb de ecclesiaftic Theolog. l. 3. c. 12. The words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life For the import of these words is to this effect unto that eating and drinking of which in this Discourse I have still spoken I have annexed the Promise of Life saying expressly He that eateth me shall live by me he shall by me be quickned Now all Men know That 't is the Spirit in them that gives them Life and when that Spirit is taken from them the Flesh cannot live or minister to the continuance of their Life by which similitude you may plainly learn I spake not of my real Flesh when I told you that by eating it you should have Life but of my Word and Doctrine that of my Passion more especially for my words which I speak to you they are Spirit and they are Life i.e. if you will hearken to them they will make you live Spiritually here Eternally hereafter and by so doing will be Life yea where they are embraced they are that to the new Man which is the Spirit to the Flesh they give him Life Activity and Motion and therefore they are Spirit Had our Lord said it is the Spirit that quickeneth the Flesh profiteth nothing therefore the Flesh which I will give shall be still joined to my Divinity and by the virtue of it give you Life he had said somewhat like the sence which others put upon this Text but saying only The words which I speak unto you they are Spirit we cannot doubt but he speaks of eating and of drinking of his words spiritually 7. Our Saviour having said unto the Twelve Will ye also go away St. Peter Answers To whom should we go Thou hast the words of eternal Life and we believe thou art that Christ the Son of the living God. Where 1. observe that Peter here doth as it were repeat the words of Christ My words are Life saith Christ Thou hast the words of Life eternal saith St. Peter whereas if he had understood our Saviour to have spoken here of Oral Manducation his Answer