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	transubstantiation_n	1,791	5	11.1891	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61552	The doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome truly represented in answer to a book intituled, A papist misrepresented, and represented, &c.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1686 (1686)	Wing S5590; ESTC R21928	99,480	174

to help them out when Sense and Reason fail them And therefore Cajetan well said We ought not to dispute about God's Absolute Power in the Doctrine of the Sacraments being things of such constant use and that it is a foolish thing to attribute to the Sacrament all that God can do But we must consider what he saith against Sense and Reason For the believing this Mystery he does not at all think it meet for any Christian to appeal from Christ's Words to his own Senses or Reason for the examining the Truth of what he hath said but rather to submit his Senses and Reason to Christ's Words in the obsequiousness of Faith What! whether we know this to be the meaning of Christ's Words or not And thus we shall be bound to submit to every absurd Interpretation of Scripture because we must not use our Senses or Reason for examining the Truth of what is said there Can any thing be plainer said in Scripture than that God hath Eyes and Ears and Hands Must now every Man yield to this in the obsequiousness of Faith without examining it by Principles of Common Reason And we think we are therefore bound to put another Sense upon those Expressions because they imply a Repugnancy to the Divine Perfections Why not then where something is implied which is repugnant to the Nature of Christ's Body as well as to our Senses But the Question about judging in this Matter by our Senses is not as our Author is willing to suppose viz. Whether our Senses are to be believed against a clear and express Divine Revelation but whether the Judgment of our Senses and Reason is not to be made use of for finding out the true sense of this Revelation And we think there is great reason for it 1. Because we have no more certain way of judging the Substance of a Body than by our Senses We do not say our Senses go beyond the Accidents but we say our Senses by those Accidents do assure us of the bodily Substance or else it were impossible for us to know there is any such thing in the World 2. Because Christ did himself appeal to the judgment of his Disciples Senses concerning the Truth of his own Body after the Resurrection Behold my Hands and my Feet that it is I my self handle and see for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have Now we think we have Reason to allow the same Criterion which Christ himself did about the very same Body Unless he had then told his Disciples that there was to be another supernatural manner of Existence of the same Body concerning which their Senses were not to be Judges 3. Some of the most important Articles of the Christian Faith do suppose the Judgment of our Senses to be true As about the Truth of Christ's Body whether he had really a Body or only the outward Accidents and Appearance of a Body if he had not he did not really suffer upon the Cross and so the Sacrifice of Propitiation there offered up to the Father for the Sins of Mankind is lost There was a great Controversy in St. John's Time and afterwards Whether Christ had any real Body Those who denied it brought Revelation for it those who asserted it proved it by their Senses as S. John himself That which we have seen and heard and our hands have handled c. He doth not tell Men they must submit their Sense and Reason to the pretence of Revelation but they ought to adhere to the Judgment of their Senses concerning the Reality of Christ's Body Since therefore Christ himself appealed to it the Apostles made use of it without any Caution or Limitation we have great reason to rely still on the Judgment of our Senses concerning the same Object viz. the Body of Christ. 3. But we must now consider his Instances to overthrow the Judgment of our Senses and Reason in this Point 1. He believes Christ to be God though to Senses he seemed nothing but Man Do we ever pretend to judg of Christ's Divinity by our Senses How then can this be pertinent when our only Dispute is about judging his Body and the Substance of Bread and Wine by them And yet the Senses were of great use as to the proof of his Divinity by the Miracles which he wrought which if they had been like the pretended Miracles in Transubstantiation could have convinced no Man because they could never see them 2. He believes the Holy Ghost descended on our Saviour though Senses or Reason could discover it to be nothing but a Dove If there were no reason to judg otherwise the Judgment of Sense were to be followed but since the Scripture declares it was the Holy Ghost descending as a Dove we have no reason to question that Revelation For we do not pretend that our Senses are so far Judges of Divine Appearances as to exclude the possibility of God's assuming the shape and figure of his Creature when he pleases by moulding the substance of a real Body into such a Representation Thus we do not deny the possibility of an appearance of the Holy Ghost under Bread and Wine if God thought fit any more than under a Dove and in this Case we do not pretend that our Senses can exclude the presence of a Spirit under the Elements but that is very different from the present Case for here the Substance is supposed to be gone and nothing but Accidents remaining and no spiritual Presence of Christ is denied but that of his Body the very same Body which suffered on the Cross. 3. He believes the Man who appeared to Joshua ch 5. 13. and the three Men to Abraham Gen. 18. were really and substantially no Men notwithstanding all the Information and Evidence of Sense to the contrary from their Colour Features Proportion Talking Eating and many others And what follows from hence but that Spiritual Invisible Substances may be under the appearance of Bodies and that our Senses cannot be Judges of them Which is not our Question but Whether Bodies can be so present after the manner of Spirits as to lose all the natural Properties of Bodies and whether a Material Substance can be lost under all the Accidents proper to it so as our Senses cannot be proper Judges of one by the other But our Author seems to grant this in a natural way of the Existence of a Body but he saith Christ gives to his Body a supernatural manner of Existence by which being left without extension of Parts and rendred independent of Place it may be one and the same in many Places at once and whole in every part of the Symbols and not obnoxious to any corporeal contingencies This is to me a Mystery beyond all comprehension by Sense or Reason and there is certainly a great difference between governing our Understandings and giving them up as we must do if this Doctrine hold good for it overthrows any

adored because it was instituted to be received This cannot be otherwise understood than as relating to the Sacrament and so that whatever it be must be granted to be the Object of Adoration By the Sacrament saith Cardinal Pallavicini is understood the Object made up of the Body of Christ and the Accidents The Worship then being confessed to be Adoration which is due to God alone and that Adoration directed to the Sacrament as its proper Object the Question now is Whether such a Supposition in the Sacrament doth justify that Adoration Our Author saith He accounteth it most damnable to worship or adore any Breaden God or to give Divine Honour to any Elements of Bread and Wine p. 9. Then I say by his own confession if it be only Bread he commits Idolatry for the Adoration he cannot deny But our Representer loves ambiguous Expressions which to the People sound very well but have no sincere meaning for what is it he understands by his Breaden God If it be that he worships a God which himself supposes to be nothing but Bread we do not charge him with it but if it be what we believe it to be the Substance of Bread but himself believes to be turned into the Body of Christ then he cannot deny his Adoration to be given to it All that can excuse them is the Supposition and whether that will or not is now to be consider'd 1. If it be not true themselves grant it to be Idolatry The Testimonies of Bishop Fisher and Costerus are so well known to the purpose that I shall not repeat them And Catharinus a Divine of Note in the Council of Trent confesses it is Idolatry to worship an unconsecrated Host altho the Person through a Mistake believes it Consecrated And he quotes St. Thomas and Paludanus for his Opinion and gives this Reason for it because Christ is not worshipped simply in the Sacrament but as he is under the Species and therefore if he be not so present a Creature hath Divine Worship given it As those were guilty of Idolatry who worshipped any Creatures of old supposing God to be there as that he was the Soul of the World They were not excused saith he that they thought they worshipped but one God because they worshipped him as present in such a manner as he was not And this Book of his he saith in the Review of it was seen and approved by the Pope's Order by their Divines at Paris 2. If the Bread were taken to be God our Author doth not deny it would be Idolatry for that were to worship a breaden God Yet here would be a Mistake and a gross one yet the Mistake would not excuse the Persons committing it from most damnable Idolatry as he confesses Why then should the other Mistake excuse them when they suppose the Substance of the Bread not to be there but the Body of Christ to be under the Species Yes say they then no Creature is supposed to be the Object of Worship But when the Bread is supposed to be God it must be supposed not to be a Creature There is no Answer to be given in this Case but that the Bread really is a Creature whatsoever they imagined and if this Mistake did not excuse neither can the other 2. Of Transubstantiation Three Things our Author goes upon with respect to this 1. He supposes Christ's words to be clear for it 2. He shews the possibility of it from God's Omnipotency 3. He argues against the Testimony or Evidence of Sense or Reason in this Case from some parallel Instances as he thinks 1. He believes Jesus Christ made his words good pronounced at his last Supper really giving his Body and Blood to his Apostles the Substance of Bread and Wine being by his powerful words changed into his own Body and Blood the Species only or Accidents of the Bread and Wine remaining as before The same he believes of the Eucharist consecrated now by Priests This is a very easy way of taking it for granted that the words are clear for Transubstantiation And from no better Ground to fly to God's Omnipotency to make it good is as if one should suppose Christ really to be turned into a Rock a Vine a Door because the words are every jot as clear and then call in God's Omnipotency which is as effectual to make them good I confess these words are so far from being clear to me for Transubstantiation that if I had never heard of it I should never have thought of it from these or any other words of Scripture i. e. not barely considering the sound of words but the Eastern Idioms of speaking the Circumstances of our Saviour's real Body at that time when he spake them the uncouth way of feeding on Christ's real Body without any Objection made against it by his Disciples The Key our Saviour elsewhere gives for understanding the manner of eating his Flesh and withal if these words be literally and strictly understood they must make the Substance of Bread to be Christ's Body for that is unavoidably the literal sense of the words For can any Men take This to be any thing but this Bread who attend to the common sense and meaning of Words and the strict Rules of Interpretation Yet this sense will by no means be allow'd for then all that can be infer'd from these words is that when Christ spake these words The Bread was his Body But either Christ meant the Bread by This or he did not if he did the former Proposition is unavoidable in the literal Sense if he did not then by virtue of these words the Bread could never be turned into the Body of Christ. For that only could be made the Body of Christ which was meant when Christ said This is my Body This seems to me to be as plain and convincing as any Demonstration in Euclid Which hath often made me wonder at those who talk so confidently of the plain Letter of Scripture being for this Doctrine of Transubstantiation But several Divines of the Church of Rome understood themselves better and have confessed That this Doctrine could not be drawn out of the literal sense of these words as it were easy to shew if it had not been lately done already It is enough here to observe that Vasquez confesseth it of Scotus Durandus Paludanus Ockam Cameracensis and himself yields that they do not and cannot signify expresly the Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body of Christ. For how can This is my Body literally signify this is changed into my Body If that Proposition were literally true This is my Body it overthrows the change For how can a thing be changed into that which it is already 2. He believes Christ being equal to his Father in Truth and Omnipotency can make his Words good We do not in the least dispute Christ's Omnipotency but we may their familiar way of making use of it