Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A52905
|
Three sermons upon the sacrament in which transubstantiation is impartially considered, as to reason, scripture, and tradition to which is added a sermon upon the feast of S. George / by N.N. ... Preacher in ordinary to Their Majesties.
|
N. N., Preacher in Ordinary to Their Majesties.
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing N60; ESTC R11075
|
101,855
|
264
|
Iohn 6. ch writes Jesus the Son of Joseph S. Luke 3. ch explains it Jesus being as was supposed the Son of Joseph Our Saviour frequently invites the thirsty to him promises them living water S. Iohn in the 7. ch explains it He spoke this of the spirit which they who believd on him should receive But these words which we read in all of them are not explain'd by any one of them From whence 't is easy to inferr that all these sacred Pen-men never understood our Adversaries figurative sense They literally understood it as we do believd it as they understood it writ as they believ'd it S. Mark 4. ch 34. v. says of our Saviour that when they were alone He expounded all things to his Disciples If then our Saviour us'd a Figure when he said This is my Body 't is certain that when they were alone at least he expounded this figure to them Perhaps the four Evangelists the Apostle knew well enough this exposition but forgot to write it This will not serve the turn Our Saviour promis'd them their memory should ever be assisted by his holy Spirit In the 14. ch of S. Iohn * v. 26. the Holy Ghost says he shall bring all things into your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you Perhaps they every one thought of it when they writ but did not think it worth the writing But if our Adversaries well consider the sixth Article of Reformation which tells us all things necessary to Salvation are contain'd in Scripture they will scarce find room for this reply because this exposition would have been so necessary to prevent the Idolatry which they accuse us of consequently necessary to Salvation Since therefore this Interpretation never could have been forgot if ever they had known it Since it could not be omitted if they had remember'd it it follows clearly that this explication was never known amongst them but only is a new invention of the modern Reformation directly contradictory to Scripture I cannot but admire when I reflect how thick a mist mens passions and prejudices raise before their eyes And this is undoubtedly the reason why so many able men of the reforming Party study Transubstantiation in Scripture search with diligence great appearance of sincerity yet never find it If they were equal impartial judges of the Texts which lie before them they soon would see how grievously they are mistaken in the true intent meaning of them By the example of this instance they would judge the rest acknowledge the injustice of the Reformation return home joyfully to their old Mother-Church full of admiration of God's mercy to them * 1. Pet. 2.9 shew forth the praises of Him who call'd them out of darkness into his wonderfull light which guides us through this vale of misery to the everlasting joys of Heaven Amen A SERMON Preacht before the KING AT WORCESTER August 24. 1687. Interroga Majores tuos dicent tibi Ask thy Elders They will tell thee Deut. 32.7 T Is now no less than six thirty years Most Sacred MAJESTY since our City of Worcester has been honour'd with the Presence of our King. Our Loyalty was then sufficiently try'd and now it is aboundantly rewarded ward Our Loyalty which then was so well known to all the world invited your Royal Brother to this Refuge And we employ'd our best endeavours to preserve his sacred Person But 't was too great an Honour for us The Almighty took it wholly to himself and by a surprising miracle of Providence afterwards granted to our earnest Prayers what He before denied to our unfortunate Arms. As we have never forfeited the credit of our Loyalty we hope your MAJESTY is well assured we shall be always ready to expose our lives fortunes in your MAJESTY's service It is not in the power of Subjects to give their Prince a more convincing assurance that they always will be Loyal than that they always have been so I only wish with all my heart that we had ever been as Loyal to the Church as to the State and that we had as zealously opposed the Reformation of our Faith as we withstood the Alteration of our Government When I first appear'd in this Place I made it my business to prove that according to principles of Natural Philosophy the Mystery of Transubstantiation is neither contrary to Sense nor Reason In my second Sermon I endeavour'd to shew it is so far from being contrary to Holy Writ that no judicious Reader who is free from prejudice can understand Scripture without it And this being my third appearance where it is expected I should finish what I have begun I now undertake to prove it is so far from being contrary to the purer faith of the first Ages that for the first eight Centuries the Fathers universally believ'd it Remember the days of old says Moses Consider the years of many generations Ask thy Fathers they will shew thee thy Elders they will tell thee My time is short considering the work I have before me But yet I hope it will not be accounted losse of time to spend one moment on my knees in begging the assistance of my Saviour and desiring his Virgin-Mother with all the Blessed Spirits to accompany my prayers upon Earth with theirs in Heaven FIRST PART * Before I enter upon our proofs of Transubstantiation it will be worth observing how almost all our Adversaries are mistaken upon a groundless supposition that if they can find expressions in the Fathers which import that the Sacrament is a type a sign a figure They need not seek any farther The question is already decided The Fathers never believ'd the mystery of Transubstantiation Now I must needs conless if we denied the Sacrament to be a type a sign or figure we ought to stand corrected Or if all this were inconsistent with the mystery of Transubstantiation we ought to own our Fathers Belief was contrary to ours But if in both these points our Adversaries are mistaken we must beg their pardon if we still persever in our ancient Faith. * If they would only consider the difference betwixt the inward substance the outward form betwixt the infide the outside of the Sacrament They would easily reconcile the different expressions which they meet with in the Fathers writings When the Fathens were intent upon the outward form They call it a type a sign a figure They say it is not his Body Blood but that it signifies it represents it contains it * S. Austin in his 23. epistle to Bonifacius says the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is in some manner Christ's Body .... as the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. The parity is good betwixt the outward form of bread and Baptism in this respect that both are signs Only this difference there is the first contains what it signifies the other dos not So in his book against Adimantus
way of speaking when we say This Glass is a new Health in Wine the glass is one metaphor the health is another and yet the wine is truly substantially Wine Having thus exposed the weakness of their arguments by which they undertake to shew that Transubstantiation is repugnant to plain words of holy Scripture I shall now endeavour to make out that Transubstantiation may if any thing can be plainly provd by holy Writ the proof of which shall make the second part of my Discourse SECOND PART In the 6. ch of S. Iohn our Saviour promises that he will give us his flesh that sacred flesh which he design'd to sacrifice upon the Cross for our Redemption In the 51. v. he says the Bread that I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the life of the world I know very well that in the former verses from 26. to 51. He uses some expressions which are purely metaphorical But whatsoever a few modern Authors may say of this matter I can never be persuaded that this chapter talks of nothing else but Faith that from 50. to 60. the Eating which is so much talkt of signifies nothing but Believing We have appeal'd to Scripture Let it judge the Case betwixt us When in the 52 v. we read how the Jews strove amongst themselves saying How can this man give us his flesh to eat we know they understood him in the literal Sense wonderd how it could be true If he had spoken only in a figurative Sense it had been easy to have told them so In other matters of much less importance 't was his usual custom to expound his meaning Iohn the 3. ch 4. v. Nicodemus said to him How can a man be born again when he is old He let him understand He did not mean it in the literal sense but that He spoke of Baptism Except a man be born of water the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Matth. 13. He proposed to his Disciples the Parable of the Sower They understood it not He presently expounded it to them The Parable of Tares they understood as little but as soon as they desir'd him He declar'd to them the whole mystery of it In these other occasions when he had spoken any thing obscurely He was always willing to interpret it And there was never more necessity than when the Jews were scandaliz'd to hear him say the Bread that I will give is my Flesh. If he only design'd to give them Bread not his Flesh. I will not say He ought to have explain'd himself because to punish their perversness He might lawfully have left them in their ignorance and though he were the Light of the world yet He might justly leave those in the dark who obslinately shut their eyes against him But that our Saviour should not only refuse to explicate his words but also make it his business to confirm them in an errour that He who came to instruct the world should labour to deceive it that He who left the ninety nine sheep in the Desert should endeavour to drive the lost sheep farther from the true way home Let who will say it A Christian must be asham'd to think it If he were then resolv'd to give us nothing else to eat drink but bread wine is it probable that He would so industriously repeat the eating of his Flesh drinking of his Blood Is it possible that he should tell them in the 55. v. My Flesh is meat indeed my Blood is drink indeed if really the meat drink were neither Flesh nor Blood When in the 24. of S. Luke our Adversaries read our Lord is risen indeed or in the 4. of S. Iohn this is indeed the Saviour of the world They understand it believe it in the literal sense But when they read these words my Flesh is meat indeed my Blood is drink indeed they believe 't is nothing else but sacred bread wine Is this Believing Scripture No no When Scripture speaks as plainly in one place as in another no convincing reason can be given why they force the sense of this place more than that if they believe that not this They do not believe the Scripture but themselves They do not believe because they read it but because they like it When the Disciples saw how seriously their Master taught the literal sense they cryd out in the 60. v this is a hard saying who can hear it They consider'd it foolishly says S. Austin * In Psal 98. they understood it carnally thought our Lord would chop of morsels of his flesh give it them They were not only startled at the seeming impossibility but also at the barbarousness of the design And the three following verses shew us how our Saviour endeavour'd to let them know it neither was impossible nor barbarous Dos this offend you says He Do you think I am not able to make good my words Surely you know not who I am you would not otherwise mistrust my Almighty Power But what if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before Then I suppose you 'l know that I am God and from that miracle conclude that this is easy to me that I have not only wisdom to contrive but power to execute my promise Dos this offend you It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speak unto you they are Spirit they are Life I do not intend to give dead morsels of my flesh which being separated from my Spirit Divinity will profit nothing because they will not give your souls the lise of grace You shall not eat it in the natural form of human flesh that is indeed a carnal and a barbarous way of eating it But nevertheless under the form of bread you shall receive the true real substance of my flesh and this is that spiritual way of eating which you are not yet acquainted with This is the mystery which I expect you should believe This neither is impossible nor barbarous This is not contrary to Reason though it be above it But yet says he v. 64. there are some of you that believe not And v. 65. he tells the reason why because says he no man can come unto me unless it be given to him of my Father Proud Silly Wretches as we are We think it is sufficient to read Gods word we think there goes no more than reading to believe it we never reflect that no man can believe the word of God the Son unless he first receive the powerfull grace of Christian Humility from God the Father that Grace by which we willingly submit our Reason to such mysteries as are above it The 66. v. laies before our eyes the sad example of those many disciples who from that time went back walkt no more with him They heard the same words which our Adversaries