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 |
|
A49603
|
The history of the Eucharist divided into three parts : the first treating of the form of celebration : the second of the doctrine : the third of worship in the sacrament / written originally in French by monsieur L'Arroque ... done into English by J.W.; Histoire de l'Eucharistie. English
|
Larroque, Matthieu de, 1619-1684.; Walker, Joseph.
|
1684
(1684)
|
Wing L454; ESTC R30489
|
587,431
|
602
|
disputing formerly against the Catholicks and Orthodox would oblige the Catholicks to prove their Doctrine and Belief in so many express Words In the Dialogue against Arrius Sabellius and Photinus under the Name of St. Athanasius Vigil l. 1. contra Arr. c. l. 1. c. 23. ult Eâ—it p. 140. but whose true Author is Vigilius of Tapsus an African Bishop The Arrian demands of the Orthodox that he will shew him in the Scriptures the Word Homousion which signifies of one Substance or that he may read it properly that is to say in so many Syllables or that he should cease making use of it It is also the Proceedings of the Arrians against the true Athanasius in his Treatise of the Synods of Arimini and Seleutia Athanas de Synod Arim. pag. 911. Id. ibid. p. 913. Id. de decret Syn. Nicaen p. 270. But the Holy Fathers laughed at this ridiculous and impertinent Method It matters not said St. Athanasius if any make use of Terms not contained in the Holy Scriptures provided his Thoughts are Orthodox And elsewhere he saith That although these Words are not found in the Scriptures it sufficeth they contain a Doctrine agreeable to the Scriptures And Vigilius Homousion Vigil ubi supra cap. 26. p. 143. That it must be collected from the Authority of Scripture by a reasonable consequence and that it is not just to quarrel about a Name which may be firmly established by a great many Testimonies It is so several other Doctors have done and indeed they did wisely for there is nothing more unreasonable than to reduce Man to the Degree of Beasts in depriving him of the Use of Reasoning whereby he draws certain Conclusions from necessary Principles No body then ought to wonder if besides the direct Doctrine of the Fathers upon the Point of the Eucharist I here insert the indirect which consists in necessary Inductions because the Part of an Historian which I assume in this Work doth oblige me faithfully to represent unto the Reader the Inductions which others are wont to draw from their Testimonies for the better understanding their Doctrine leaving it unto the Liberty of every one to judge of their Value or Weakness I will therefore continue these Sorts of Proofs already begun in this Chapter What hath been already said containing the direct Proofs of their Belief with the Consequences which are inseparable from it Athenag de Resurrect mort ad ealcem oper Just p. 46. Athenagoras in his Treatise of the Resurrection of the Dead saith something if I mistake not worthy of Consideration Neither the Blood nor Phlegm nor Choller nor Spirits that is to say as well Vital as Animal shall be raised with our Bodies in the blessed Resurrection being no longer necessary unto the Life which we shall then live If the quickned Body of Jesus Christ be the Model and Pattern of the Resurrection of Believers as all Christians Universally agree Athenagoras say they could not believe that the Bodies of Believers after the Resurrection should have no Blood but that he believed also that the glorified Body of Christ had none also and if he believed it had none how could it be thought that he believed that it should be drank in the Eucharist but figuratively because we there make a Commemoration of that Blood which he shed upon the Cross for the Expiation of our Sins A Commemoration which we could not make as St. Paul commands us unless we participate of the Fruits and Benefits of his bitter Death A Participation which as the Protestants say is the Effect of the spiritual and mystical Eating or if you will Drinking Hieron Ep. 61. c. 8 9 c. 1.2 but also at the same time a real and true Eating which is done by our Faith The same may be said by Origen as appears by St. Jerom's sixty first Letter unto Pammachius touching the Errors of John Bishop of Jerusalem and it may be he proceeded farther at least he was not only suspected but taxed with it Moreover in the fifth Century it was not fully determin'd if the Body of our Lord in the State of Glory wherein it is Aug. Epist 146. ad Cons init had Blood For we find by one of the Letters of St. Austin which one Consentius wrote unto him to be inform'd if the Body of Christ now hath Blood and Bones This Consentius was not an Ordinary Believer or common Christian he seems to be a Bishop or at least a Priest worthy of St. Austin's Respect and Friendship for in the Beginning of the Letter he gives him the Title of most dear or most beloved And elsewhere he saith unto him That he is beloved in the Bowels of Jesus Christ I freely confess Ep. 222. saith the Protestant I cannot read these Words without thinking of the Belief of the Latin Church in the Point of the Sacrament for it is not to be conceived that one of the Conducters of the Christian Churches should propose unto the great St. Austin so ridiculous and impertinent a Question if it was believed in his Time of the Sacrament as is now believed by the Roman Catholicks In fine if it was the Belief of the fifth Century I cannot see how that Man can be excus'd of Folly and Extravagance Nevertheless on the other hand St. Austin deals by him in such a manner which suffers us not to judge so disadvantagiously of him What shall we then say Continues he to excuse the Simplicity of this Man and to give some Colour to his Demand Had he never participated of the Eucharist had he never approached unto the holy Table and had he never drank of the Cup of our Redemption Wherefore then doth he ask of St. Austin to know if the glorified Body of our Lord hath Blood if it were true that the Church at that time held for an Article of Faith That it was drank really and truly every time as they communicated of the holy Cup Or wherefore doth not St. Austin refer him back unto the Sacrament the only Consideration whereof might have satisfied Consentius if the Belief of the Latins had been the Belief of that Age. Let us proceed St. Austin proves unto his Friend by the Words of the Scriptures That the Body of Jesus Christ hath yet now Flesh and Bones but because in the Scripture he cites there is no mention of Blood he leaves this Point in the Terms Consentius left it that is to say in suspense saying That because Jesus Christ only said That he had Flesh and Bones without adding Blood we should not also extend our Question any farther nor add that of his Blood unto the other of his Flesh and Bones Fearing saith he there should come some other more inquisiâ—ive Disputer which taking occasion from the Blood should press us in saying If he hath Blood why not then Spleen why not Choller and Melancholly the four Humours which compose the Nature of the Body
must be understood according to the Subject of the Discourse for because they imagined his Discourse was hard and unsupportable as if he intended to have given them his very Flesh to eat to dispose Matters into a spiritual Sense he said in the first place It is the Spirit that quickneth then he adds The Flesh profiteth nothing that is to vivifie He also sheweth what he will have us understand by the Spirit the Words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life as before Whosoever heareth my Words and believeth in him that sent me hath eternal Life c. Therefore to obtain Life there must be an Appetite for this Word we must devour it by the Ear meditate of it by the Understanding and digest it by Faith Also a little before he called his Flesh heavenly Bread pressing in and above all by the Allegory of necessary Meats the Memory of the Fathers which had preferr'd the Flesh-pots of the Egyptians before the heavenly Vocation And elsewhere he teacheth us the Reasons wherefore these Kinds of Expressions must be taken figuratively when he gives us this general Rule for the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures If the natural Sence will not admit to wit Id. contra Marc. l. 3. c. 23. Rigalt in unum locum August l. 11. de Gem. ad Litt. c. 1. what the Letter of the Scripture bears it follows that the Expression should pass for a Figure or Metaphor The late Mr. Rigaut very pertinent to this Matter reports the Maxims of St. Augustin If saith he in the Words of God or of any one sent to be a Prophet there is found any Expression which cannot be understood by the Letter without Absurdity it is out of doubt that it should be understood as spoken figuratively to signifie something Orig. in Levit. Hom. 7. f. 2. Therefore Origen also understands the Words of Christ in the 6th of St. John figuratively saying particularly of these If you eat not my Flesh and drink my Blood that it is a killing Letter if it be taken in a literal Sense whereas if we understand them spiritually they kill not but there is in them a quickning Spirit And elsewhere explaining these Words He sleeps not until he hath eat and drank the Blood of the slain He seeks under the Law and the Gospel amongst the Jews and Christians the literal Accomplishment of this Prophecy and not finding it amongst the Jews who were expresly forbidden to eat the Blood nor amongst the Christians which for a long time made a Scruple of eating it particularly in Origen's time he saith Id Homil. 6. in Numb That of necessity we must depart from the Harshness of the Letter unto the Sweetness of the Allegory And having observed that what our Saviour said in the 6th of St. John That to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood had so displeased the carnal Disciples which were with him and forsook him he adds That it is said of the Christian People of the faithful People That they drink the Blood of Christ not only by the Ceremony of Sacraments but also when we receive his Words wherein is Life as he saith himself The Words which I have spoken unto you are Spirit and Life It is he then saith he that is broken whose Blood we drink that is That we receive the Words of his Doctrine He saith almost the same in the 35th Treatise upon St. Matthew Euseb de Theol Eccles contra Marc. l. l. 3. c. 12. Eusebius thus makes our Saviour speak to explain what he saith in the 6th of St. John of the eating of his Flesh Do not think that I speak of the Flesh wherewith I am environed as if you should eat it and think not that I command you to drink sensible and corporal Blood but know that the Words I have spoken unto you are Spirit and Life For it is my Words and my Discourse which are this Flesh and Blood whereof whosoever eateth always he shall be Partaker of Life eternal as being nourished with heavenly Bread Let not then what I have said unto you touching the eating my Flesh and drinking my Blood offend you saith he and let not an unadvised Understanding of what I said unto you of Flesh and Blood trouble you for these Things profit nothing being understood carnally it is the Spirit that quickens those which can underderstand it spiritually Athan. in illud quicunque dixerit verb. contra fil homin St. Athanasius speaks no less clear for explaining these Words of Jesus Christ Doth this offend you what and if you see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before it is the Spirit that quickens the Flesh profiteth nothing the Words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life Our Saviour saith he spake of the one and the other that is of his Flesh and Spirit and he distinguisheth the Spirit from the Flesh to the end that not only believing what was visible of him but also that which was invisible they might learn that the Things which he said were not carnal but spiritual for unto how many Persons could his Body have sufficed for Meat to become Food for all the World Therefore for that Reason he speaks of the Ascending of the Son of Man into Heaven to withdraw them from carnal Thoughts and to teach them that the Flesh of which he had spoken unto them was heavenly Food and spiritual Nourishment which he was to send them from on high For the Words saith he which I have spoke unto you are Spirit and Life as if he should have said unto them This Body which appears and which is given for the World shall be given as Meat to be distributed as Meat unto each one and to be made unto all a Preservative in the Resurrection to eternal Life Macar Homil 27. And can it be thought St. Macarius was of another Mind when speaking of the Bread of the Eucharist he said That those which should partake of this visible Bread should spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ Cyril Hierosol Mystag 4. Nor St. Cyril of Jerusalem when he observed that the Jews which did not spiritually understand the Things which Jesus Christ had said were offended and forsook him thinking that he commanded them to eat Flesh Nor St. Basil observing that the Faculties of the Soul are called by the same Names as the external Members Basil in Ps 33. and that because our Lord is the true Bread and that his Flesh is Meat indeed it is necessary that the Contentment and Pleasure which is taken in eating Bread should be created in us by a spiritual Appetite Nor the incomparable St. Chrysostom in that excellent Discourse which one of his Homilies upon St. Chrysost Hom. 46. in Joan. John doth furnish us It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing See here what he would say You must understand spiritually these Things which I have spoke of my self he which understands