Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	acknowledge_v	church_n	true_a	2,198	5	5.3927	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00604	Transubstantiation exploded: or An encounter vvith Richard the titularie Bishop of Chalcedon concerning Christ his presence at his holy table Faithfully related in a letter sent to D. Smith the Sorbonist, stiled by the Pope Ordinarie of England and Scotland. By Daniel Featley D.D. Whereunto is annexed a publique and solemne disputation held at Paris with Christopher Bagshaw D. in Theologie, and rector of Ave Marie Colledge.	Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.; Bagshaw, Christopher, d. 1625?; Smith, Richard, 1566-1655.	1638 (1638)	STC 10740; ESTC S101890	135,836	299

bodily presence in the Sacrament is such Ergo it is to bee disclaimed as erroneous and hereticall The Major or first proposition had his passe from you nor can it be impeache●… by any who rightly understandeth the termes and seriously weigheth the consequence For divine faith must bee built upon a divine and unmooveable foundation which can bee no other then Gods Word And sith we on both sides acknowledge that the Church in which the Primitive Fathers lived and died was the true Church they who gaine-say the faith thereof are to be ranged with hereticks Lastly that metaphysicall principle is of undoubted verity verum vero non opponitur truth never opposeth truth That doctrine therefore which destroyeth the principles of reason and quencheth the sparkles of divine light kindled in our soules by God cannot but bee from the Prince of darknesse The Minor or assumption hath three branches as you see on the first whereof I insisted in that conference My prosyllogismes which you and S. E. both omit were these First if there bee any ground in Scripture for your carnal presence in the Sacrament it is either in the words of institution or on those Iohn the 6. 53. Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood ye have no life in you For upon these both the Bishops in that Lateran and Trent Councell and all the learned on your side build their faith especially in this point But neither the one nor the other Text are any sure ground for it Ergo you have none The Major in this prosyllogisme being assented unto by you I proceeded to the confirmation of the Minor in this wise If the words of institution Mat. 26. and the other alledged out of Iohn the 6. are to be taken figuratively and not in the proper sense nothing can be concluded from them for the bodily presence or carnall eating Christ with the mouth But the words above alleadged in both places are to be construed figuratively and not in the proper sense Ergo nothing can bee concluded from them for the bodily p●…esence of Christ in the Sacrament or carnall eating of him with the mouth The Major in this second Syllogisme being likewise evident to all men of learning who know that to argue from a figurative sense to the proper is a fallacy in Logick and a dangerous errour in Divinity against which Saint Austin giveth us a speciall caution I undertooke the proofe of the Minor both by unavoidable testimonies of antient Fathers and pregnant argumen●…s drawne from the circumstances of those Texts And first because with the ancient is wisedome Iob 12. 12. let the antient speak Tertullian Origen Austin Prosper c. Tertullian in his fourth book against Martion the 40. Chapter the bread taken and distributed to his Disciples hee made his body saying this is my body that is a figure of my body Now a figure it had not or should not have beene unlesse his body had beene a body of truth or a true body for avoid or empty thing such as a phantasme is is not capable of a reall figure Tertullian his argument in this 40. Chap. against Marcion who taught that Christ had no true body but an imaginarie or phantasticall standeth thus That body whereof bread is a figure must needs bee a true body But the Body of Christ is such a Body whereof bread is a figure Christ himselfe sa●…ing when hee tooke bread in his hand This is my Body that is a figure of my Body Therefore Christs Body is a true Body If Christ made not bread a figure of his Body but turned it into his own Body as you teach how could Tertullian out of those words of our Saviour prove against Marcion that bread was a figure of Christs Body Againe if the meaning of the words of institution This is my Body be this bread is a figure of my Body as Tertullians id est inforceth then are the words of the institution metonymically or figuratively to be taken A faire evidence for the truth is this testimony of Tertullian which so puzzels our adversaries th●… they turne them every way yet cann●… avoid or impeach it Fisher falls fowle upon this ancie●… and most learned Father disabling h●… testimonie in regard of his taint o●… Montanisme But neither was Tertullian slipt in●… that heresie when hee wrote these bookes neither did the heresie of Montanisme concerne the Sacrament neither was ever this passage excepted against by any of the Antients nor the Father himselfe branded for any errour about the Lords Supper Steven Gardiner giveth a more respective answer that Tertullian spake these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in heate of opposition to his adversary not deliberately and doctrinally But he that readeth these bookes against Marcion which the author so esteemed that he translated them into verse will finde in them strength of reason not violence of passion These words sparkle not with anger but give a cleare light to the words of the insti●…tion and the like are found in him ●…ls where and in other of the Fathers when they wrote in coolest temper in their Epistles Commentaries on Scriptures Homilies and Treatises of piety the places are quoted particularly by Peter Martyr Verius ergo Et magis ingenuè Peribomius Well fare honest Rhenanus who ingeniously confesseth that Tertullian favoured our figurative interpretation for which your Church condemned Berengarius But you like not so well of this plaine dealing you have beene better instructed by the Belgick inquisitors to devise some shift and faine a commodious sense to the testimonies of the Fathers and blanch their words with ingenious glosses when they are obj●…cted against you in disputation or conflicts with us Therfore after Pammelius Bellarmine and Perone conster Tertullian thus This which was once an old figure of my body is now my body for he doth not referre those words id est figura corporis mei to corpus meum but to hoc For this your strange forced and incongruous interpretation you produce first a paralell place to this out of the booke adversus Praxean Christ is dead that is annointed where the words id est are referred to the subject Christus not to the attribute Mortuus Secondly out of the words hee made bread his owne body since say you Tertullian saith that our Saviour taking bread made it his body he was not so forgetfull as immediately to add that the Eucharist is a meere figure of his body this reason you backed with a third that Tertullian presently after the foresaid words saith figura autem non fuisset it had not beene a figure c. by which words he shewes that he speaketh of the figure which was before our Saviour said This is my Body Lastly you much insisted upon the words veterem figuram an old figure and those that follow in the

to be the Symbole or Sacrament of his body as also why hee rather chose wine then any other licour to bee the embleme and memoriall of his blood we can assigne certainely no other reason then his meere will Tertullian his guesse is but probable that Christ in the institution of the Sacrament in the formes of bread and wine had an eye to the Prophecy of Ieremy or Iacob But be it probable or necessary it matters not seeing it is confessed on all hands that bread is a figure of Christs body though not now a Legall Type yet an Evangelicall Being both it makes the stronger for this glosse of Tertullian this bread is my body that is a figure of my body But here S. E. helpes you at a dead lift alleadging a testimony out of Tertullians booke de resurrectione carnis for the carnall presence of Christ in the Sacrament The words of Tertullian are these The flesh is washed that the soule may be cleansed the flesh feeds upon the body and blood of Christ that the soule may be fatted by God Of this place of Tertullian he is as proud as P●…lius in the proverbe was of his sword not observing that the point of it lyeth against himselfe for if hee expound these words according to the rule of the Fathers the signes have usually the names of the thing signified by them then hee confirmes our figurative interpretation understanding by the body of Christ the Symbole or signe thereof upon which our flesh seeds when we receive the Sacrament but if he understand the words of Tertullian properly as if our very flesh or stomach turned Christs Body into corporal nourishment and so really fed upon it to fatten or cheare our soules he makes Tertullian blaspheme and hee gives the lie to his Lord your selfe who page 65. in expresse tearmes affirme that in the Fucharist there is no violence offered to Christ his flesh in it selfe nor is it eaten to the end our bodies may thereby be nourished To affirme that the substance of our mortall body is nourished or increased by the flesh of Christ taken in the Sacrament is to make the Eucharist cibum ventris non mentis the foode of the belly not of the soule then which grosse conceit nothing can bee more absurd in the judgement of your owne Cardinall Bellarmine Tertullian disclaimes this carnall fancy in the very words alledged by your Chaplaine ut anima saginetur the flesh saith the Father feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ that the soule may bee fatted the soule not the body If hee demand how can the soule bee satisfied or fatted by the bread in the Sacrament if it bee not turned into Christs Body I answer out of the former words of Tertullian even as the soule is cleansed in Baptisme by washing the body with water though that water be not turned into Christs blood You have heard that Tertullian doth not so much as lispe in your language heare now how lowd hee speakes in ours The sense of the word saith he is to be taken from the matter for because they thought his speech hard and intolerable unlesse ye cate the flesh of the Sonne of man c. as if hee had appointed his flesh truly and in very deed to bee eaten of them he premised it is the Spirit which quickneth and a little after appointing his Word to be the quickner because his Word is spirit and life he called the same his flesh for the Word was made flesh therefore to be desired with an appetite to give and maintaine life in us to be eaten by hearing to be chewed by understanding to be digested by beleeving These words are so plaine that you cannot mistake the meaning of them and if you should goe about to draw them to any carnall sense or eating Christ with the mouth he will checke you in the words following where he saith that Christ used an allegorie in this place now an allegorie is a figure in which an other thing is to be understood divers from that which the words import taken in the usuall and proper sense Doubtlesse he who held the bread at the Lords Table to be a representation of Christs body and the wine a memoriall of his blood beleeved not that the bread was turned into his body or the wine into his blood for no picture is the life it selfe no memoriall is of a thing present but absent But Tertullian called bread that whereby Christ represented his owne body taking the word represent in the same sense which Saint Bernar doth As Christ after a sort is sacrificed every day when we shew forth his death so he seemeth to be borne whilest we faithfully represent his birth As the figure signe or that whereby any thing is represented or set before the eye is not the thing it selfe so neither a monument or a memoriall of our friend is our friend the wine therefore which Tertullian saith Christ consecrated for a memoriall of his blood cannot bee his very blood The same Father in his booke of the flesh of Christ smiled at the heretickes who imagined Christ to have flesh hard without bones solid without muscles bloody without blood c. They saith he that fancy such a Christ as this that deceiveth and deludeth all mens eyes and senses and touchings should not bring him from heaven but fetch him rather from some jugglers box I trow hee meant not your Popish Pix yet sure such a flesh it encloseth hard if it bee so without bones solid without muscles and bloody without blood for you say Christs blood is there and sh●…d too and yet tear me your Masse an unbloody sacrifice I take you to be so ingenuous that you would not belie your senses I am sure you will confesse that you see nothing in the pyx but the whitenesse of bread in the Chalice but the rednesse of wine no flesh or blood colour in either You tast nothing but bread in the one and the sapour of wine in the other you touch no soft flesh with your hand nor quarrie blood with your lips or tongue But I inferre out of Tertullian You must not question the truth of your senses lest thereby you weaken the sinewes of our faith lest peradventure the heretickes take advantage thereupon to say that it was not true that Christ saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven that it is not true that he heard a voice from heaven but the sense was deceived Were not the senses competent judges of their proper objects even in the case we are now putting viz. the discerning Christs true body Christ would never have appealed to them as hee doth Behold my hands and my feet that is I my selfe handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have I have given a touch hitherto but upon sing●…e testimonies as it were

Indian to eate this mans flesh or excuse him from an horrible crime if he should eate it because it was not in propriâ specie 4. Did you live among the Lycanthropie men in the shape of wolves or meete with witches who delude the senses and take upon them the shape of a pig or cunny or goate would you preach it for good doctrine that a man might eate wittingly the flesh of any of these while it remained sub alienâ specie As For the argument you take not from any topick place but from the Apothecaries shop I meane your instance in Mumme I wish you some better drug of theirs I meane some strong confection of Helleborum to purge your braine For our question is not of the medicinall use of mans flesh altered by art but whether it be not a finne and that a horrible one to eate with the mouth and teeth the flesh of a knowne man nay of the Sonne of God 2. Against your second answer to Saint Austins conclusion I replied 1. That Saint Austin by figura meant such a figure as excludes the native and proper sense of the words His words are immediatly going before those I cited si autem hoc jam propriè sonat nulla putetur figurata locutio if it bee taken in the proper sense let it bee accounted no figure 2. Saint Austin speakes of such a speech which can in no wise be taken properly such a speech to wit where a vertue is forbidden or a vice commanded and in this very Chapter he instanceth in Romanes the 12. 20. Thou shalt heape coales of fire upon thine enemies head In which words because the Apostle seemed to command an evill act Saint Austin inferres ne igitur dubitaveris figuratè dictum Doubt not therefore but that it is spoken by a figure If a speech commanding a sin or forbidding a vertue might be taken in the proper sense hence it would follow that it should bee lawfull to sinne because expressely commanded by God and sinnefull to exercise some act of piety or charity because forbidden by him And here your Lordship touched the second time at Hercules Columna Non plus 3. Whereas you say that Saint Austin by sigura meant a figure mixt of a sigurative and proper speech dato non concesso supposing for a while that there might be such a figure I desire you to observe that Saint Austin speakes here of no such figure but of a speech meerely figurative For he declares that the meaning of the figure is that wee ought to partake of Christs sufferings and remember his death Now to compassionate Christ or to partake with him in his sufferings or remember his death is not to eate his flesh in any proper sense at all 4. Of one simple categoricall proposition there can bee but one true sense And this sense cannot be figurative and proper but either the one or the other for proper and figurative are proper and improper borrowed and not borrowed which cannot bee affirmed de eodem I conclude with Saint Austin his owne words The first thing that you must beware is this that you take not a figurative speech according to the letter to that belongeth the Apostles admonition the letter killeth the spirit quickneth For when we take that which is flguratively spoken as if it were proporly spoken it is a carnall sense neither is any thing more rightly tearmed the death of the soule then it Here S. E. puts a great deale of varnish upon a rotten post he tells us of a mingled colour and a garment of motley and distinguisheth of a meere figure and of a figure which hath the truth joyned with it in fine he alleadgeth what Tapper and Allen Suarez Gordon and Pittigarus have confessed upon the racke of our arguments concerning a figure in the words of the institution But one sad shower of raine will wash away all this his varnish 1. To his demand Why not a mixt figure as well as a mixt colour I answer because the opposition betwixt colours is inter contrarios terminos contrarie tearmes which admit a medium but the opposition betweene figurative and proper is betweene contradictorie tearmes which admit of no medium Wherefore although there may bee a mixt colour of white and blacke and a mixt temper of hot and cold and a mixt sawce of sweete and sower and a twilight betweene day and night because these are mediate contraries yet there cannot be a mixt element or a mixt truth or a mixt figure because simple and compound true and false proper and figurative that is improper stand upon flat tearmes of contradiction 2. His distinction of a figure which is a meere figure and of a figure which is not a meere figure but hath the verity joyned with it wherewith hee goes about to soder the bracks and flawes in your leaden discourse is altogether impertinent For the question betweene me and you was of tropes not of types of verball figures not reall of rhetoricall such as Metaphors and Metonymies and the like are not of physicall or naturall figures if speech be of the latter kinde of figures I denie not but that such a difference among them may be observed Some of them are meere figures and representations as Philips picture or image some are more as Alexander Philip his sonne Sacraments are according to this acception of figures not meere figures nor bare signes as is shewed at large in the former Paragraph for they doe not onely signifie but also really exhibit and are effectuall meanes to conveigh unto us those spirituall blessings and graces whereof they are signes and symbols But if the speech bee of figures in words or sentences such as all grammaticall and rhetoricall figures are I say that all such figures are meere figures every Metaphor is a meere Metaphor every Metonomie a meere Metonomie every Allegorie a meere Allegorie every Ironie a meere Ironie every Solaecisme a meere Solaecisme neither can any instance bee given to the contrary But because S. E. hath felt M. Waferer his feriler for his errour in Rhetoricke I leave him to con better his Susenbrotus and I returne to your Lordship who perswade your selfe that Saint Austin favoureth your carnall presence because hee saith Wee receive with faithfull heart and mouth the Mediator of God and Man the Man Christ Iesus giving us his body to be eaten and his blood to bee drunke and againe he bare himselfe in his owne hands when commending his body he said This is my Body and againe she onely desired to be remembred at thine Altar whence she knew the holy host was dispensed whereby the hand writing against us is cancelled and yet againe The Disciples and Iudas ate both they bread the Lord he the bread of the Lord against the Lord and yet againe Christ suffered Iudas that divell and thiefe to receive amongst the innocent Disciples the price of our redemption and lastly

one substance onely succeeds in the place of another the one cannot properly bee said to bee converted into the other For how absurd were it to say that D Bishop were transubstantiated into D. Smith because D. Smith succeeds him in the See of Chalcedon or that when your foure Lecturers at the Sorbon one after another read in the same pew that at every new Lecture there is a new Transubstantiation and by name that D. 〈◊〉 who 〈◊〉 at seven a clock is transubstantiated into D. Filsac who takes his roome and reades at nine a clock 3. By this your Exposition you cut your selfe in the hammes and enervat●… your maine argument for Transubstantiation For as I told you in the Conference the bare affirming Christs body to be his body prooves not that any thing is turned into it If Christ were now comming in the clouds and any pointing to the cloud should say this or there is Christs body could any from thence conclude the conversion of the cloud into his body Every proposition which is of use in argumentation and can affoord or minister a reason to proove any thing must consist of one or more of the 4 praedicata topica or at least one of the quinque praedicabilia as every young Sophister can informe you but in this proposition This is my Body as you exp●…und it this my body is my body there is none of the 4 praedicata topica or quinque praedicabilia For the predicate herein is neither genus nor species nor differentia nor proprium nor accidents of the subject but the selfe same with it re and ratione 4. Hence it followeth that the proposition is meerely Identicall and neugatorie which to affirme of any of the words of the word of life especially of these whereby hee instituted a most divine Sacrament were blasphemy this fearefull consequence thus I inferre upon your interpretation Every proposition in which the subject and predicate are the same not only quoad suppositum but also quoad significationem is meerely Identicall and nugatorie In this propoposition God is wise the subject and the predicate are the same quoad suppositum but not quoad significationem for the subjectum Deus signifieth Gods Essence in generall the predicate wise signifieth but one Attribute in particular which though in regard of the simplicity of the divine Essence it be all one with God himselfe yet is it distinguished from God quoad nostrum modum concipiendi according to our apprehension Likewise in this proposition Petrus est Apostolus Peter is an Apostle or a man is a living creature the praedicatum and subjectum are the same quoad suppositum for Peter is that Apostle and that Apostle is Peter a man is that living creature and that living creature is a man yet they differ quoad significationem for the subject signifieth the person of Peter the predicate his office and in the other proposition the subject signifieth the compositum the predicate an essentiall part onely and so in all other instances your Chaplaine brings neither can any one instance bee brought of a proposition which is not meerely neugatorie in which the praedicatum and subjectu●… are not distinct quo ad significationem But according to yo●… exposition in this proposisition This is my Body the subject this and the predicate bodie are the same not onely quoad suppositum but also quoad significationem not onely quoad rem but also quoad modum for i●… it idem numero which is maximè idem is predica●… de eodem numero the subject hoc standing for and signifying bread actually turned into Christs Body and the predicate Christs Body made of bread Ergo according to ●…our interpretation the words of institution containe 〈◊〉 proposition meerely Identicall or nugatorie If I thought you had not already you full ●…ad I could add more weight t●… my former replies from the authority of your great Gamali●…ls at whose feete you and your Chaplaine were brought up I meane Aquinas Soto Durand and Bellarmine Aquinas thus loads you Some have said that the pronoune this is to be understood not for the instant in which the word is uttered but for the last instant of the whole speech as when I say tacco I doe not signifie that I speake not while I am uttering this word but that I am silent when I have done uttering of it is not this your owne instance p. 127. But saith Aquinas this cannot stand because according to this glosse the sense of Christs words should be my body is my body which the above named speech doth not make to be so because it was so before the uttering of these words Soto thus presseth you This opinion saith he which referreth the pronounc hoc to that which is accomplished a●…ter the pronunciation of the whole proposition that is to bread actually turned into Christs Body is not consonant to the truth for the the pronoune should demonstrate Christs body and make this sense the body is the body Now this forme of speech is no way operative nor doth it turne bread into Christs body because before the uttering of them it was true that Christs body was his body Durand thus chargeth you If the pronoune hoc points to Christs Body the proposition may bee true referring the pointing thereof to the last instant of the prolation of the words because then Christs body begins to be under the accidents of bread and the sense may bee this that is my body is my body but this forme of speech is not agreeable to the Sacrament because this Sacrament doth not make Christs body to bee his body but onely makes it to be in the Sacrament or under the accidents of bread now the proposition so understood as above is expressed onely implies that Christs body is his body and not that it is made by this Sacrament which is against the nature of every Sacrament all forme wherein that is effected by the uttering of the words which they signifie Bellarmine thus clearely confutes you and cuts your throat as it were with a knife whet upon your owne grindstone Sacramenta words according to Catholiques are not speculative but practicall for they effect that which they signifie whence they are called operatorie but if the pronoune hoc demonstrate onely the body the words will bee speculative not practicall for 't is alwaies true pointing to Christs body to say this is the body of Christ whether the words be spoken before Consecration or after either by a Priest or a Laye person but the Sacrament all words because they are operatorie or working words have not their force unlesse they bee spoken by a lawfull Minister neither are they true before the Sacrament is administred PAR. 14. That in the words of the institution of the cup. this cup is the New Testament i●… my blood there are divers figures is prooved by unavoidable consequences and the confession of our Learned Adversaries