Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	blood_n	bread_n	consecration_n	4,106	5	10.7048	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59900	A vindication of Dr. Sherlock's sermon concerning The danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy in answer to some Socinian remarks / by William Sherlock ...	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1697 (1697)	Wing S3371; ESTC R21027	27,441	45

two Idols of Atheists and Hereticks and that make Atheists to be Atheists and Hereticks to be Hereticks p. 12. His second Proposition Ibid. runs thus That to ascertain the very and true Faith we must attend only to that meaning of Scripture which the Words and Phrases do imply Rejecting all mixture of Reason and Philosophy in our Disputes about Religion and our Inquiries about the meaning of Scripture Now let any Reader try whether he can find any such Proposition as this in all my Sermon either in words or sense I could not for some time guess what shadow of pretence he could have for charging such a Proposition on me I did indeed in some principal Articles distinguish between Faith and Philosophy between what is revealed in Scripture and what Philosophical Disputes which the Scripture takes no notice of have been raised about them and warned all men from mixing and corrupting the Faith with Philosophy but does this forbid us Expounding Scripture agreeable to Reason and common Sense and Philosophy too where Sense and Reason and Philosophy are proper judges They are not the supreme and absolute judges in matters of pure Revelation But does it hence follow that they cannot judge of their proper Objects Do I any where say That we must always expound the Scripture to a literal Sense That when Christ is called a Way a Door a Rock we must understand this literally And yet this is plainly what he would have to be my Sense as his beloved instance of Transubstantiation shews In this Sermon I have given no Rules for Expounding Scripture which in time I hope I may But what I assert is this That when by all those Methods which Wise Men observe in expounding any Writing we have found out what the true sense of Scripture must be we must not reject such Doctrines meerly because natural Reason cannot conceive or comprehend them That Revelation as to such matters as are knowable only by Revelation must serve instead of Sense natural Ideas and natural Reason p. 11. This gives a plain Answer to all his Cant about Transubstantiation from our Saviour's words This is my Body p. 12. For is there no way of knowing what is Bread and what is Flesh but by Revelation Is not this the proper object of Sense and Reason And then it does not come within my Rule for Sense and Reason must judge of their proper Objects though Revelation must serve us instead of Sense and Reason as to such matters as can be known only by Revelation that is as I expresly add we must upon the Authority of Revelation believe things which we do not see things which we have no natural notion or conception of things which are not evident to natural Reason As for instance If it be Revealed in Scripture that God has an Eternal Word his Only-Begotten Son and that in time this Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us this Son of God became Man that God sent forth his Son made of a Woman made under the Law Though neither Sense nor natural Ideas nor meer natural Reason give us any notice of it yet if we will own a Revelation we must believe it upon the sole Authority of Revelation But though Revelation in such cases be Sense and Reason to us because we have no other means of Knowledge yet Sense must judge of the natural Objects of Sense and Reason of the Objects of natural Reason but Revelation was never intended to unteach us what Sense and natural Reason evidently teach and therefore it cannot teach us that Bread is Flesh and Wine is Blood But this Socinian is got so far towards Popery that he will not allow Sense to be judge of this matter whether the Bread be Transubstantiated or not and that for a very pleasant Reason his words are these p. 13. He cannot have recourse to Sense in the case 't is only Reason and Philosophy can help him out For though the Apostles who saw and tasted that it was Bread only and not Flesh might have appealed also to their Senses yet we that never saw or tasted the Substance which Jesus gave then to the Disciples can know by Reason and Philosophy only by nothing else that it was not his Flesh and Blood That is I can't know by Sense that Christ gave Bread and Wine and not Flesh and Blood to his Disciples because I did not See and Taste my self that very Substance that Christ gave to his Disciples But can I judge by Sense that what I my self See and Taste in the Lords Supper is Bread and Wine after Consecration not Flesh and Blood For that is the Question between us and the Church of Rome not whether we receive the same now which Christ gave to the Apostles in the first Institution which they take for granted and to question which is meer Scepticism but what that change is which the words of Consecration make in the Elements to this day and if we cannot judge of this by Sense the Church of Rome have a better Plea for themselves than I thought they had And if I can't now judge by my own Senses what it was Christ gave to his Apostles and what they Saw and Tasted I fear it will much weaken some other very good Arguments against Transubstantiation But how will this Socinian who rejects the Evidence of Sense confute Transubstantiation Why that is easily done by Reason and Philosophy as thus The Text expresly says it was Bread which he blessed and brake and called it his Body therefore it was his Body in Sign and Signification not in Reality All this is Arguing 't is Reason that convinces us not Sense that the Substance he divided to them was indeed Bread not his Flesh which he neither blessed nor brake This is Reasoning indeed But did I ever reject Reasoning and Arguing about the meaning of Scripture Words and Phrases and the true Sense and Interpretation of Scripture Is there no difference between Reasoning about the Sense of Scripture and setting up the Conclusions of meer natural Reason and Philosophy against the plain and evident Doctrines of Scripture It is certain I made a manifest distinction between them p. 9. In all these cases we are concerned to enquire what the true sense of the Article is for this the Scripture teaches and so far our Faith is concerned and these are not only justifiable but necessary Disputes if the true Faith be necessary And such were the Disputes of the Catholick Fathers with the Sabellian Arian and Photinian Hereticks c. So that I allow of Arguing and Reasoning as much as he does and add But that which we are to beware of is not to mix Philosophy with our Faith nor to admit of any meer Philosophical Objections against the Faith nor to attempt any Explication of these Mysteries beyond what the Scriptures and the Faith and Practice of the Catholick Church will justify This distinction he knew very well but very honestly dissembles

it and endeavours to impose upon his Readers as if Reasoning and Arguing about the Sense of Scripture and resolving our Faith into meer natural Reason and Philosophy were the same thing He was aware what Answer would be given to this and therefore in the very next Paragraph he confutes his own Reasoning from Scripture and proves that the Text does not confute Transubstantiation But if our Preacher says he believes it was only Bread because the Text it self calls it Bread which was his own Argument let him consider that seeing what was called Bread before Christ blessed it after the blessing he calls it his Body we cannot know by Sense or by the Text but by Reason and Philosophy only that it was not changed by the blessing into what now he calls it namely his Body But if This signifies Bread then This is my Body signifies This Bread is my Body and if Bread be his Body then his Sacramental Body is not Flesh But I do not intend to dispute this Point with him but only observe That to set up his Reason and Philosophy to be absolute Judges in Matters of Faith he will not allow either Sense or Scripture to confute Transubstantiation It cannot but give all sober Christians a just Indignation to see the most Sacred and Venerable Mysteries perpetually ridicul'd at this Prophane rate In the Reign of King James there was a Pamphlet published to reconcile men to Transubstantiation by representing the Doctrine of the Trinity to the full as absurd and chargeable with as many Contradictions as Transubstantiation it self This was then charged on the Papists and they were sufficiently expos'd for it but a Great Man has lately informed us That it was writ by a Socinian to make men Papists or Socinians as it should happen which was a Glorious Design at that time of day for men who take it ill if you will not allow them to be Protestants and to enjoy the Liberty of Protestants For they could not but see that Popery was then grown very Fashionable and Tempting by the Favour and Frowns of a Popish Prince and that the generality of Christians did so firmly believe the Doctrine of the Trinity that could they have persuaded them as they endeavoured That Transubstantiation was as reasonable a Doctrine as the Trinity it was much more likely that they would turn Papists than Socinians Instead of Popery men are now running into the other Extremes of Atheism Deism and a Contempt of all Reveal'd Religion and that upon a pretence of making mere Natural Reason and Philosophy their sole Guide and Judge and now our Socinians have a new Game to play and if they dare not absolutely deny the Authority of Revelation which in many Instances they have shewn a good Inclination to yet they give a superior Authority to Reason which will serve as well and make less noise than to reject all Revelation And if you shew them how absurd this is to pretend to own a Divine Revelation and to make Revelation submit to mere Natural Reason and Philosophy they presently take sanctuary in Transubstantiation and defend it against the Evidence of Sense and the Authority of Scripture to make Reason and Philosophy the Supreme Judge in Matters of Faith and in the mean time matter not what becomes of Religion what advantage they give either to Popery or Deism so they can but expose the Faith of the Trinity He has given us a little Specimen of it here but the same Author as far as I can guess from the same Words and the same Thoughts has with his usual Civility attack'd my Lord Bishop of Sarum upon this Argument which upon this occasion I shall briefly consider His Lordship in vindication of the Christian Mysteries with great reason rejects Transubstantiation out of the number of Mysteries because it contradicts Sense in the Object of Sense his words are these Transubstantiation must not be a Mystery because there is against it the Evidence of Sense in an Object of Sense For Sense plainly represents to us the Bread and Wine to be still the same that they were before the Consecration Now I cannot think this Author in earnest in the two first Answers he gives to this His first Answer is That it is not pretended by the Papists that the Bread and Wine have received any the least Change in what is an Object of Sense This is a Discovery worthy its Author that the Papists don 't deny that they see and feel and taste and smell the sensible Qualities of Bread and Wine For who ever charged them with such a Contradiction to Sense as this But our Senses judge of the Substances of things by their sensible qualities judge that to be Bread and Wine which has all the qualities of Bread and Wine And therefore to say as the Papists do That what our Sight and Taste and Smell tell us has all the qualities of Bread and Wine is not Bread and Wine does not indeed contradict our Senses as to sensible qualities but contradicts that Judgment our Senses make of the Natures of things from their sensible qualities And this is that Contradiction to Sense which the Bishop justly charges upon Transubstantiation as is evident in his very words In his Second Answer he Disputes against the Infallibility of our Senses as he calls it by such Common Arguments as every Freshman knows how to Answer only I do not remember that the Delusions of our Dreams used to be objected against the Evidence of Sense but suppose our Senses may deceive us in some few instances wherein both Sense and Reason can Correct the mistake must they therefore deceive in the Nature of Bread and Wine Can he prove that they ever deceive us with Qualities and Accidents without a Substance For that is the Cheat of Transubstantiation It is not pretended as he observed in his First Answer That our Senses deceive us in the Colour or Figure or Taste or Smell of Bread and Wine and therefore all his instances of the Deception of our Senses are nothing to the purpose but let him give us any one instance of the other kind if he can and then we will believe Transubstantiation in Contradiction to our Senses But does he consider what the Consequence of this Argument is He will not allow it a good Argument against Transubstantiation That it contradicts Sense because our Senses may deceive us in the Objects of Sense which by the way makes his instance of the Delusions of Dreams which are not the Objects of Sense very impertinent now if contradiction to Sense be not a good Objection because Sense is not Infallible what will become of his great Argument of Contradiction to Reason For all men confess That Reason is not so Infallible as Sense is as is evident from all the Disputes and Clashings of Reason and those Absurdities and Contradictions which contending Parties mutually charge upon each other and if a Contradiction to Fallible Sense