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
A67650	A revision of Doctor George Morlei's judgment in matters of religion, or, An answer to several treatises written by him upon several occasions concerning the Church of Rome and most of the doctrines controverted betwixt her, and the Church of England to which is annext a treatise of pagan idolatry / by L.W.	Warner, John, 1628-1692.	1683 (1683)	Wing W912; ESTC R14220	191,103	310

the liberty to propose his Argument am ready to heare him SECTION X. 1. The Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation 2. D Morley's argument against it returned vpon him 4. Nether scripture nor Church prejudiced by our Doctrine 4. Nor senses 1. D. Morley The Doctrine of Transubstantiation Or the Church of Rome's Interpretation of those words This is my Body Is that in Sacrament of the Altar the whole substance of Bread is changed into the Body the whole substance of wine into the Bloud of Christ so that after Consecration there Remains nether Bread nor wine but only the Body Bloud of Christ vnder the species or accidents of Bread wine Revisor Why you should say it is the sentiment of the Church of Rome particularly when it is common to all other Oriental Christians is not hard to guesse at you would insinuate what you dare not speake out it is so evidently false that she the Ch. of R. stands alone in this point of Doctrine whereas all other Christian Churchs extant when your Reformation began agreed in substance with that of Rome their mother in this point But let that passe J acknowledge that you represent our sentiment ryght What haue you to say against it 2. D. Morley Against this Position I argue thus that which frustrates all the vse end of scripture cannot be the tru interpretation of any one place of it But that interpretation of those words of scripture frustrates all the end vse of scripture Therefore the Ch. of Romes interpretation of this place of scripture cannot be tru I proue the minor or second proposition thus that which necessarily implyes our Senses are or may be deceived in their proper objects so that what all men's Senses represent as one thing may be is indeed another must needes frustrate all the end vse of all scripture But that interpretation doth necessarily imply that our senses may be are deceived in their proper objects by teaching that to be Flesh Bloud which to all men's Senses appeares to be Bread wine Therefore our interpretation of those words doth frustrate the vse end of all scriptures Revisor I deny the minor or second Proposition of your first syllogisme To the proofe of it 1. I will let the maior or first Proposition passe althô it be not tru for mine all men's senses in the world represent the moone bigger in the east west then in the south which is evidently falfe yet the Scripture is not Frustrated by that Epidemical errour of all men's Senses Our Reason is superiour to Senses doth correct that errour without prejudicing Scripture by it why may not Faith which is superiour to both Sense Reason correct both when they go astray yet Scripture remaine entire seing Faith is but the Doctrine of Sripture as it were its soul Yet I will Gratis admit your Maior 2. I deny your minor or second Proposition for it appeares to no man's Hearing to be Bread wine but Flesh Bloud This is my Body this is my Bloud are the expresse words of Christ now sir you know out of the Apostle I haue minded you of it that Faith comes by Hearing And Hearing is not mistaken in this matter Hence S. Thomas of Aquin. Visus Tactus Gustus in te fallitur Sed auditu solo tuto creditur Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius Nihil hoc verbo veritatis verius We acknowledg that Syght Feeling Tast are mistaken here we correct their mistake by the expresse word of God by Hearing conveyghed to our minds to which word we owe greater obedience than to all our Senses together So your minor is false Thus your Conclusion that Our jnterpretation doth frustrate make voyde the end vse of scripture that came limping in on two bullrushes for crutches fals to the ground one of them being broken the other insufficient to beare such a weyght 2. Now I desire you to shew your skill in sophistry answer this syllogisme by which I draw the same Conclusion out of your Doctrine exposition of Christ's words That interpretation which is plainely contradictory to the expresse words of Scripture doth frustrate the end vse of Scripture But such is your interpretation of those words of Christ Therefore your interpretation frustrates the end vse of Scripture The maior or first Proposition is evident for what vse can be made of Scripture to what intent can it serve if we take the liberty to beleiue teach the direct contrary Doctrine to what it delivers For example if when the scripture says God Created Heauen Earth we say God did not create Heauen Earth When it says The word was in the beginning We say The word was not in the beginning When it says The word was made Flesh we say The word was not made Flesh. And so of the rest What can Scripture signify to what vse to what intent can it serue when such interpretations are made of it Soe my maior stands good The minor 2. Proposition is evident that Such is your jnterpretation of Christ's words For Scripture says That is Christ's Body you say That is not Christ's Body Scripture says That is Christ's Bloud you say That is not Christ's Bloud Let those frame an interpretation more opposit to Scripture who can I confesse my skil in Logicke reachs not to frame any more directly opposite I feare you will find it as much harder to answer this Argument than J shall to answer yours as it is to cure a real than to cure afeigned sicknesse 4. D Morley p. 4. All scripture being written for our learning as S. Paul Says it is there being no other meanes whereby we can come to know what is written in Scripture but our Senses either reading it our Selues or hearing it read if I be not certain of what I see when I reade my selfe nor of what I heare when I am read to by others it is impossible for me to know what the Scripture teacheth by consequence the Scripture it self must be vselesse or to no purpose Thus you Here Goliath like you bring a sword to cut off your owne head We say the words of Scripture are cleere that whither we Reade or Heare them they signify the same thing we vnderstand them in their plaine obvious sense as any man would vnderstand them who is resolved to submit his reason to them which we doe not make them stoop to some of our fleshly Senses as you doe Wherefore your method interpretation frustrates all vse of Scripture ours leaues it in its full force vigour You make Scripture weare the chaines of Senses we bind senses Reason too to the triumphant chariot of Scripture Then you discover an vnexpected concerne for the Church Authority after having spent your whole life in fyghting against it as if that were prejudiced by our Doctrine Not only the scripture

are his lowest facultyes Just as if what the Apostle says is over my head you should say is vnder my feet But why doth not the Natural man receiue Faith Because It is foolishnesse vnto him And just such is Transubstantiation to you therefore is laught at by you the other reason is convincing He cannot receiue Faith Becaus it is spiritually discerned Are Senses spiritual facultyes can they Spiritually discern If not as certainly they cannot pull them off the throne on which you placed them of which they are vnworthy as being vncapable of discerning the thing in question which is of The spirit of God spiritual discerned only spiritually No lesse but rather more evident are the words of the same Apostle 2. Cor. 10.4 The weapons of our warfare says he are not carnal but myghty through God to the pulling down of strong holds casting down imaginations every hygh thing that exalteth it selfe against the knowledge of God bringing into captivity every Thought to the obedience of Christ .... do ye look on things after the outward appearance Thus your own Translation Which words decide the thing in question For first it is evident he speakes of the Doctrine he preacht which is Faith And in the first place he cleerely discards outward Senses from any share in this judgment The weapons of our warfare are not carnal now Senses are Carnal as is cleere 2. He rejects inward Senses Casting down all jmaginations 3. He teaches that our vnderstanding must also be subject Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ Thus according to the Apostle all facultys of soul body spiritual carnal interiour exteriour must vayle bonnet to Faith which is termed Myghty through God The last question Do ye look on things according to their out ward appearance Is a conclusion of the foregoing discourse cuts all the nerves of the Doctors argument Which is totally grounded Vpon out ward appearance to carnal sense Let vs apply the Apostles meaning to our present purpose by some few questions What will you say that is on the Holy Altar Mr. Dr Answer Bread wine But why do you think it to be bread wine Answer wee looke on the out ward appearance judge of the thing after that You know sir that the Catholick Church all over the wor'd even Luther himself beleived it to be the Body Bloud of Christ with what weapons do you combat their opinion Answer The weapons we fyght with are Carnel they are the senses Now let vs propose such questions to a Catholick What do you beleiue that to be which is on the Altar Answer the tru Body Bloud of Christ But why do you beleiue it to be the Body Bloud of Christ Answer Because Christ says it is so the Church teaches me his words are so to be vnderstood Doth it appear to be the Body Bloud of Christ Answer no. But We look not on things after the out ward appearance when that is not conformable to the word of God delivered to vs by the Church With what weapons do you combat the contrary errour Answer The weapons we vse Are not carnal sense But myghty through God to destroy all jmaginations beate downe all thoughts which are raysed in vs in opposition to the divine revealed truth 3. If we consult Reason in this debate we shall see that Senses ought not to be admitted as judges it being absolutely impossible they should vnderstand the matter in question therefore cannot possibly pronounce sentence on ether side For what is the question What is the meaning of those words of our Blessed saviour This is my Body this is my Bloud for I suppose your jmpiety is not arrived to that heygth as to deny his words to be tru or say you would not beleiue any thing to be what he plainly vndeniably says it is That is you do not beleiue that God doth or can tell a Lye Otherwise farewell all Faith we must make vse of other Mediums to deale with you Our dispute then being about the sense of those words of Christ J proue that our senses cannot judg in it with this argument Senses cannot judg of things which are not their proper objects But such are the things in debate in this controversy Therefore senses cannot judg of these things The major or first Proposition is cleere For the eye cannot judg of a found because it is not its proper object Nor the eare of a colour for the same reason The same of all other senses Wherefore no sense can judg of any thing that is not its proper object The minor or second proposition viz things in debate here are not the proper object of Senses is also selfe evident For the proper meaning or signification of words is the proper object of no sense But the matter here in debate is the proper meaning or signification of the words of Christ Therefore it is the proper object of no sense These Premisses are so evidently tru that J think it enough only to proue the first Proposition this I doe by induction for nether eye nor nose nor palate nor hand nor eare can see tast smel feale or heare the signification of words wherefore no sense can perceiue it The only doubt can be about Hearing by reason of the convexion betwixt the sound of an Articulate word which is the object of the eare the signification of it yet even here my Proposition is tru for the same articulate sound is insignificant to one who vnderstands it not sometimes signifyes different things to persons of different langages v. c. Lego to a Latinist signifyes I reade to a Grecian I speake to an English man nothing Yet the sound in the eare is the same to all these three Jndeed if it were not so by learning anew language our eares should be changed framed in a different manner to represent the new signification Which I suppose no body will say As to the other Proposition the minor that our dispute is about the signification of those words is as evident For our sentiment is grounded on the words being taken litterally yours vpon their being taken figuratively Both which are the severall significations One thing only occurres in answer to this viz that the litteral signification is so absurd that it cannot be admitted Answer this is sayd but not proved in du place these absurditys will be confidered J hope found to be no bsurditys Answer 2. this doth not satisfy my reason for no Absurdity can make any faculty judg of what it cannot know As no Absurdity can make me a competent judg of a composition in the Chinese language of which J am entirely ignorant Here I myght lay down my pen it already appearing that all you can alleadg from Senses can signify nothing seing they cannot depose of a thing they are totally strangers to you say nothing but