A27011:157
Roman tradition examined, as it is urged as infallible against all mens senses, reason,…
Roman tradition examined, as it is urged as infallible against all mens senses, reason, the Holy Scripture, the tradition and present judgment of the far greatest part of the Universal Church; in the point of transubstantiation; in answer to a book called A rational discourse of transubstantiation.Roman tradition examined, as it is urged as infallible against all mens senses, reason, the Holy Scripture, the tradition and present judgment of the far greatst part of the Universal Church; in the point of transubstantiation; in answer to a book called A rational discourse of transubstantiation.
S.l. : s.n., 1676
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Which I prove, 1. The Assertion which he stateth is, that the bread and wine (for so he calleth them) are not [bare, or mere bread and wine] but Christ's body and blood; which we all assert: As the King's Statue in Brass is not bare Brass. 2. He next bids us not judge by our taste, that it is bare bread. And after when he saith it is not bread and wine, and appealeth to Faith from Sense, it is but his repeating of what he before asserted; meaning that though Sense perceives nothing but bare bread and wine, yet Faith perceiveth Christ's body and blood; and so it is not to be called bread and wine, for all proper denomination is from the Form; and the Form of a Sacrament is Relative, (as of a Statue, Image, Symbol, Sign, &c.) and it is Relatively Christ's body and blood: So that it is but, that it's bare bread, that he denieth; as we do.
Which I prove, 1. The Assertion which he stateth is, that the bread and wine (for so he calleth them) are not [bare, or meer bread and wine] but Christ's body and blood; which we all assert: As the King's Statue in Brass is not bare Brass. 2. He next bids us not judge by our taste, that it is bare bread. And after when he saith it is not bread and wine, and appealeth to Faith from Sense, it is but his repeating of what he before asserted; meaning that though Sense perceives nothing but bare bread and wine, yet Faith perceiveth Christ's body and blood; and so it is not to be called bread and wine, for all proper denomination is from the Form; and the Form of a Sacrament is Relative, (as of a Statue, Image, Symbol, Sign, &c.) and it is Relatively Christ's body and blood: So that it is but, that it's bare bread, that he denyeth; as we do.
3, Most fully, he tells us his mind, Cat. 3. p. 235. [For as the bread of the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, is no more COMMON bread, but is the body of Christ; so also this holy Ointment is no more mere Ointment, nor (if any one had rather so speak) Common, now it is Consecrated; but it is a Grace (or Gift) which causeth the presence of Christ, and the Holy Ghost; that is, of his Divinity:] So that if you take him to assert the Transubstantiation of bread, you must say that he takes Oil also to be Transubstantiate into Grace, or the Holy Ghost. For he saith, that one is so as the other is changed. That is, they are no more mere or common bread, or Oil.