Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
blood_n body_n bread_n transubstantiation_n 7,578 5 11.1962 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A30771 The several ways of resolving faith in the Roman and Reformed Churches with the authors impartial thoughts upon each of them, and his own opinion at length shewn, wherein the rule of faith doth consist ... Banckes, Matthew. 1677 (1677) Wing B632; ESTC R20075 29,922 220

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Master Whites Adversaries in this Point should urge That there is a plain practical Tradition for the truth of the delivery of souls from Purgatory before the day of Judgement by the help of Indulgences Masses Prayers and Alms it would have some difficulty in it to disprove them For that the Members of the Roman Church do not only generally use those things to that end and purpose but were also taught by the preceding Age to do so will not I presume be deni'd so that unless they were told by the Recommenders of the Practice that it was the Product of a pious Opinion only grounded on probability which I cannot conjecture any likelihood of being done by Pastors Parents Guardians Masters of Families and Nurses who most commonly rather press the necessity of what they teach then otherwise I apprehend not how they should imbrace it save on the same Terms they did other practical things of their Religion which they judg'd to be of Catholick use and necessity A third Instance shall be the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which if it necessarily imply a Contradiction is doubtless an Error and to prove it doth I will of many Arguments that might be urg'd make use only of two when I have first set down three things which by the Traditionists I am sure by some of them will be granted to be all of them truths The first is That Transubstantiation is a conversion of the Bread into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of Christ The second is That a Body hath extension or partes extra partes The third thing is this That How many Hosts or conconsecrated Elements soever they be Christs Body is nevertheless but one These three Propositions presuppos'd as true I argue That the Doctrin of Transubstantiation implies a Contradiction in manner following Whosoever teacheth That one and the same Body may be equally extended and not equally extended at one and the same time teacheth in effect a Contradiction to be true But whosoever teacheth the Doctrin of Transubstantiation teacheth that one and the same Body may be equally extended and not equally extended at one and the same time Ergo Whosoever teacheth the Doctrine of Transubstantiation teacheth in effect a Contradiction to be true The reason of the Major is this Corpus quoquoversus extensum vel quod habet partes extra partes signifie the same thing and to be equally extended and not equally extended is one with this to be extended to one and the same degree and not be extended to one and the same degree which to befal one and the same thing at one and the same time is certainly contradictory since in regard a Body and a Thing every way extended differ not 't is in effect to be one and the same thing and not one and the same thing at once or the same thing not to be the same thing with it self The evidence for the truth of the Minor is no less then for that of the Major for since according to the Doctrin of Transubstantiation Christs Body is every where one and the same Body and the consecrated Elements are many either Substances or Accidents 't will follow That as often as the Eléments are at the same time of different sizes or bigness the Body of Christ which is neither more nor less extended on the Altar then the Elements must be of an unequal bigness at the same time or be equally and not-equally or just to such a degree and not just to such a degree of bigness extended in one moment of time For example The Body of Christ under the Elements extended in one place to two degrees and the same Body under the Elements extended in another place to three degrees would be at the same time extended just to two degrees and not just to two degrees and likewise just to three degrees and not just to three degrees which to suppose a truth seeing a Body and a Thing every way extended is the same were to put a thing to be not the same thing which it is Another Argument is offerr'd against Transubstantiation thus To affirme Christs Body to be greater and less then it self at the same time is in effect to affirm a Contradiction true But to affirm Christs Body to be in two or more distinct places at once as those who will defend Transubstantiation must do is to affirm it to be greater and less then it self at the same time Ergo To affirm Christs Body to be in two or more distinct places at once is in effect to affirm a Contradiction true The truth of the Major is clear from hence That it is the same for a Body or a thing extended to be greater and less then it self at the same time as to be and not to be the same with it self which is impossible And the Minor is equally certain for since two distinct places are of larger extent then one and that locus and locatum are commensurat if one Body fill distinctly and apart one place and yet at the same time fill another also it will of necessity be greater and less then it self whilst filling only one place it will be less then it self filling two and filling two it will be greater then it self filling only one Some Romanists I know will make light of all this I have said against Transubstantiation and think to confute it by flatly denying that a Body and Thing extended is all one but of such I would fain learn what a Body then is or how a corporeal substance as such is distinguish'd from an incorporeal a material from an immaterial otherways then by extension or having partes extra partes by which it is contiguous to the several distinct sides of the ambient Body or Bodies that encompass it whereas an incorporeal or immaterial substance having no such parts is of necessity all together wheresoever it is If it were said that a material substance is not of necessity actually extended yet naturally capable of being so which an immaterial is not I desire to be resolv'd whether by nature and creation there be or ever was any material substance in the world without extension if they yield as I assure my self they will there neither is nor ever was I shall take their concession for a grant that it is a natural and innate property of matter to have extension and consequently from thence inferr that if Christs Body in the Eucharist be unextended 't is either an immaterial substance that is a Spirit and no Body or els a new kind of Being which is neither materal nor immaterial since by Creation all substances were either the one or the other had quantitative parts or had not If reply were made that Christs Body is miraculously present in the Eucharist by way of substance as Aquinas and others say it is not including material nor immaterial but abstracting from both I would rejoyn and say That the existence of such a Being is to my apprehension