Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	bread_n	call_v	consecration_n	6,545	5	11.1766	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41388	Firmianus and Dubitantius, or, Certain dialogues concerning atheism, infidelity, popery, and other heresies and schisme's that trouble the peace of the church and are destructive of primitive piety written in a plain and easie method for the satisfaction of doubting Christians / by Tho. Good.	Good, Thomas, 1609-1678.	1674 (1674)	Wing G1029; ESTC R23950	83,883	174

to the Sight the Smell the Tast shall we think that the God of truth Gave to m●n five Scences to deceive 4 of them by one pretended miracle or that 't is his method to informe the mind by Impostures if one or two or three Senses may be deceived why not all then what will become of Romes orall Tradition for may not the eare be deceived as well as the eye the nose the tast the touch here are 4 Sences to one against that tradition and then how are the papists certain of what they have received from the present Church or how is shee certaine of what shee received from the Church immediatly before her is not the doctrine of Transubstantiation which teaches men not to believe their eyes and other of their Sences a ready way to Atheism and infidelity for if four of the five Sences may be deceived then farewell all tradition and if these inferiour faculties may be thus bafled what satisfaction could it have been to St. Thomas that Christ was truly risen from the dead by putting his finger into the print of the nailes or his hand into his side But beside what sence and reason witness against this monstrous opinion the Scripture is clearely opposite unto it for Christ at the institution of this Sacrament did not take his own Body into his hand● but Bread he brake not his owne Body but Bread he did not eat his own Body he did not drinke his owne Blood but he drank of the fruit of the Vine Mat. 26.29 for so he called it after Consecration and Distribution I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine c. in like manner St. Paul 'T is stil this bread and this cup. 1. Cor. 11.26 When our Saviour saies Hoc est corpus meum what doth hoc stand for either it must signify this thing in my hand i. e. the bread or else his own body which body he holding in his hand utters these words hoc est corpus meum that is corpus meum est corpus meum a mere Identical trifleing proposition which according to all Logick is most absurd and destroys the very nature of a Sacrament which consists of two essential parts the sign and the thing signified besides they of Rome con●ess that the Body of Christ is not present under the species of Bread and Wine when the Preist begins to pronounce hoc nor till he hath uttered the last sillable um hoc est corpus meum such poore shifts these men are forced to use As for antiquity so much boasted of by those of Rome I know that some of the fathers to draw mens minds from the earthly elements to heavenly misteries used now and then high Rhetoricall expressions never dreaming of any substantiall change of the elements into the Body and Bloud of Christ as is evident from Iraeneus Panis Communis post consecrationem non est amplius panis communis sed efficitur Eucharistia quae constat ex duabus naturis terrenâ cael●sti haec oblatio ●st figura corporis sanguinis Christi Ambrose 1. ad Cor. Cap. 11. lib. 4. de Sacram. Non dubitavit dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum cum dedit fignum sui corporis Aug Epist 23. ad Bonifa 12. Cap. contra Adiman Hoc est corpus meum i. e. typus corporis mei Ter●ull Panem vinum Appellatione corporis sanguinis honoravit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adjiciens Theod. dial 1. 2. In a word the ancient fathers who opposed the Eutychian haeresy did make use of the sacramentall union of Bread and Wine to the body and blood of Christ shewing that the humane nature of Christ is not more changed into the divine then the Sacramentall Bread and Wine is into the very Body and Blood of Christ therefore they believed no such thing as that monstrous Popish transubstantiation So that we see the falsity and absurdity of it by Scripture antiquity common sence and reason besides the great danger of Idolatry in worshipping a piece of bread if there be no transubstantiation as some of the papists themselves confesse and they also acknowledge that if the Priest that consecrates were not rightly ordained or that he did not actually intend to consecrate or that he omitted any one Ceremony which they call necessary at the time of consecration that the Bread and Wine are not duely Consecrated and consequently no transubstantiation and therefore great probability that the Papists in worshipping the host do frequently comitt the very great Sin of Idolatry which was to me one great reason of forsaking their Communion Firm. Truely 't was a substantiall reason and such an one that has wrought upon others beside your selfe however I desire to hear from you what further reasons you had to leave the Church of Rome Dub. The next which I shall acquaint you with is the half Communion so manifestly against scripture and antiquity Our Blessed Saviour at the instituition of the Sacrament commands drinke yee all of this whereas at the giveing of the bread he said only take Eate foreseeing and obviating this grand error of the Church of Rome 't is true the persons then communicating were only his disciples which had received their Commissio● to preach the Gospell before that time but not in that ample and full manner as they received it after his Resurection as is plain from Iohn 20 22 23. and M●t. 28 29. but be it granted that they were all in full orders and upon that account the Cup was given them otherwise they should not have received it by the same reason the bread might be denyed to the people because none but Priests did then Communicate but we know that a Priest when he doth not consecrate is in the place of a Lay-man and consequently the disciples not consecrating at the Supper were no better and therefore according to the doctrine and practise of the Church of Rome should not have received the Cup. But what will they thinke of the whole Church of Corinth to whom St. Paul sent a first and second Epistle they cannot imagine they were all Priests observe then how ●e ●xhorts all of them to examine themselves in order to the receiving of the holy Eucharist under both kinds 1. Cor 11. this is so evi●ent that our adve●saries have nothing to Reply As for Antiquity the practise of the C●urch of Rome is clearly against it as Iam able to demonstrate from express testimonies of the fathers but our learned writers have ●aved me that trouble those that please may peruse Chami●re Ch●mnitius Iewell Cracanthorp The confe●sion of the Councell of Co●stance stands as a lasting Monument against the Popish innovation in this particular the words are these we decree in like manner that though in the Primitive Church the holy Eucharist was received under both kinds by the faithfull yet this Custome to avoid some dangers and scandals is reasonably

Doctrine is so farr from it that the better sort of heathens would blush to own for brevity sake I shal● re●err you to the first and second part of the mistery of Jesuitisme the Jesuites morralls set out b● a Sorbon Doctor Mr. Fowles his History of the treasons and rebellions of these holy men the two former of these bookes assure us that by the Doctrine of probability and a good intention the fowlest Sins are at most but venial Dub. The Jesuites are but one party in the Church of Rome many o● their tenents and practises disclai●●d by other of the papists and therefore the whole Church is not chargeable with their errors Firm. Untill that Church doth expresly Condemn th●m and Execute Ecclesiasticall Censur●s upon such of her members as do broach those damnable Doctrines doth make them rec●nt or excommunicate them she is chargeable with them Dub. I am of your opinion and do firmly believe the p●esent C●urch of Rome to be neither Holy n●● C●tholi●k but an unsound member of that Church but what say you to the first ●ounde●s and ●athers of their Church were not t●ey v●ry 〈◊〉 men Firm. ● B●llarmine could prove what he takes for gran●ed that t●e Fathers and Founders o●●heir Chu●ch as it now stands were the ho●y Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles I should agree with him in that note but the truth is they have no more right to call them their Fathers and Founders then the Scribes and ●harisees had to ca●l Abraham their Father from whose faith they had so miserably declined the Fathers of the present Church of Rome as 't is now were the corrupt Councells which were so many pack'd Juryes and the popes of whose Sanctity you may consult Platina who was a Papist By what I have said I hope you are satisfied that you had no justifyable reasons to adhere to the Church of Rome as 't is now so much declined from the Primitive let me know how and why you did forsake it Dub. I am fully satisfied that the reasons which drew me over to that Church were false and fallacious and am now as much confirmed that the reasons which made me leave her Communion are solid and demonstrative 1. Which were her monstrous unnecessary imposible Doctrine of transubstantiation Firm. How do you prove that to be unnecessary Dub. The change of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ is unnecessary because certain it is and they of the Church of Rome acknowledge it that there never was any such change in the Sacraments of ●he old Testament neith●r is there any in the other six of the New as the Papists are pleased to multiply them now if all other Sacraments without any such miraculous change do attain their ends for which they were instituted why should it be required in the holy Eucharist why not rather in that of baptism why should not the baptismall water be changed into Christs very blood this being the Sacrament of Regeneration that that of Nutrition surely as great a power and vertue is required to regenerate and make a Christian as to nourish and strengthen him Again the faithful both before and under the law did eate and drink the body and blood of Christ in a Spiritual manner before he had either body or blood They did eat the same Spiritual Meat and dranke the same Spiritual Drinke 1. Cor. 10.3 what need is there then of a Transubstantiation If we seriously peruse the sixt Chapt of St. Iohns Gospel we may learne that the body of Christ is eaten and his blood dranke in a Spiritual manner that when the Disciples murmured at what our Saviour had delivered in the former verses to satisfye them he replyes that the words which he spake were spirit and life Ver. 63. and not to be understood according to their gross conception I know some the Church of Rome affirm that in ●hat Chapter our blessed Saviour speaks not of a Sacramentall eating of the body of Christ but certainly is his body may be eaten and his blood drank without any such monstrous change by every true beleiver not Receiving why may not he eat the body and drink the blood of Christ without any substantiall change of the Bread and Wine when he receives besides ● most if not all of the ancient fathers who held a necessity of giveing the Eucharist to infants urge the 53. verse of this Chapter for their opinion and practise except yee Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Bloud ye have no life in you Surely therefore they conceived that our Saviour meant by these words a Sacramentall eating how then dare any of the Clergy of the Church of Rome expound it otherwise seeing they take an oath never to expound Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers see the forma juramenti professionis fidei Conc. Triden Sess. 24. Cap. 4. de Reformatione Firm. I very much approve your reason against the necessity of transubstantiation Let me here from you why you tearme it monstrous and impossible Dub. 'T is therefore monstrous and impossible because it implyes Contradictions and grosse absurdities 1. that a body is not a body an accident is not an accident for if there should be such a change the s●me numericall body of our Saviour must be in Heaven and Earth nay in ten thousand places at the same time ●it must be extended and not extended it must have dimensions and no dimensions finite and not finite which cannot be no not by Gods omnipotent and absolute power how do the schoolmens Noddles abound with nicetyes quidditys perseities Chimaeras to solve such incompossibilities 2. This strange Metamorphosis doth make accidents to be no accidents it takes away the very being of them for accid●ntis esse ●st in●sse the being of an accident is in-being here must be Colour sapor odor quantity without a Subject which is all one as if we should say a man might be a man without a reasonable Soule In a word I would willingly learne what does become of Christs Body and Bloud after 't is received into the mouth or if any prophane mouse should swallow part of it or lick up a drop of the bloud and thence into the stomach whether it be retransubstantiated into bread and wine or else be converted by the concoctive and nutritive faculty into the body of the Communicant as other nourishment is and then t will necessarily follow that Christs Body is essentially united unto and made one with the Body of every Communicant which borders very nere upon B●asphemy for by this means Iames Nailer will ere long quod animus m●minisse horret be Jesus Christ. 3. This Transubstantiation if any such thing were possible is wrought by a miracle but was ever any miracle done by Christ and his Apostles which was not discernable by the sences when ●e cured the blind the dumb the lame when he turned water into wine was not this manifest