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	communion_n	cup_n	8,923	5	10.0506	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33224	The summ of a conference on Feb. 21, 1686, between Dr. Clagett, and Father Gooden, about the point of transubstantiation	Clagett, William, 1646-1688.; Gooden, Peter, d. 1695.	1689 (1689)	Wing C4401; ESTC R7092	13,374	33

one of our Men to meet him and she should see what work he would make with him Such a noise as this from one of the little inconsiderable Priests of the Church of Rome amazed the poor Lady and had he Prudently contented himself with the Boast of the Victories he had already gain'd without aspiring after the Honour of adding one more for the increasing his Triumph he might possibly have saved himself from the shame of that discovery the following Conference made of his Abilities and have gain'd his Proselyte But as great Wits are too often a little inconsiderate and before they are aware run themselves into difficulties out of which they cannot tell afterwards how to extricate themselves so it fell out with Mr. Gooden on this Occasion For the Lady presently took hold on his Offer and applied her self to Dr. Clagett and the Time and Place and Subject being fix'd Mr. Gooden and the Doctor met accordingly at Grays-Inn Feb. 21. 1686. I shall say nothing of the Menage of the Conference its self but that it was with much Noise on Mr. Gooden's side who in Discourse let fall some very extraordinary things and which might have pass'd into the Abstract too had not another Person who was with him and seem'd much more modest and understanding than himself observed what pass'd and corrected his Blunders After the Dispute was ended which lasted about Four or Five Hours a new Discourse arose about the Paper which Mr. Gooden made such Boasts of about the Town and had so often represented to the Lady and others as unanswerable He was very unwilling a great while to let the Doctor have a Copy of it tho he promised to give him an Answer to it till at last it was declared That if he refused to let him have it the Company would look upon it as an idle Paper that had nothing in it and that therefore he durst not trust him with it Vpon this he gave him a Copy of it and the Doctor in pursuance of his Promise the next day sent him the following Answer to it For what concerns the Sum of the Conference here Published it was taken in Writing and signed by both Parties upon the place so that there can be no cause for any one to question the sincerity of it And tho the Abstract be very short yet I am persuaded it is enough to satisfie every impartial Reader why Mr. Gooden did not care to make any boasts of it And those who were present at the Meeting and heard all that pass'd between them as well as the Lady for whose sake they met were very well satisfied that he would not force them to publish the History of it But tho the Doctor was willing to let this matter die and shew'd himself as careful of Mr. Gooden's Reputation after the Conference as he was of the Ladies Conviction in it yet being now by the Providence of God removed from us I thought it a just debt to his Memory to subjoin here a true Copy of these Papers there being several of them abroad both to prevent an imperfect Edition from some other hand and lest Mr. Gooden and his Friends who were so silent in his Life-time should take occasion to raise any false Reports of this Encounter if they thought they could not be disproved now he is dead And if the great Esteem I had for that Excellent Person and most useful Instrument of God's Service in our late dangerous and critical Times does not render me a very incompetent judg of whatever comes from his hand the Reader will find even in these short Notes enough to reward his Pains and to keep him from thinking the time lost that he shall please to spend in the perusal of them A Private Conference BETWEEN Dr. Clagett and Father Gooden ABOUT Transubstantiation c. FAther Gooden Proposed the Rule of Faith to be the Subject of the Conference but upon the Request of the Lady for whose sake it was the Question of Transubstantiation was taken And the Father desiring that the Doctor would be the Opponent the Question was Stated on both Sides Dr. That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is false Doctrine and That the Natural Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament but in Heaven Fa. That after the Words of Consecration the true Body and Blood of Christ are in the Holy Eucharist and that the manner is well exprest by Transubstantiation Dr. This is not all the Doctrine of Transubstantion in the Church of Rome the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is this That the Substance of the Bread is chang'd into the Substance of Christ's Body and the Substance of the Wine is chang'd into the Substance of Christ's Blood which Change the Church of Rome does conveniently call Transubstantiation If the Substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist then it is not chang'd into the Substance of Christ's Body But the Substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist Therefore the Substance of Bread is not changed into the Substance of Christ's Body Fath. I deny the Minor viz that the substance of Bread does remain Dr. If Bread remains the substance of bread remains But Bread remains Therefore the substance of bread remains Fath. If the Nature of Bread remains Bread remains but if only the Name of Bread and Species remain then Bread does not remain Dr. That Bread which is properly Natural Bread remains in the Eucharist is proved from 1 Cor. 11.26 As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew forth the Lord's death till he come 1 Cor. 10.16 The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Now from hence we argue thus If that which is here said to be Broken and to be the Communion of the Body of Christ be properly natural Bread then that which is properly natural Bread remains in the Eucharist Fath. I grant the Major Dr. But that which is here said to be broken and to be the Communion of the Body of Christ is properly natural Bread Ergo Properly natural Bread remains in the Eucharist Fath. I deny the Minor. Dr. The Bread of which Saint Paul speaks is Bread that may be broken and therefore it is truely and properly natural Bread. Fath. I distinguish the Antecedent as to the Accidents and Appearance of Bread it may be broken as to the Nature of Bread it cannot because it is not there Dr. This is to beg the Question for the Question is whether Bread be there or not and the Argument to prove that it is there is Because Saint Paul speaks of Bread that might be and was broken but it is no sufficient Answer to this to say that the Accidents of Bread may be broken because the Bread is not there it self which is the thing that was disproved Fath. The Question to be proved was that the Nature of Bread was there therefore it is not a begging of the Question according to the Distinction

given to say that the Nature of Bread is not there and consequently could not be broken For the Bread there spoken of is not meant of Natural Bread but of Bread which came down from Heaven and which is the flesh of Christ John 6.41 I am the bread which came down from Heaven John 6.48 I am the bread of Life Ver. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 58. From whence I infer my Answer to be good that though the H. Eucharist be called Bread and broken as to the Species of Bread yet it is not natural Bread but only in appearance of which St. Paul spoke for the same St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. speaking of the same bread saith He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself not discerning the body of our Lord. Christ also speaking of the same bread saith Take eat this is my Body Matt. 26.26 Also Luk. 22.19 speaking of the same Eucharist This is my Body which is given for you Dr. The Answerer forgetting the Part of a Disputant has pretended to prove largely by the sixth Chap. of St. John and other places of Scripture That St. Paul in the aforementioned places did not speak of Bread properly so called although he spoke of Bread that was to be broken All which places when it is my turn to Answer I will consider particularly But if that which is here said is to go for an Answer the force of it lies in this That by the Bread which St. Paul spoke of we are to understand the Bread which St. John spoke of namely the bread which came down from Heaven by which the Answerer understands the Natural and ●roper flesh of Christ But that the Bread which St. Paul ●peaks of cannot be the natural flesh of Christ I prove thus The Bread which St. Paul speaks of was broken But the Natural Body of Christ cannot be broken Ergo. The Bread which St. Paul speaks of cannot be the Natural body of Christ Fath. As to the Species and Appearance of Bread it was broken I grant it as to any Nature contained under those Species of Bread I deny it Dr. This Distinction does not avoid the Argument because if the Bread in St. Paul and the Bread in St. John are really and properly the same and the Bread in St. John be really and properly the flesh of Christ then what is affirmed of the one must be true of the other and therefore if the Bread be broken in St. Paul then the Natural body of Christ must be broken too which cannot be I add further That if by breaking of Bread St. Paul means breaking the Accidents of Bread only and if the Bread that is broken be really that which is spoken of in St. John as aforesaid it follows also that the Accidents of Bread are properly the body of Christ Fath. That which St. Paul calls Bread had in it both the Accidents of Bread and the substance of Christ's body As to the Accidents of Bread it might be broken as to the substance of Christ's body which is mentioned in St. John it is not broken unless you mean as Christ's Body was broken upon the Cross And if the bread which is broken be really that which is spoken of in St. John as aforesaid both as to the Accidents and nature of Bread I grant that the Accidents of Bread would be the Body of Christ and if it be not the same both as to the Nature and Accidents I deny it This I profess not to understand Fath. As to the Doctor 's Argument it includes a Sophism as will appear when brought into form because it involves 4 Terms because he supposes in one Proposition for the Accidents of Bread and in the other for the Nature Dr. In the Argument I used I went upon this Supposition That the Accidents of Bread were onely to be understood as the Answerer supposes and therefore I have not confounded the Nature and the Accidents of Bread together Besides the Distinction between the Nature of Bread and the Accidents of Bread was not to be remembred any more by the Answerer because I proceed upon his Supposition That the Accidents onely are broken Now if St. Paul speaks of nothing but what is broken and Accidents onely are broken and yet if he speaks of the very flesh of Christ too then the Accidents of the Bread are the very flesh of Christ And whereas the Answerer by his last Answer means the Nature of Christ's Body as he says I understood him of the Nature of Bread. And now once more I desire him to shew me where the four Terms are Fath. The Text of St. Paul the Dr. takes for his Medium and argues from a double Supposition as first taking it for the Accidents of Bread which were broken and afterwards for the substance of Christ's Body under the Accidents in which latter sense it signifies the same that is meant by our Saviour in St. John. Dr. I observe the Answerer will allow nothing to be broken but Accidents I observe also that nothing is said to be the Body of Christ or the Communion of the Body of Christ but what is broken If therefore nothing is broken but Accidents then Accidents are either according to the Answerer's long proof the very Body of Christ or according to the Apostle the Communion of the Body of Christ But neither are the Accidents of Bread the Body of Christ nor the Communion of the Body of Christ And this I say is not answered and believe will not be answered by any man that maintains that St. Paul does not here speak properly of Bread. Fath. All along in my Discourse I have supposed that when St. Paul speaks of this bread he spoke of the H. Eucharist in which were contained both the Accidents of Bread and the true body of Christ How the Dr. has disproved this Doctrine so clearly as to justifie the Reformation I understand not Because I conceive no private Persons or particular Church ought to pretend a Reformation without clear evidence whether the Dr. has given such I leave to the consideration of the Readers And whether having broken off from the great body of the Vniversal Church and its testimony he can possibly have any certain Rule to arrive at Christian Faith If Scripture be pretended interpreted by a fallible Authority how Certainty can be obtained or why a Socinian following Scripture for his Rule of Faith is not to be believed as well as any other Reformer following the same Rule I see not Signed W. Clagett Peter Gooden Dr. CLAGETT's Answer TO A PAPER Delivered to Him by Father GOODEN The Paper ARticles of Christian Faith are Truths Truths are Impossible to be False Therefore Articles of Christian Faith are Impossible to be False Therefore those who obtain Articles of the Christian Faith must have some Rule to Acquire them by which cannot deceive them To a Parliamentary Protestant the Ancient Fathers cannot be such a Rule because they