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	substance_n	transubstantiation_n	8,100	5	11.4453	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49644	A letter to a friend, touching Dr. Jeremy Taylor's Disswasive from Popery. Discovering above an hundred and fifty false, or wretched quotations, in it.	A. L.	1665 (1665)	Wing L4A; ESTC R213944	35,526	47

Epistle of S. Leo but there is not a word in it of those he quotes Sect. 5. 41. He quotes Scotus as declaring that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not 42. To the same purpose he quotes Occham but I can finde no such thing in him 43. To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he saith no such thing 44. To prove that the Decree of the Lateran Council was but a pretended one he quotes Platina Many thing 's indeed came then in consultation yet nothing could be openly decreed leaving out the next words giving the reason of it which shewed that he meant not of Decrees of Faith but of raising Force to send to the Holy Land against the Saracens which was the cause of calling that Council The Pope when he saw the power of the Saracens to encrease in Asia called a Council c. Many things came then in consultation but nothing could be fitly decreed because both the Pisans and Genowayes by Sea and the Cisalpins by Land were at war among themselves c. 45. To prove that our own men have affirmed that Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture he quotes Suarez That Cajetan affirmed that the Article of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture when Suarez saith no such thing but onely this But of Catholiques Cajetan alone taught that secluding the authority of the Church those words This is my body sufficed not to confirm this truth 46. To the same purpose he quotes Canus who saith not that it is not expressed but not so express i.e. not plainly or clearly and ranks it with the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead and in his next Chapter passeth to things which belong to Christian Faith which are neither clearly nor obscurely in Scripture Not all things which pertain to Christian Doctrine are expressed in holy Writ For the conversion of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son the equality of three Persons in one substance and their distinction by relative proprieties you shall not finde so express in the Canonical Books wherefore as the Article of the Resurrection was contained in that I am the God of Abraham c. which afterward Christ expounded to the less intelligent so the Church by the Spirit of truth hath explicated some things which are had obscure in the holy Scriptures 47. He saith Henriquez affirms that Scotus saith Transubstantiation was not ancient when Henriquez saith no such thing 48. To prove that in Peter Lombards time Transubstantiation was so far from being an Article of Faith or a Catholique Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no and after Peter Lombard had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confess'd he could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no he quotes these words If it be enquired what kinde of conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or of another kinde I am not able to define it Onely I know that it is not formall because the same accidents remain the same colour and taste To some it seems to be substantial saying that so the substance is changed into the substance that it is done essentially To which the former authorities seem to consent But to this Sentence others oppose these things If the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted c. And saith they are a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was new not the Doctrine of the Church Which is a notable falsifying of that Author and the Doctor if he read him could not chuse but know he quoted him directly against his meaning For there were two Questions one whether the substance of the Elements be converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood and this question alone pertains to what we believe in the point of Transubstantiation And this question Peter Lombard had treated of afore and resolved positively 1. That it is undoubtedly to be held that under the visible species the Flesh of Christ which he took of the Virgin and the Blood which he shed for us is received by the wicked and the contrary he counted a Heresie The next Section he entitles De Haeresi aliorum c. Of the Heresie of others who say that the Body of Christ is not upon the Altar but in sign And thus he speaks of it There are other transcending the madness of the former Hereticks who measuring the power of God by the model of natural things do more audaciously and dangerously contradict the truth affirming that in the Altar is not the Body or Blood of Christ nor the substance of Bread and Wine converted into the substance of Flesh and Blood who take occasion of erring from the words of truth whence began the first Heresie against this truth among Christs Disciples It is the Spirit that quickens c. And they cite those words of S. Augustin Non hoc corpus quod videtis c. And there are other sayings also ministring fomitem to their madness The poor ye have alwayes with you but me not These and other sayings the aforesaid Hereticks use in maintenance of their Error Then he sets down his Proofs to the contrary which were the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article which having set down he concludes thus By these and other more it is manifest that the substance of the Bread is turned into the substance of the Body and the substance of the Wine into the substance of the Blood Having thus dispatched that first question in the next Section which is that which the Doctor quotes he comes to a second which is a meer School nicety touching the manner of this substantial change whether it be formal or substantial or of some other kinde And touching that he useth the words quoted by the Doctor I am not able to define it c. Nay and even in that too he quotes him fraudulently to abuse the Reader For these words which he sets down as Peter Lombards argument against the modus substantialis were onely set down as an Objection to which he there gives an answer which the Doctor conceals To which may be answered in this manner that the Body of Christ is not said to be made in that sense as if the Body which was form'd in the Virgins womb were form'd again but because the substance of Bread or Wine which afore was not the Body or Blood of Christ is by the celestial Word made his Body and Blood And a little after Therefore after Consecration there is not the substance of Bread or wine although the species of Bread and Wine remain And to one that should object against this how this can be he answers briefly A mystery of Faith may salubriter be

believed but may not salubriter be searcht into 48. To the same purpose he quotes Durandus as even after the Lateran Council maintaining That even after Consecration the very matter of Bread remained which Durandus maintains not but the contrary for his first conclusion there is The substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood And in the very next words the Doctor himself saith that Durandus saith That by reason of the authority of the Church it is not to be held How then did he hold it All that he there maintain'd was the possibility of it supposing it were true which he saith it is not 49. To the same purpose he quotes Alphonsus de Castro fraudulently as if he had meant of the thing or Doctrine of Transubstantiation Rara est in antiquis scriptoribus mentio when he meant it onely of the name Of the Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of Christ there is rare mention in ancient Writers Of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son much rarer c. yet who but an Heretick will dare to deny these because in ancient Writers they are not mentioned under these names 50. Against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he quotes Justin Martyr The Bread of the Eucharist was a Figure which Christ commanded to do c. when Justin Martyr saith no such thing but onely that the oblation of a Cake in the old Law was a figure of our Eucharist Truly the Oblation also of the Cake was a figure of the Eucharistical Bread which our Lord Jesus Christ commanded to do or make in remembrance of his Passion 51. To the same purpose he quotes Eusebius Demonstrat Evang. l. 1. c. 1. when the first three Chapters of that Book are not extant 52. To the same purpose he quotes another saying of Eusebius The Apostles received a command according of the constitution of the New Testament to make a memory of this Sacrifice upon the Table by the Symbols of his body and healthful blood when he saith not so but thus Seeing therefore we have received the memory of this Sacrifice to be celebrated in certain signs on the Table and the memory of that body and healthful blood as is the institute of the New Testament 53. To the same purpose he quotes S. Macarius In the Church is offered Bread and Wine the antitype of his Flesh and of his Blood when Macarius saith not so but rather the contrary Bread and Wine exhibiting the exemplar or antitype his Flesh and Blood 54. To the same purpose he quotes S. Augustin as denying a real eating of Christs body in the Eucharist but in figure onely when he denied not that but onely the eating it in that gross carnal or sensible manner as the Capernaites conceived as would have appeared had the Doctor set down the words before which he fraudulently suppressed Durum illis c. It seemed hard to them what he said Except ye eat the flesh c. they took it foolishly they understood it carnally and thought that our Lord would cut off some gobbets of his body and give them c. But he instructed the twelve c. understand spiritually what I speak You are not to eat this body which you see c. 55. To the same purpose he quotes S. Augustin lib. 10. cont Faustum as saying That which by all men is called a Sacrifice is the sign of the true Sacrifice c. when S. Aug. hath no such words in that book Sect. 6. 56 57 58. In citing the Decree of the Council of Constance against Communion in both kindes to make it fit his purpose and render it more odious to the Protestant Reader he commits three gross Falsifications and which unless he took not the words out of the Decree himself but upon trust could not but be wilfull For 1. Whereas the Decree recites three Errors and Innovations as the causes of it viz. 1. The maintaining it necessary to communicate the people under both kindes and the practice of that innovation 2. The maintaining that the Eucharist ought to be given after supper 3. Or otherwise to people that were not fasting Whereas in some Countreys some temerariously presume to assert that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kindes and do ordinarily communicate the Lay people under the species of wine also affirm that the people ought to be communicated after supper or otherwise not fasting c. He recites it as made against the first onely concealing the other two fraudulently under a line of pricks Whereas in certain parts of the world some temerariously affirm that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kindes of Bread and Wine and do every where communicate the Laity not onely in Bread but in Wine also ... Hence it is that the Council decrees and defines against this error that although c. 2. That he sets down the Decree as containing an express and direct opposition to the institution of Christ and practice of the Primitive Church for communicating the people under both kindes The Council decrees and defines against this error of giving the Chalice to the Laity that although Christ instituted after supper and administred this venerable Sacrament under both kindes yet this notwithstanding ... And although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received of the faithful under both kindes Here is the acknowledgement both of Christs Institution in both kindes and Christs ministring it in both kindes and the practice of the Primitive Church to give it in both kindes yet the conclusion from these premises is We command that no Priest communicate the people under both kindes The opposition is plain c. Thus far he Whereas in the Decree there is no such thing for these are the words of it Although Christ instituted after supper and administred this venerable Sacrament to his Disciples under both kindes yet this notwithstanding the laudable authority of holy Canons and the approved custom of the Church observes that this Sacrament ought not to be Consecrated after supper nor received of the faithful not fasting unless in case of the Article of death And as this custom was reasonably introduced to avoid some dangers and scandals that although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received under both kindes afterward it came to be received under the species of Bread onely by the Laity it is to be had for a Law which is not lawful to reject or alter without authority of the Church 3. That he sets down these as the words of the Decree We command under the pain of Excommunication that no Priest communicate the people under both kindes whereas in the Decree are no such words for this is all it saith Wherefore to say that it is sacrilegious or unlawful to observe this custom or