Selected quad for the lemma: opinion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
opinion_n	body_n	bread_n	consecration_n	586	5	10.7324	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56393	Reasons for abrogating the test imposed upon all members of Parliament, anno 1678, Octob. 30 in these words, I A.B. do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testifie, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at, or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever, and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous : first written for the author's own satisfaction, and now published for the benefit of all others whom it may concern.	Parker, Samuel, 1640-1688.	1688 (1688)	Wing P467; ESTC R5001	62,716	138

appeal to the Honourable Members of both Houses if when they consider seriously with themselves they have any distinct Idea or Notion in their minds of the thing they here so solemnly renounce I fansie if every Man were obliged to give his own account of it whatever Transubstantiation may be it would certainly be Babel The two Fathers or rather Mid-wifes of the first Transubstantiation Test in the Year 1673. were the two famous Burgesses of Oxon who brought it forth without so much as consulting their learned Vniversity How much the Gentleman Burgess understood I can only guess but I am very apt to believe that his Brother the Alderman if the Tryal were made cannot so much as pronounce the word much less hammer out the Notion In short there seems to be but a prophane Levity in the whole matter and a shameless abuse put upon God and Religion to carry on the wicked designs of a Rebel Faction as the Event hath proved But for the true state of this Matter I find my self obliged to give a brief historical Account of the Rise and Progress of this Controversie of Transubstantiation which when I have done the result and summ of the account will be that there is no one thing in which Christendom more both agrees and disagrees All parties consent in the thing and differ in the manner And here the History will branch it self into Two parts I. As the Matter is stated in the Church of Rome II. As it hath been determined in the Protestant Churches Where the first part will sub-divide it self into Two other branches 1st The Ecclesiastical account of the thing that is the Authoritative Definitions and Determinations of the Church about it And 2ly The Scholastical account or the various Disputes of the School-men among themselves in their Cells and Cloysters none of which were ever vouched by the Authority of the Church And when I have represented the whole matter of Fact I may safely leave it to the Honour and Wisdom of the Nation to judge whether of all things in the World Transubstantiation be not the unfittest thing in it to set up for a State TEST In the first place then it is evident to all Men that are but ordinarily conversant in Ecclesiastical Learning That the ancient Fathers from Age to Age asserted the real and substantial Presence in very high and expressive terms The Greeks stiled it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Latins agreeable with the Greeks Conversion Transmutation Transformation Transfiguration Transelementation and at length Transubstantiation By all which they expressed nothing more nor less than the real and substantial Presence in the Eucharist But to represent their Assertions at large would require much too long a Discourse for this short Essay And therefore I shall only give an account of it from the time that it first became a Controversie And the first Man that made it a publick Dispute was Berengarius Archdeacon of Anger 's in the Eleventh Century about the Year 1047 who pleaded in his own behalf the Authority of a learned Man Iohannes Scotus Erigena who passed without Censure in the Ninth Century but to pass him by it is certain that Berengarius publickly denyed the Doctrine of the Real and Substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ and resolved the whole Mystery into a mere Type and Figure for this he is condemned of Heresie in the Year 1050 in a Council at Rome under Leo the Ninth and in the same Year in a Synod at Verselles and another at Paris and afterwards by Victor the Second in the Year 1055. Upon which Berengarius in a Council held at Tours in the same Year submitted and solemnly recanted his Opinion But soon relapsing Pope Nicholas the Second summons a Council at Rome of 113 Bishops in the Year 1059 where Berengarius abjures his Opinion in this form viz. That he Anathematizes that Opinion that asserts That the Bread and Wine after the Consecration upon the Altar is only a Sacrament and not the true Body and Blood of our Lord Iesus Christ and that it is not sensibly handled and broke by the Priest's hands and so eaten by the Communicants And this declaration he seals with an Oath to the blessed Trinity upon the Evangelists But upon the Death of Pope Nicholas or rather of King Henry the First of France a vehement Enemy of Berengarius his Doctrine who therefore had summoned the fore-mentioned several French Councils against him Berengarius returns to his old Principles and publickly justifies them in writing to the World. For which he is censured by several Provincial Councils But then Gregory the Seventh succeeding in the Apostolick See calls a Council at Rome in the Year 1078 in which Berengarius abjures again much after the same form with the former abjuration But Pope Gregory not satisfied with the same general Confession of the substantial Presence that he had already eluded in a second Council held the Year following he imposes this From of Recantation upon him I Berengarius believe in my Heart and confess with my Mouth That the things upon the Altar by virtue of Prayer and Consecration are changed into the true and proper Flesh and Blood of Christ and are the true Body of Christ that was born of a Virgin and sacrificed upon the Cross for the Salvation of the World and that sits at the right hand of the Father and the true Blood of Christ that was shed out of his side not only as a sacramental Sign but in propriety of Nature and reality of Substance This is indeed a pretty bold Assertion of the substantial Presence but as to the Modus of it it is evident that he durst not venture to desine it as himself declares in his Commentaries upon the Gospels where after having recited several Opinions about it he concludes But these several surmises I shall not pursue it is enough that the substance of the Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ but as to the Modus of the Conversion I am not ashamed to confess my Ignorance And so ended this Controversie at that time Berengarius ever after living peaceably and about Eight Years after dying in the Communion of the Church But about this time Aristotle's Philosophy was brought into Europe out of Arabia as it was translated into the Arabick Tongue by Averroes Avicenna and others and out of them translated into Latin for the Greek Language was at that time utterly lost in those Western parts of the World. This being then a mighty novelty the School-men that were the only pretenders to Learning at that time embraced it with a greedy and implicit Faith supposing it the very Gospel of all Philosophick Knowledge and therefore set themselves to mix and blend it with the Doctrines of the Christian Schools and by its Rules and Maxims to Explain all the Articles of the Christian Faith. Among the rest he had one very odd