Selected quad for the lemma: virtue_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
virtue_n	body_n	bread_n	consecration_n	998	5	11.2061	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07192	Of the consecration of the bishops in the Church of England with their succession, iurisdiction, and other things incident to their calling: as also of the ordination of priests and deacons. Fiue bookes: wherein they are cleared from the slanders and odious imputations of Bellarmine, Sanders, Bristow, Harding, Allen, Stapleton, Parsons, Kellison, Eudemon, Becanus, and other romanists: and iustified to containe nothing contrary to the Scriptures, councels, Fathers, or approued examples of primitiue antiquitie. By Francis Mason, Batchelour of Diuinitie, and sometimes fellow of Merton Colledge in Oxeford.	Mason, Francis, 1566?-1621.	1613 (1613)	STC 17597; ESTC S114294	344,300	282

the action of Baptizing still remaineth water in substance so the Bread and Wine still retaine their former substance euen after the blessing For Christ did breake the Bread after he had blessed it yet still it was Bread as the Apostle witnesseth saying the Bread that we breake Yea the Communicants doe eate it after it is broken and still it is Bread euen in the mouthes of the Communicants For S. Paul saith Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this Bread Neither is it called Bread because it was bread but because it is Bread not in name onely but in nature and properties For after Consecration it nourisheth the body as before it is subiect to fall vpon the ground to bee eaten of Mice to bee deuoured of Beastes to bee burned in the fire to bee turned to ashes and to suffer putrifaction which cannot be affirmed of the body of Christ because that holy one shall not see corruption so the wine after Consecration doth not onely nourish and comfort the heart but if the Priest drinke too much of it it will intoxicate his braine yea and if it bee kept too long it will bee turned to vinegar and putrifie All which things doe argue that the elements doe still retaine the true nature and substance of Bread and Wine and are not changed into the body and blood of Christ in corporall manner by vertue of the blessing But that wee may vnderstand this the better I pray you tell me what is meant by the blessing PHIL. THe blessing is the same with Consecration and was performed in these wordes this is my Body ORTHOD. The Scripture expounds blessing by thankesgiuing For Saint Matthew Saint Luke and Saint Paul say that when Christ had giuen thankes hee brake the bread Saint Marke saith that when he had blessed hee brake it So Matthew Marke Luke and Paul say that when Christ had giuen thankes he gaue the Cuppe and mention not the blessing of it Yet Saint Paul elsewhere calleth it the Cuppe of blessing Likewise whereas Saint Luke saith that Christ tooke the fiue loaues and the two fishes and looked vp to heauen and blessed them Saint Iohn saith that Iesus tooke the bread and gaue thankes whereby it is euident that the holy Ghost vseth the word blessing and thankesgiuing indifferently But withall we must obserue that vnder the word thankesgiuing is comprehended prayer As when the Apostle teacheth vs to receiue the creature with thankesgiuing he renders this reason because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer Where it is plaine that thankesgiuing in the former place comprehendeth prayer and the word Prayer vsed in the latter place comprehendeth thankesgiuing as though the Apostle should haue said we on our part must receiue the creature with prayer and thankesgiuing because it is sanctified as on Gods part by his word and ordinance so on our part by prayer and thankesgiuing Secondly we must obserue that the creature may be sanctified to a double vse That is either corporall or spirituall and to both by prayer and thankesgiuing Thirdly that the sanctifying of a creature is in the Scripture called blessing as when it is said the Lord blessed the seuenth day and sanctified it Now our Lord Iesus intending to institute a Sacrament tooke the bread and gaue thankes not only for the bread but especially for the redemption of the Church and praied that these elements of Bread and Wine might be euerlastingly sanctified to Sacramentall vse thus the Bread and Wine were blessed And whereas you with Bellarmine and others say that this blessing was performed by these wordes this is my Body it cannot bee For the blessing was finished before those words were vttered Saint Marke saith that when he had blessed the Bread hee brake it by which it is euident that the blessing was accomplished before the bread was broken it is manifest that he brake it before he gaue it therefore the blessing was finished before the Bread was giuen But he gaue it saying take eate this is my body therefore the blessing was finished before he said this is my body Now how is it possible that he should blesse by those wordes seeing the blessing was fully ended before those words were begunne Wherefore Cardinall Caietan doth rightly call it benedictionem laudis non Consecrationis i. the blessing of praise and not of Consecration But if we should imagine that he blessed by saying this is my body would not this imagination inuert the order of the actions of Christ PHIL. THere are many Hysterologies in holy Scripture and therefore no maruell if there be one here Now the words and actions of Christ reduced to their naturall Methode are thus to be ordered Hee tooke the Bread and when he had blessed saying this is my body hee brake it and gaue it saying take and eate ORTHOD. Aquinas sayth that these wordes were vttered non consequenter sed concomitanter meaning that he blessed by these wordes this is my body yet so that the wordes were in pronouncing all the while that he brake and gaue the Bread But this vanisheth of it selfe because as hath beene proued out of the text the blessing was finished before the wordes were begunne Cardinall Bessarion ordereth them thus hee tooke the bread and when he had blessed saying take eate this is my body he brake it and gaue it But this may also be confuted by the same reason and moreouer it containeth an absurditie for so he should bid them take it before hee gaue it And thirdly if hee blessed saying take eate this is my body then take and eate are wordes of blessing as well as this is my body Now you with Durantus order them thus he tooke the bread and when he had blessed saying this is my body he brake it and gaue it and saide take and eate but this is also confuted by the same argument drawne from the blessing Secondly the word saying which is but once in the Text by ordering them thus is vsed twice Thirdly the words Take eate which Christ vsed first are put last Fourthly whereas Christ spake all in one continuall sentence the sentence is dismembred and torne into two These inconueniences your owne Doctors Sotus and Caietanus did see and auoid For as your learned Archbishop affirmeth in his Epistle to Pope Sixtus Quintus Hi tenent eundem fuisse ordinem rerum narrationis Euangelicae That is They hold that the actions of Christ were done in the same order wherein they are reported by the Euangelists But let vs feigne that the words and actions are to be ordered as you would haue them yet notwithstanding by the word hoc must needs be meant the Bread for if he tooke the bread and blessed it saying Thus is my body what can be meant by the Pronoune thus but onely this bread PHIL. THe Pronoune this cannot

offered in himselfe and he is daily offered in the sacrament because in the sacrament there is a memoriall made of that which was done once PHIL. ONely a memoriall Nay I will prooue that there is truely and properly a sacrifice for there are three things wherein the essence of a true and reall sacrifice cōsisteth First of common it must be made holy Secondly being made holy it must be offered to God Thirdly That which is offered must be ordained to a true reall and externall mutation and destruction ORTHOD. Then let vs consider whether these three things bee found in the Eucharist and first it is euident that Bread and Wine of common are made holy euen the body and blood of Christ Sacramentally but if Bread and Wine be the sacrifice then earthly elements are offered for the redemption of the Church which once to imagine were horrible impiety PHIL. That which of common is so made holy that it remaineth and that onely without doubt is properly sacrificed but the substance of the Bread and Wine doe not remaine and therefore they are not the sacrifice ORTHOD. That they doe remaine hath beene alreadie proued and therefore if that be the sacrifice which of common is so made holy that it remaineth then a piece of bread shal be the sacrifice for the sinnes of the world But if we should faigne that the substance of the elements were taken away and that the body and blood of Christ were corporally and carnally vnder the formes of Bread and Wine yet you could not proue your sacrifice for where doe you find the second point that is oblation PHIL. Deo offertur dum in altari dei collocatur Nam victimam in altari ponere est reipsa illam deo offerre quia vi consecrationis fit vt corpus Christi sanguis incipiat reipsa esse super altare mediante manu Sacerdotis ideo verbis consecrationis vera solennis oblatio celebratur that is It is offered to God while it is placed vpon the Altar of God For to lay the sacrifice vpon the Altar is in very deed to offer it vnto God and because it commeth to passe by the force of Consecration that the bodie and blood of Christ beginne to bee reallie vpon the Altar by the meanes of the Priests hand therefore a true and solemne oblation is celebrated by the words of Consecration ORTHOD. First if by the words of Consecration the body and blood of Christ beginne to bee really vpon the Altar then it is by meanes of the Priests tongue and not of the Priests hand Secondly it is one thing to lay the sacrifice vpon the Altar and an other thing really to offer it as may appeare by the wordes of the Scripture And when they came to the place which God had shewed him Abraham builded an Altar there and couched the wood and bound Izhak his sonne and laied him on the Altar vpon the wood Here the sacrifice was really laide vpon the Altar but it cannot bee said that hee was really sacrificed or offered for a burnt offering but onely in Abrahams intention and Gods acceptation Thirdly if the sacrifice bee the body and blood then seeing by your owne doctrine the bodie and bloud are not vpon the Altar til the words of Consecration be finished it followeth that there is no sacrifice till the Consecration be finished and consequently there is no oblation of the sacrifice begunne before the Consecration bee finished Now if the oblation beginne after the Consecration is ended then is it not celebrated by the wordes of Consecration vnlesse you will say that an oblation may bee celebrated before it bee and that a thing is ended before it beginne But let vs faigne that the body and blood of Christ were properly offered to God by the words of Consecration yet you cannot thence conclude a sacrifice For you required a third condition in a sacrifice that is the destruction of the thing sacrificed PHIL. The thing which is offered is ordered by Consecration to a true reall and externall mutation and destruction which is necessary to the beeing of a Sacrifice For to a true sacrifice there is required that the thing offered in Sacrifice bee plainely destroied that is So changed that it ceaseth to bee that which it was before ORTHOD. How were the sacrifices to be destroied PHIL. If they bee liuing things by killing if without life and solid as meale salt and frankincense they were to be destroied by burning if liquid as blood wine and water they were to be destroied by effusion or pouring out ORTHOD. Then it will follow from your owne positions that if Christ bee aliue in the Eucharist either the Priest doth not Sacrifice him or else he killeth him before hee sacrifice him and consequently either there are no sacrifising Priests in the New Testament except Christ onely or if there bee any they are all murtherers and killers of Christ. If you say that Christ is in the Eucharist and yet not aliue how can this bee Is not Christ in the Eucharist now as hee was at the first institution When Christ said this is my bodie his bodie was then aliue and now also is liuing in Heauen PHIL. The whole Church teacheth as it appeareth by the Councell of Trent that not onely the Body and blood but also the soule and diuinity yea and whole Christ is in the Eucharist but it is certaine that the soule and diuinity are not in the Eucharist by vertue of the Consecration but onely by naturall concomitance because where the one is there the other must needs be vnited with it ORTHOD. If the soule bee vnited with it then it is aliue and then it is either no Sacrifice or else the former absurdities follow and if the bodie should bee without life in the Eucharist then according to your positions seeing it is a thing solid it cannot bee a Sacrifice vnlesse it bee plainelie destroied by burning if it bee capable of burning or destroying it is not corporallie the bodie of Christ For the holie one shall not see corruption and if it bee not destroyed then you confesse that it is no Sacrifice so euery way you are intangled But seeing you hold this to bee a Sacrifice and that euery Sacrifice must be consumed therefore you must tell vs how this is consumed PHIL. It is consumed and destroied by eating ORTHOD. The people doe eate it as well as the Priests shall they also be sacrificers PHIL. As it is performed by the people it is no part of the Sacrifice but as it is performed by the Priest it is an essentiall part ORTHOD. Doe your Priestes eate Christ properly or improperlie if improperlie then how is the sacrifice consumed For if it bee consumed onely by eating and you doe not eate it but improperly then it is not consumed but onely improperly and seeing you hold this consuming to bee of

conscience are suerties for the freedome of their choice These are the sayings of the learned Bishop among which he interlaced a memorable example of Guntchrannus King of France who when one offered him money for a Bishoprick returned this answere It is not our Princely maner to sell Bishopricks for money neither is it your part to get them with rewards lest wee be infamed for silthy gaine and you compared to Simon Magus A fit Embleame for a Prince and worthy to be written in letters of Gold Most safely for how dangerous a thing it is to commit such matters to popular Elections the Primitiue Church had lamentable experience What vprores also followed the Elections by the Clergie alone let the longest Schisme that euer was in the Church of Rome testifie And for the Popes prouisions whereby hee hath incroached vpon the Princes right they haue bene such as haue giuen both Kings Nobles Clergie and people iust cause of lamentation But since the nomination rested in the Princes hands all tumults and grieuances Gods Name be blessed are vtterly extinguished Now I will adde a word or two of their singular moderation in this behalfe In ancient time our Kings had the collation before free Election was granted as was declared out of the Statute of Edward the 3. whereby it is manifest that they had then in themselues a plenarie power And though this were not without presidents of former ages yet as Charles the Great granted freedome of Elections vnto the Church so haue our Princes established the like by the Lawes of the land according to which they proceed most mildly and graciously doing all things agreeably to the patterne of famous Princes and laudable Canons of ancient Councels With vs the King hath the nomination of Bishops and so had good Theodosius as was plainely to bee seene in the aduancing of Nectarius With vs the Deane and Chapter make the election of their Bishop and so did the Presbyters of Alexandria in Saint Ieroms time which custome had continued there euer since the time of Saint Marke the Euangelist With vs the Deane and Chapter elect him whom the king hath nominated So the Clergie of Constantinople with the whole generall Councell there assembled did thinke it their duetie solemnely to elect Nectarius whom the Emperour had nominated With vs the electours signifie their election to the king humbly crauing his royall assent so the Romane Clergie 1000. yeeres agoe did vse to signifie their election to the Emperour that he might ratifie it by his Imperiall authority And because the ancient Canons giue the power of confirmation to the Metropolitane therefore our King granteth him a commission to confirme the election according to the Canon Finally with vs none can bee consecrated before the king giue commission by his letters pattents neither might the Bishops of Rome in ancient time till the Emperour gaue license and that as Onuphrius saith by his letters pattents Where yet I will confesse there was a difference because the Popes gaue money vnto the Emperour but our Bishops giue none vnto the King Thus much of elections CHAP. XIII How lamentable the State of England was when Bishopricks and Benefices were giuen by the Popes prouisions PHIL. WEE referre all men to the pondering of this one point specially amongst many concerning the nominations and elections of Bishops Abbats and other Prelats whether the world went not as well when such things passed by Canonicall election or the Popes prouision as it hath don since or euer hereafter is like to doe ORTHOD. Concerning the Popes prouisions this is most certaine that howsoeuer the Church of God was prouided for hee prouided for himselfe and licked his owne fingers For the demonstration whereof I will beginne with king Canutus who about the yeere of grace 1031. Returning from Rome wrote thus to the Archbishops Bishops and States of the Realme Conquestus sum iterum coram domino papa mihi valde displicere dixi quod mei Archiepiscopi in tantum angariebantur immensitate pecuniarum quae ab eis expet●bantur dum pro pallio accipi●ndo secundum morem sedem Apostolicam expeterent decretumque ne id deinceps fiat that is I complained againe before the Lord the Pope and told him that it displeased me much that my Archbishops were so much vexed with huge sums of money which were demaunded of them while for receiuing the palle they went according to custome to the See Apostolike and it was decreed that it should be so no more Here by the way you must vnderstand that a Palle is a little ●yppet three fingers broad made of the wool of two white Lambs which are offered vpō the Altar of Saint Agnes while Agnus dei is sung in the solemn Masse and laied all night vpon the bodies of Peter and Paul vnder the great Altar from whence receiuing this vertue to containe the fulnesse of all pontificall power it becommeth the Ensigne of a Patriarch or Archbishop Which glorious ensigne who will weare Must fetch it farre and buy it deare In the daies of Henry the first when Anselmus was at Rome he made supplication to Pope Paschall the second for certaine Bishops and Abbats deposed whereupon saith Mathew Paris The most gentle See which vseth to bee wanting to none so they bring either white or red did mercifullie recall the said Bishops and Abbats and sent them with ioy to their owne Sees In the daies of Richard the first Hugh Bishop of Durham who of an old Bishop was become a young Earle hauing made a voluntary vow to goe to Ierusalem procured a dispensation from the Pope for which hee paied an infinit summe of money In the daies of the same king William Bishop of Ely was made Legat by a gentle Pope vpon the gentle consideration of a thousand pounds In the daies of king Iohn Pope Innocent the third went about to swallow all England and Ireland at a morsell For Hubertus Archbishop of Canterbury being dead the Monkes elected first Reinold their subprior and afterward at the kings request Iohn Gray Bishop of Norwich by means of which double election the Pope tooke occasion to disanull both charging the Canterb. Monkes then at Rome vnder paine of a curse to chuse Steuen Langton a Cardinal which they did and brought him vnto the Altar with a Te deum The king proclamed those Monkes traytors the rest that lurked at Canterb hee prescribed and banished he forbad Steuen Langton to come into England and confiscated the goods and lands both of the Archbishoprik of the Church of Canterb whereupon the Pope authorised certaine Bishops to interdict the kingdome excommunicated the king set out a sentence declaratory to depriue him and committed the execution of it to Philip the French king By which papall meanes bereaft of the loue of his people abandoned of his nobles hated of his Clergie forsaken of his friends behold hee