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
A35128	Labyrinthvs cantuariensis, or, Doctor Lawd's labyrinth beeing an answer to the late Archbishop of Canterburies relation of a conference between himselfe and Mr. Fisher, etc., wherein the true grounds of the Roman Catholique religion are asserted, the principall controversies betwixt Catholiques and Protestants thoroughly examined, and the Bishops Meandrick windings throughout his whole worke layd open to publique view / by T.C.	Carwell, Thomas, 1600-1664.	1658 (1658)	Wing C721; ESTC R20902	499,353	446

communicating with the Church of England he vnderstands such a beleefe of the English Protestants reall presence as carries with it an express denyall both of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation in the Sacrament how is it possible that a man should be moued to this beleefe by the common consent of Catholiques Lutherans and English Protestants seeing only these last agree in this point That which the Relatour adds to this is no less absurd He cites 〈◊〉 a Catholique diuine as teaching that to beleeue Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to Saluation and triumphs therevpon against Catholiques as if he had ouercome them with their own arms asking A. C. what he can say to this and seems to admire the force of truth which was able to draw this confession from an aduersarie But J answer what matter is it though Suarez had really taught it not to be simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue Transubstantiation were that sufficient ground to say that he agreed with Protestants against the determination of the Roman Church must he needs thinke that Transubstantiation is an errour or noc point of Catholique Fayth because he held it not Simply necessary to Saluation very true it is all Catholiques teach that whatsoeuer is defin'd by the Church is an article of Fayth which may neither be doubted of nor disputed yet no man thinks 't is simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue euery point so defined by an express act A Protestant versed in scripture would thinke it a sinne if he should deny that Moyses his rod was turned into a Serpent yet J conceiue he will hardly say that it is Simply necessary to Saluation or that he is bound absolutely Speaking to beleeue it with an express act of Fayth vnder paine of damnation But the truth is Suarez speaks to no such purpose as the Bishop alledges him He confesses indeed that the manner of explicating the change or conuersion that is made in the B. Sacrament which Schoole-men vse is no necessary part of the doctrine of Fayth in that particular because it depends vpon Physicall and Metaphylicall principles but as for the conuersion it selfe or Transubstantiation it is most euident that he holds it for a point of Fayth which to deny were Heresie His words are these in the section immediately precedent to that which the Bishop quotes Secundò infero etc. Secondly Sayth he J inferre that if a man confess the reall presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as also the absense of bread yet denyes a true conuersion of the substance of bread into the sulstance of Christ Body he falls into Heresie because the Catholique Church hath defined and doth teach not only the two first but also this last what say you to this Protestants you that looke vpon this Bishop as the pillar of your Church was it truth and honestie thinke you that mou'd him thus to misreport an Author of that worth that euen himselfe thought not fitt to mention him without some character of honour They that please to consult the Author himselfe in the place alledged will finde that HOC TOTVM does not signify to beleeue Transubstantiation as the Bishop most falsely and partially renders it but a farre different thing as wee haue sayd aboue His quarrel with Bellarmin is no less impertinent whome he censures forsooth of tediousness and for making as he conceiues an intricate and almost inexplicable discourse aboute an Adductiue conuersion a thing which in the Relatours opinion neither Diuinity nor Philosophy euer heard of till then But let the indifferent reader be Judge Bellarmin explicates his Adductiue Conuersion thus As meate is changed into the substance of mans body by meanes of nutrition and becomes a liuing and animate part of man not because the soule which informs it is de nouo produced in the matter duly prepar'd but because the same soule which was in the body before begins now to be in the new matter so by vertue of this Adductiue Conuersion the bread is turned into the Body of Christ not as if Christs Body were properly speaking produced vnder the elements for it was preexistent before and nothing that is preexistent can in proper sense be sayd to be produced but because it was not there before and begins now to be vnder the elementary forms by vertue of Consecration Lett any man iudge whether this explication be not farre more intelligible then what the Bishop himselfe sayes touching the point of reall presence First of all he affirms with Bishop Ridley and other Protestants cited by him that the true reall naturall and Substantiall Body of Christ that very Body which was born of the Virgin which ascended into Heauen which sitteth on the right hand of God the Father which shall come from thence to iudge the quick and dead is truly really and Substantially in the B. Sacrament and yet for all this denyes both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation that is in effect he will haue Christs Body to be really and Substantially in the Sacrament yet neither with the Substance of bread nor without it He will haue Christs Body to be really in Heauen and really also in very Substance on earth at the same time and yet stiffly denies with all Caluinists that the same Body can by any power be really present in seuerall places at once Is not this to say in effect that Christs Body really is only in Heauen and no where else and yet to acknowledge that at the same time it is really in the Sacrament on earth But who is able to vnderstand and reconcile these speeches His saying that Christs Body is receiu'd spiritually by Fayth by Grace and the like is a plaine contradiction to what he had taught before seeing by these words are only signified a metaphoricall presence which in no true sense can be called reall In my opinion Zuinglius Peter Martyr and those of the Sacramentary party deale faric more candidly in this point who flatly deny and reiect all reall presence both name and thing then the Bishop and some other Protestants alledged by him who confess the name but deny the thing 6. The Catholique Authors which the Relatour hath the confidence to bring in fauour of his Protestant beleefe touching this matter are grossly eyther misunderstood or misexpounded by him For 't is euident when they speake of spirituall Communion they meane for the most part that which is by desire and deuotion only when for want of opportunity or some 〈◊〉 reason wee doe not actually receiue the B. Sacrament but yet doe vse most of those affections and deuoute aspirations of heart towards God and our B. Sauiour which wee are wont to practise when wee doe really communicate Sometimes indeed they discourse of Christs miraculous and ineffable beeing in the Sacrament where he is present not like a bodily substance but rather like a spirit that is whole in the whole consecrated host and whole in euery part of it But sure

say's the Bishop the Romanists will not endure because St. Thomas and the schoole generally agree in it that he went really no further then LIMBVS PATRVM I answer by denying his proposition There is no such agreement of parties as the Bishop pretends though the Church of Rome and the Church of England doe both agree that our Sauiour descended into hell yet they doe not both agree that by hell eyther in the Creed or in all places of Scripture where hell is mentioned is vnderstood the place of the damned Here therfore our aduersarie cleerly disputes ex falso supposito and the argument in truth may be much better retorted vpon himselfe thus Both parties agree that Christ descended into hell but both parties doe not agree that by hell is vnderstood here the place of the damned for the greater and better part of Diuines hold the contrary ergo 't is safer not to beleeue that he descended into the place of the damned then positiuely to assert it as some English Protestants doe His next instance is about the Sacraments beeing receiu'd in both kindes and as little to the purpose as the former For though wee agree that our Sauiour instituted the Sacrament that is made it himselfe and ordain'd it to be made by his Ministers in both kindes yet wee neither agree that he instituted with intention or gaue any command that it should be always receiu'd in both kindes by all the Faythfull nor doe wee grant possibility of Saluation to any that out of priuate Hereticall persuasion holds it ought to be receiu'd by all or out of contempt of the Churches order to the contrary doe receiue it in both kindes Our Sauiour gaue it in one kinde only to the two Disciples at Emmaus Lucae 24. as both St. Austin St. Chrysostome St. Hierome Theophylact and others of the Ancients witness whose example the Church following alwayes allowed the vse and manner of receiuing this Sacrament free as to the Faythfull viz. eyther to receiue it in both kindes if their deuotion inclin'd them thereto or only in one in case they desired no more till of later times the custome of receiuing it in forme of bread only growing more generall and inconueniences of receiuing it in both kindes multiplying the Council of Constance totally abrogated the manner of receiuing it in forme of wine and inioyn'd what is now in vse Whence likewise it appeares 't was not iniuriously as the Bishop pretends but iustly requir'd of the Bohemians not to condemne the practice of the Church for receiuing in one kinde when she dispensed with them to receiue in both To what he obiects against the doctrine of concomitancy inuented as he sayes by St. Thomas of Aquin and contrary to truth for that the Eucharist is a Saerament of Bloud shed and powred forth and not of Bloud contained in the Body I answer that howeuer the term it selfe might perhaps be first vsed by the Angelicall Doctour yet the thing thereby signify'd was always the constant doctrine of the Catholique Church which euer taught that by Consecration vnder each species the entire Sacrament or whole Christ was putt and therfore vnder each of them as well the Body as the Bloud and as well the Bloud as the Body was contain'd notwithstanding it be certaine that the precise words in the Consecration of bread express noe more then Christs Body nor those vsed in the Consecration of the chalice any more then Christs Bloud Wherfore to shew what is in the Sacrament by force of the precise words of Consecration and what by vertue of naturall connexion or vnion Diuines commonly make vse of this distinction ex vi verborum and per Concomitantiam Ex vi verborum or by vertue of the precise words of Consecration Christs Body only is vnder the forme of bread and his Bloud only vnder the forme of wine but per Concomitantiam by reason of naturall connexion or vnion wherby the parts of Christs Humanity are neuer to be diuided one from an other the Bloud is vnder the forme of bread also and his Body vnder the forme of wine and his foule and diuinity or Godhead vnder both And this the Bishop must grant if he hold the reall presence except he would haue vs thinke that Christ is dead in the Sacrament contrary to St. Paul who plainly tolls vs Rom. 6. 9. He dyes no more As for the Priest that consecrates there is a double necessity for him to receiue vnder both kindes The first is gathered from Christs words spoken to his Apostles at the institution of this Sacrament and interpreted to vs by the vniuersall doctrine and practice of the Church The second grounded vpon the nature of the thing which is not only a Sacrament to be distributed amonge the Faythfull but a true proper and perfect Sacrifice representing that vpon the Cross where not only Christs Body was Crucifyed but also his Bloud was shed for vs. And therfore the Priest who offers this Sacrifice of the Altar must not only consecrate in both kindes but receiue in both kindes to compleate the sacrifice His third instance is about the Commemoratiue Sacrifice in the Eucharist wherein he pretends that they and wee agree But this is false speaking in the Protestants sense or of such a Commemoratiue Sacrifice as excludes that which is reall and proper Where did Catholiques euer agree with Protestants that it was not 〈◊〉 sin in them to deny the true reall and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Eucharist or that they might be saued acknowledging only such a Commemoratiue Sacrifice in the Eucharist as they doe Lett one only Author of the Roman Church be named who teaches this or that bread broken and wine powred out vnderstanding naturall and substantiall bread and wine as the Bishop must doe according to Protestant principles were in true and proper sense a Commemoratiue Sacrifice amongst Christians For this were to say in effect that Christians vnder the Gospell did really Sacrifice to God naturall bread and wine and therby adde another Sacrifice to that of Christs Body which were a very gross errour In his fourth about the intention of the Priest in Baptisme he lapses againe For what wee agree with Protestants in wee stand to as most safe to be done in order to Saluation Now this is only in the present case that due matter and forme must necessarily be vsed for the validity of Baptisme Doe any of vs or can any man deny but it is safer in order to Saluation to vse due matter and forme in the Sacrament of Baptisme then not to vse them The Bishop indeed would gather from hence that wee must also account due matter and forme sufficient without intention But this is more then the rule obliges vs to doe The rule certainly bindes A. C. to no more then to acknowledge the thing wherein differing parties agree to be saser then the contrary or negatiue of it which wee doe