Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	blood_n	body_n	eucharist_n	2,932	5	10.6147	5	false

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

the Sea Apostolique touching the matter and by consequence doe not in this case so fully represent the chiefe Pastour of the Church but that this further confirmation is necessary Jn this therfore and in all other like cases 't is necessary that the Pope doe actually confirme the Decrees of Generall Councils to make them infallible or that it may be infallibly certaine to vs that such or such a Generall Council err'd not in any of its definitions concerning matter of Fayth So that Exclusiuely to the Popes consent or confirmation wee can neuer be infallibly certain which hath happened till the Pope ioynes and adds his confirmation to the Decree of the Council Wee may express the matter in some sort by the kings consent to Acts of Parlament Le Roy veut added to a Bill presented from both Howses makes it a binding Law to the whole kingdome which before it was not Soe the Popes consent or confirmation added to the definitions of Generall Councils makes them articles of Christian Beleefe no longer now to be questioned much less contradicted by any but absolutely to be beleeu'd with infallible Fayth Now this presupposed wee answer the Relatours argument directly thus To the first part of it if the Councill erred c. wee agree with him the Pope ought not to confirme the Decree adding more ouer that it is impossible he should confirme it And to the second viz. that if it erred not then the definition was true before the Pope confirm'd it wee confess this also for the Popes confirmation makes not the definition to be true in it selfe but it makes vs infallibly certaine that it is true Gods Reuelation it selfe towitt of the things deliuer'd in scripture makes them not to be true in themselues for so they are and were whether he had reuealed them or no but it makes them infallible truths to vs or such truths as both may and must be infallibly beleeu'd by Christians So wee say the doctrine of Generall Councils was true in it selfe before the Popes confirmation but it was not so sufficiently and infallibly declar'd that it could be beleeu'd with an act of true Christian Fayth that Prerogatiue belonging to Decrees of Generall Councils only as they include the Head of the Church and not otherwise But whereas then the Bishop inferrs that the Popes confirmation adds nothing but only his own consent to the Councils decree wee vtterly deny the consequence especially vnderstanding it in the Relatours sense viz. for no more then the Assent of some other single Bishop or Patriarch For wee auerre that it is the assent of the Chiefe Pastour of the Church absolutely necessary to the compleating and giuing full force to the acts of such Councils and also that it 〈◊〉 infallibility or absolute Certaintie of truth to all their decrees in matter of Fayth which surely is more then nothing 3. Well But now the Relatour aduances againe with his instances to witt of pretended errours in the doctrine of Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope thence concluding against vs that euen the Popes confirmation doth not make the doctrine of such Councils infallible The errour 〈◊〉 obiects is against the Council of Lateran confirm'd by Pope Innocent the Third where it teacheth that Christ is present by way of Transubstantiation which as the Bishop affirms was neuer heard of in the Church before this Council nor can it Sayth he be prou'd by Scripture and taken properly is inconsistent with the grounds of Christian religion But first what a strange manner of proceeding is this to assert a point of so great importance without soluing or so much as taking notice of the pregnant proofs our Authours bring both out of scripture and Fathers to the contrary of what he so mainly affirmes The Relatour should not haue sayd but prou'd that Transubstantiation is an errour contrary to scripture and not consistent with the grounds of Christian Religion at least he should haue cleer'd his own Assertion and in some manner or other haue explain'd how Transubstantiation may be taken improperly as his words insinuate But surely this was a conception of the Bishops so new and singular that 't will hardly finde any defendants Of all the words which the Church vseth to express her sense of the Mysteries of true Religion there is none methinks less apt to be peruerted to a Metaphoricall or Figuratiue sense then this of Transubstantiation Wee deny not but this terme or word Transubstantiation was first publiquely Authoris'd in the sayd Council of 〈◊〉 as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherby our Sauiours Eternall and Consubstantiall Deity is signifyed was in the Council of Nice and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in like manner expresses the Mystery of his Diuine Incarnation was in the Council of Ephesus But for the thing it selfe signified by this terme which is a reall conversion of the substance of bread into the Body of Christ and of wine into his Bloud 't is cleere enough that it was euer held for a Diuine Truth Witness S. Cyprian or at least an Author of those first ages of the Church who speaking of the Sacrament of the Eucharist sayth This common Bread CHANG'D JNTO FLESH AND BLOVD giueth life and againe The Bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples BEEING CHANG'D not in its outward forme or semblance but in its inward NATVRE or substance for so the word Nature must and doth always signifie when 't is oppos'd to the Accidents or Qualities of any thing by the Omnipotency of the word IS MADE FLESH Witness St. Gregory Nyssen With good reason doe wee beleeue sayth he that the Bread of the Eucharist beeing Sanctifyed by Gods word viz. the words of Consecration is CHANG'D into the Body OF THE WORD-GOD and a little after The nature of the things wee see beeing TRANSELEMENTED into him What can here be fignify'd by Transelementation of the nature of the outward Element but what the Church now stileth Transubstantiation Witness S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in these words He that changed water into wine by his sole will at Cana in Galilee doth he not deserue our Beleefe that he hath also changed wine into Blou'd wherfore let vs receiue with all assurance of Fayth the Body and Bloud of Iesus Christ Seeing vnder the SPECIES or Forme of Bread THE BODY IS GIVEN and vnder the SPECIES or Forme of wine HIS BLOVD IS GIVEN c. knowing and holding for certaine that the bread which wee see IS NOT BREAD though it SEEME TO THE TAST to be Bread but THE BODY of Iesus Christ likewise that the wine which wee see though to the sense it SEEME to be wine is NOT WINE for all that but the Bloud of Iesus Christ. Were it possible for a Catholique to express his own or the Churches beleefe of this Mystery in more full plaine and effectuall terms witness also S. Ambrose who speaking of the Eucharist rightly consecrated sayth IT IS

NO LONGER that which Nature fram'd viz. bread and wine but that which the Benediction of Consecration hath made it to be What 's that but the Body and Bloud of Christ adding further thus you will say perhaps I see an other thing Why do you tell me Jreceiue the Body of Iesus Christ How many Examples haue wee to proue that the force of Benediction is greater then that of Nature seeing that by Benediction euen nature it selfe is often changed Againe also This bread is bread before the words of the Sacrament but when Consecration comes OF BREAD IT IS MADE THE FLESH OF CHRIST They that desire to see more testimonies to confirme this truth may finde them in Bellarmin libr. 3. de Eucharist cap 20. and in diuerse other Catholique Authours Euen the words of scripture it selfe taken in their proper and literall sense doe euidently shew that the only substance which is deliuer'd in this Sacrament is the Body of Christ and that the substance of bread is no more there For as he that pointing to an hogs-head of wine sayes this is wine and he that holding vp a purse-full of money says this is gold if he intends to speake truth must signify that the only liquour contain'd sub propria forma in the hogs-head is wine and all the money in the purse gold so our Sauiour Christ by saying this is my Body must giue vs to vnderstand that all the substance contained vnder the accidents he shew'd was his Body which could not be true vnless the substance of bread were changed into Christs Body or ceased to be in the Sacrament There 's a great deale of difference between these two propositions here is gold and this is gold He that holds a handfull of money of which halfe is gold and halfe syluer may truly say here is gold but he cannot truly say this is gold So is it in the B. Sacrament If there were both the substance of bread and of the Body of Christ in it wee might truly say shewing the Sacrament here is the Body of Christ or this is bread and the Body of Christ but not this is the Body of Christ. Seeing therfore our Sauiour at this last supper speaking of the Sacrament sayd this is my Body the meaning of his words must needs be that in what he then shewed there was no other substance but that of his Body whence it followes that there was a true conuersion of the substance of the bread which ceased to be any longer vnder the species of bread into the Body of Christ. 4. An other pretended errourof a Generall Council confirm'd by the Pope is that of administring the B. Sacrament to the Layty vnder one kinde only of which wee hauc already spoken what may suffice in the precedent chapter Neuertheless to that little which the Relatour adds here wee answer briefly The authority of St. Thomas brought by the Bishop makes rather for vs then against vs. For he tells vs 't was a custome prouidently obserued in some Churches not to giue the Sacrament in forme of wine to the Laity His words are Prouidè in quibusdam Ecclesijs obseruatur vt populo Sanguis non detur This Prouision was made to auoyd the danger of spilling and other inconueniences which likewife mou'd the Council of Constance to make a Generall Decree to the same purpose although it be certain that not only in St. Thomas his time but in all times of the Church it were both publiquely allowed and commonly by some practised euen in Churches to receiue vnder one kinde only For otherwise how is it possible that the Manichees who by the principles of their Heresie neuer dranke wine nor communicated vnder the Forme of wine should yet finde liberty and opportunity to Communicate amongst Catholiques in Catholique Churches without beeing perceiu'd as 't is certaine they frequently did in St. Leo's time and after Likewife t is euident that all Heremites in the wildernefs communicated often vnder one kinde only So did trauellers in their iourneyes Sicke persons in their beds and others at home in their howses Lastly Children in the Church and little infants at home in their cradles in forme of wine only Wee grant that in ancient times when the number of Christians was but small it was the ordinary custome for all that would the Laity as well as others to receiue the Eucharist in both kindes but wee auerre this custome proceeded meerly out of free denotion and not out of any beleefe that it was absolutely necessary so to doe by vertue of Christs precept or that it was contrary to the substance of Christs institution to doe otherwise This therfore euinces not that which the Bishop was obliged to proue namely that receiuing vnder one kinde only is an errour contrary to the institution and intention of Christ but rather the contrary to that is manifest from the practice of the Church which always euen in the first fiue or six hundred years allowed it publiquely to be taken vnder the forme of bread only and that as well in the Church as out of it as Bellarmin likewise more largely shews lib. 4. de Eucharist cap. 24. Whose authorities the Bishop shoul haue taken notice of and not thought it sufficient only to say this and that is an errour and contrary to Christs institution without shew of proofe For wee tell him the vniuersall practice of the Church is a better interpreter of Christs institution then the Bishop or any priuate person whatsoeuer and so wee doubt not but all sober-minded Christians not too much peruerted with Hereticall preiudice will in time acknowledge Howeuer the Relatour by his silence as to this particular giues vs leaue to goe on and consider his fourth obiected errour viz. Inuocation of Saynts to which he adds a fift also Adoration or worship of Images both of them wee confess beeing points admitted and defin'd by the Council of Trent which the Pope confirm'd 5. Against the Jnuocation of Saynts he tells vs in the first place that what the Fathers haue in fauour of it is only Rhetoricall flourishes for the stirring vp of deuotion as they thought Very good When the Fathers deliuer Propositions soe cleerly for vs that it is not possible for our aduersaries to wrest them to any contrary sense then all 's but Rhetorique and Hyperbolicall straines of 〈◊〉 but when they speake any thing that beares some shew against vs then they are dogmaticall that 's positiue Diuinity and the reall sense of the Fathers Is not this faire dealing But in the meane time how can it seeme to any that duly considers it but most extreamely partiall and strange to terme so many exhortations so many plaine and positiue assertions so many instances examples histories reports and the like which the Fathers frequently vse and afford in this kinde and that vpon occasions wherein dogmaticall and plaine deliuery of Christian doctrine and truth is expected

other Councils named by Bellarmin But I answer our dispute is about lawfull Generall Councils confirm'd by the Pope such as neither of these were nor any of those other which Bellarmin mentions in the place quoted by the Bishop neither can it bee sayd that those subsequent Councils which reformed the errours concluded at Ariminum and Ephesus were called by the Authority of the whole Church in generall but by the Pope in the same manner as that of Trent and others were Hee grants that the Church though it may erre hath not only a Pastorall power to teach and direct but a Pretorian also to controule and censure too where errours or crimes are against points Fundamentall or of great consequence Are not the Reall Presence Purgatory praying to Saynts the fiue Sacraments of seauen which Protestants denie and diuerse other points wherein they differ from us and the Church things of great consequence And did not the whole christian Church generally teach and profess these points both long before and at the time of Luthers departure from the Roman Church why was it not then in the power of the Church to controule and censure him with all his followers for opposing her Doctrine in the sayd points Againe if wee ought to obey the Church in points Fundamentall and of great consequence as the Bishops doctrine here cleerly implies why must wee not obey her likewise in taking those points to bee Fundamentall and of great consequence which shee holds to bee such and by her definition declares to bee such Certainly Heretiques will neuer want reason to iustifie their disobedience to the Church if allowing her authority to controule and censure only in points Fundamentall and of great consequence wee allow them the liberty to iudge and determin what points are such what not His instance of a mothers authority viz. that Obedience due to her is not to bee refused vpon her falling into errour holds not in the Church because the authority of a naturall mother is not in order to Beleefe but to Action and it does not follow that because shee hath commanded amiss in one thing that her child is not to obey her in an other which it shall not know to bee vnlawfull But the authority of the Church ouer her children consists not only in directing them what they are to doe but in obliging them to beleeue firmly and without doubt what euer shee shall esteem necessary to difine and propound to them as matter of Beleefe Now its impossible that the vnderstanding which can assent to nothing but what it apprehends to bee true nor infallibly beleeue but what it apprehends to bee infallibly true should bee mou'd with any respect due to the Church to beleeue without doubt any defined point which it did not before so long as it giues way to this opinion viz. that shee may and has defin'd and also commanded vs to beleeue as a point of Fayth a thing false in it selfe As to his citing St. Austins authority in the margent touching that text of St. Paul Ephes. 4. 27. not hauing Spot nor wrinckle c. it maks nothing against vs. For St. Austin doth not deny those words to bee vnderstood of the Church Militant but only that they are not to bee vnderstood of her in the sense giuen them by the Pelagians my meaning is hee doth not deny the doctrine of the Catholique Church vniuersally receiu'd or defin'd as matter of fayth to bee without Spot of errour but hee denies the liues of Christians euen of the most iust and perfect in this life to bee altogether without Spot of sin Neither doth St. Austin read vs any such lesson as this that the Church on earth is no freeer from wrinckles in doctrine and discipline then it is from Spots in life and conuersation but it is the Bishops own voluntary scandalous and inconsiderate assertion if hee speaks of doctrine vniuersally receiu'd and approu'd by the Church if only of doctrine and errours taught by priuate persons what is it to the purpose An other thing considered is that if wee suppose a Generall Council infallible and that it proue not so but that an errour in fayth bee concluded the same erring opinion which maks it thinke it selfe infallible makes the errour of it irreuocable and so lenues the Church without remedy I answer grant false antecedents and false premisses enough and what absurdities will not bee consequent and fill vp the conclusion an Anti-scripturist may argue this way against the infallibility euen of the Bible it selfe in the Bishops own style thus This Booke which you call the Bible and suppose to bee Gods word immediate Reuelation of Jnfallible Truth in enery thing it sayes IF IT PROVE NOT SO but that it were written only by man and containes errours THE SAME ERRING OPINION that makes you thinke 't is Gods word c. makes all the sayd errours contain'd in it wholy irreuocable and of necessity for euer to bee beleeu'd as Gods word and Diuine Reuelation Can any man deny this consequent granting the Bishops antecedent if it proue not so The inconuenience therfore which the Relatour here obiects beeing only conditionall and the condition vpon which it depends such as wee are neuer like to grant nor our aduersaries to proue wee pass it by as signifying else nothing but how willing his Lordship was to heap vp obiections against vs though such as hee and his party must answer 5. But how does the Bishop proue that a Generall Council hath erred Thus. Christ sayth hee instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in both kindes To breake Christs institution is a damnable errour this errour was committed by the Council of Constante whose words are these cited and englished by the Bishop LICET CHRISTVS c. Though Christ instituted this Venerable Sacrament and gaue it to his Disciples after supper vnder both kindes of bread and wine yet NON OBSTANTE notwithstanding this it ought not to bee consecrated after supper nor receiued but fasting And likewise that though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faythfull vnder both kindes yet this custome that it should bee receiu'd by Laymen only vnder the kinde of bread is to bee held for a law which may not bee refused And to say this is an vnlawfull custome of receiuing vnder one kinde is erronious and they which persist in saying so are to bee punished and driuen out as Heretiques The force of the obiection depends wholy on the words NON OBSTANTE which the Bishop conceiues to import that the Council defin'd receiuing vnder both kindes not to bee necessary NOTWITHSTANDING that our Sauiour so instituted it viz. in both kindes I answer Bellarmin rightly obserues that the words non obstante haue no reference to receiuing vnder both kindes but to the time of receiuing it after supper which though the Bishop bee not satisfy'd with but obiects that the NON OBSTANTE

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