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	bread_n	consecration_n	4,106	5	10.7048	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67103	Truth will out, or, A discovery of some untruths smoothly, told by Dr. Ieremy Taylor in his Disswasive from popery with an answer to such arguments as deserve answer / by his friendly adversary E. Worsley.	E. W. (Edward Worsley), 1605-1676.	1665 (1665)	Wing W3618; ESTC R39189	128,350	226

or Darkness that is whether in a filthy station of Wickedness or a good state of Vertue a man is taken when he dies in that degree and order he remains for ever which is to say great sins will abide with the damned for Eternity and so Vertue shall ever remain with the Blessed for says Olympiodorus He shall either rest in the Light of everlasting Felicity with the Iust and Christ King of All or be tormented in Darkness with the Wicked and Prince of this World the Divil Most true Doctrine for there is no third place Eternal The Doctor lastly cites St. Leo Epist 59. for words not found at all in that Epistle he writes to Martianus and gives thanks for peace restored to the Church by the Great Council of Calcedon See this Epistle Colen Print 1561. Pittyful it is to see such strengthless Authorities produced not only against the express Testimony of other Fathers asserting Purgatory but more against the sentiment of the Universal Church But I know not by what chance we have missed a former Argument of our Doctor against Purgatory He hath it pag. 29. and speaks thus Sixtus Senensis saies and saies very true That many Fathers as Justin Martyr Tertullian St. Bernard and others did affirm that the Souls of men before the Day of Iudgment are kept in secret Receptacles reserved unto the sentence of the great Day c. Then he Argues if this Opinion be true the Doctrine of Purgatory is false or if not true it is inconsistent with an Opinion of Fathers so generally received Answ The Doctor hath not one true word in this Objection false it is that Sixtus so peremptorily ascribs this Opinion to the Fathers he rather makes it his work to interpret them favourably and to do it distinguisheth a double beatitude the one imperfect of Soul only the other consummat and perfect of Soul and Body the first the Fathers called by several names of sinus Abrahae Atrium Dei sub altare c. the other perfect Ioy the Glory of the Resurrection and entire reward of merits a time of Coronation c. And this later they held was not till the day of Judgment Read Sixtus lib. 6. Bibliot Annot. 345. in his two last Paragraphs Hactenus Demum where after a friendly check given to Ockam he also takes off the charge laid on Pope Iohn 22. for any Decree made by him against the present beatitude of Souls Again False it is that the Doctor exactly set's down in his Marginal Quotation Sixtus his words more then half of them are not the Authors who ends with St. Bernard at the particle Praebuisse and our Doctor runs on in one continued uniform Character with a praeter citatos enumerat c. yet there is not a syllable like them in Sixtus and as they stand in the Doctors Margent are strangely incoherent False finally it is that though the Fathers held Souls as it were immur'd in secret Receptacles therefore their Tenet destroys Purgatory Why they may have a Purgatory before they enter those Receptacles They may have it in Origens Opinion afterwards yes and if need were to assert it punished they may be for a time in those very secret Cabinets Divels are tortured whether in the material place of Hell or out of it and so may souls be also though we supposed against Faith our Purgatory were not or no other then those Receptacles What I say here is not in the least to favour a condemned Opinion by the Church but only to shew the Doctors weak way of Arguing CHAP. V. The Doctors cavils against Transubstantiation His false Quotations His impertiment Questions and weak Arguments THe Doctor in his 5th Section pag. 36. falls upon the Doctrine of Transubstantiation where he brushes up a few old dusty Arguments answered every where by our Writers We know saith he the very time it began to be publickly owned the very Council c. Answ Arius might have said thus much against the Consubstantiality of the Son of God with his Father and made it a Novelty first owned by the Council of Nice The vulgar solid and true answer is that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was ever believed in the Church though more fully and explicitly declared in the Lateran Council I say Was ever believed for if the most eminent Fathers that lived before the Lateran Council told us that Bread is changed out of his Nature into the Body of Christ That by Holy Invocation it is no more common Bread That as Water in Cana of Galilee was changed into Wine so in the Evangelist Wine is changed into Blood That Bread is only Bread before the Sacramental Words but after Consecration is made the Body of Christ If Ancient Fathers speak thus as most certainly they do every Polemical Writer furnisheth you with these Testimonies conclude we must that they either cheated the World into a false belief or held as we do the real Doctrine of Transubstantiation But my task is not so much to prove Catholick Doctrine already done by innumerable Authors as to shew you our Doctors faylings in his Quotations page therefore the 37. he cites Scotus saying that before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith as Bellarm. confesses Most willingly would I have the Doctor to point me out the distinction and question where Scotus affirms this some cite him in 4. distin 11. q. 3. where he only saith in all Editions I have seen that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was more explicitly defined there but not first made an Article of Faith But the Famous or rather infamous Quotation is out of Petrus Lombardus usually called Magister Sententiarum the Doctor hath it to his disgrace page 38. after he had said that Transubstantiation was so far then from being an Article of Faith that they knew not whether it where true or no yes and that Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I beseech you mark an unexcusable Error Petrus Lombardus lib. 4. distinct 11. lit A. begins thus Si autem quaeritur qualis sit ista conversio an formalis an substantialis definire non sufficio c. If it be asked what kind of conversion this is whether formal or substantial I am not sufficient to define observe the word define Then he sets down several Opinions much in those words the Doctor hath To these Opinions or Objections where the Doctor leaves off fraudulently Lombardus answers lit B. Quibus hoc modo responderi potest quia non ea ratione dicitur corpus Christi confici verbo caelesti quod ipsum corpus in conceptu virginis deinceps formetur sed quia substantia panis vel vini quae ante non fuerat corpus Christi vel sanguis verbo caelesti fit corpus sanguis ideo sacerdotes dicuntur conficere corpus Christi sanguinem quia eorum ministerio substantia panis fit caro substantia vini

fit sanguis Christi nec tamen aliquid additur corpori vel sanguini nec augetur corpus Christi vel sanguis To which we answer thus Christ's Sacred Body is not said after that manner made by a Heavenly word that 't is framed a new in the Virgin but because the substance of Bread and Wine which before were not the Body and Blood of Christ by the Heavenly Word of Consecration is made that Body and Blood and therefore Priests are said to make Christ's Body and Blood because by their work or Ministry the Substance of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ and the Substance of Wine is made his Blood yet nothing is added to that Body and Blood neither are made more or encreased Thus Lombardus answers the Objection which the Doctor only sets down and therefore in plain English he deals with his Reader as Sr. Morney Plessy once did with Cardinal Peron he gives you the Objections for Lombards own doctrine that this is most evidently Lombards Doctrine lit D. clears all chiefly towards the end Non sunt tamea multa corpora Christi sed unum corpus unus sanguis ideoque sive plus sive minus quis inde percipiat omnes aequaliter corpus Christi integerrimè sumunt post consecrationem ergo non est substantia panis vel vini licet species remaneant est enim species panis vini sicut sapor unde aliud videtur aliud intelligitur Yet there are not many bodies of Christ but one only Body and Blood and therefore though any take more or less all equally and wholly take the Body of Christ After the Consecration then there is no substance of Bread and Wine although the species of Bread and Wine remain as also the tast wherefore one thing is seen and another is understood Never did Lateran Council or any Catholick Author speak more plainly for Transubstantiation To be sure of what I here affirm I have read two Editions of Petrus Lombard that which was Printed at Loven anno 1546. and the other most usual with Albertus Magnus his Commentaries The Doctor next quotes Durandus lib. 4. sent distinc 11. qu. 1. Sect. Propter tertium who saies he Publickly maintained that after consecration the very matter of Bread remain'd although he saies by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held I Answer That Durand in all that first question hath not a word like what the Doctor asserts read him Art 3. he plainly maintains the Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation and absolutely concludes that the Substance of Bread and Wine are converted into Christs Body All he hath Sectio propter tertium is that the Words of Christ might be verified although the Body were present with Bread which is a Theological disputation and neither clears the Doctor for his abusing Durand nor advanceth him one whit in his cavils against Transubstantiation Page 40. and 41. he gives you a few weak Authorities against our Doctrine and thinks to confute all by the Testimony of St. Gregory Nazianzen cited page 42. Orat. 2. in Paseha The Oration is long and the Doctor well might either by page or number have helped his Reader to find the place but thus he deals with you often and far worse afterwards Well St. Gregory in his Works Printed at Antwerp 1612. Orat. 2. in Pascha pag. 261. nu 5. saith Iam vero Paschalis participes erimus nunc quidem adhuc typice tametsi apertius licet quam in veteri legale siquidem pascha nec enim dicere verebor figurae figura erat obscurior These words the Doctor gives you in English and what conclude they against Transubstantiation nothing for were the Sacred Body of our Dearest Lord present in the Eucharist with the substance of Bread were it as it now is really present without the substance of Bread In St. Gregori's sence Christ concealed under the species of Bread may be rightly called a Figure of its own self more clearly hereafter to be shewed us in Heaven For as the legal Pascha was a Figure because it more obscurely pointed out this true one in the New Law So this also where Christ Jesus is concealed from our sences may be rightly called a Figure because it exhibits not most clearly that Saviour we shall see with greatest clarity in Heaven This sence is gathered out of St. Gregories next ensuing words which the Doctor wholly omits Figurae erat figura obscurior saith the Saint aliquam post autem perfectius purius tum videlicet cum verbum novum illud nobiscum in regno Patris bibet pate faciens docens quae nunc plane demonstravit The legal Pascha was a more obscure Figure of this Figure which we shall afterward see perfectly and with greater clarity to wit when the new Word shall drink it with us in his Fathers Kingdom laying open himself and teaching us those things which now he hath fully demonstrated Mark these last words very useful to explicate other Authorities where mention is made of a Sign a Type and Figure in this matter but they are neither for or against Transubstantiation unless the Doctor shews which he shall never that Christs Sacred Body is so barely Figured in this Pascha that it is not also really present Theodoret and Gelasius cited pag. 43. are answered in every Book by our Writers The nature of the Symbols or Signs are not changed that is the Species or accidents of Bread and Wine remain these recide not from their nature Grace is added What is here against Transubstantiation I pass by those witty questions which the Doctor moves pag. 45. What if a Priest says Hoc est corpus meum over all the Bread in a Bakers shop doth he turn it into Christs Body the like question is And what if a Minister say the same words over the same Bread doth he turn it into Holy and Sanctifyed Bread may the People kneel down and take this as Christs Body Again Whether a Church-Mouse doth eat her Maker And what if a Mouse or a viler Creature had bit the Sacred body of our Saviour laid in Bethlem Stable had they bit their Maker Away with these Trifles they become not a Doctor of Divinity And be pleased To reflect on one doubty Argument he hath page 46. which is indeed pressing but how to shew that he knows not our Catholick Doctrine Since secondly saith he they say that every consecrated wafer is Christs whole Body and yet this wafer is not that Wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs Body or else Christ hath two Bodies for there are two Wafers My God! what is here out of two Wafers he inferrs two Bodies as if one from the two parts in man his Head and Feet should infer a necessity of two Souls or conclude there are two Gods one in Heaven and the other in Earth because Heaven and Earth are more distinct then two Wafers That known