Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	bread_n	call_v	consecration_n	3,097	5	11.0977	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39298	An answer to George Keith's Narrative of his proceedings at Turners-Hall, on the 11th of the month called June, 1696 wherein his charges against divers of the people called Quakers (both in that, and in another book of his, called, Gross error & hypocrosie detected) are fairly considered, examined, and refuted / by Thomas Ellwood.	Ellwood, Thomas, 1639-1713.	1696 (1696)	Wing E613; ESTC R8140	164,277	235

that way But that which W. Penn reputed absurd was that a Body should be said to be changed from an Earthly or Animal Body to an Heavenly Body and yet after such change continue to be the same Earthly or Animal Body that it was before This is that of which W. Penn said How is it possible that it should be the same and not the same And if a thing can yet be the same and notwithstanding changed for shame let us never much so make stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation And indeed as easily may G. Keith defend the one as the other And if among those of the Protestant Parties he now Courts he should miss of the End of his turning from the Quakers it is not altogether unlikely but that he may try what Earnings he can make among them that hold that Doctrine He says It is not Transubstantiation if I say a Saint's Body is the same at the Resurrection for Substance as it was when it went into the Grave leaving the faces or drossie Part of it behind I say that is beside the Question But the Question is Whether a Natural or Carnal Body that is a Body consisting of Flesh Blood and Bones can be raised out of the Grave without Flesh Blood and Bones and yet be properly and truely said to be the same natural or carnal Body that it was while it consisted of Flesh Blood and Bones For if he would argue from the Substance of a Body he should first have defined what the Substance of a Natural or Carnal Body is that it might have been agreed whether the Faces or drossy Part as he calls it by which I understand him to mean the Flesh Blood and Bones be the Substance or any Part of the Substance of a Natural or Carnal Body He seems to hold that it is not For he blames W. Penn for holding that Carniety is essential to a Carnal Body that is that Flesh is essential to a Body of Flesh and he says thereupon see how contrary this is to common Sense and Vnderstanding But sure I think every one that has but common Sense and Understanding may have ground to Question Whether he has not lost his To manifest how contrary it is to common Sense and Understanding and withal to give his Auditors to understand that he is not only a mickle Philosopher but a little Piece of an Hen-Housewife too he says There is no VVoman that sets an Hen to breed Chickens but knows the contrary You know says he the Substance of the Egg the VVhite and Yolk by the force and heat of the Hen sitting on the Egg is changed into a Chicken Is here s●●s he any Transubstantiation First observe he grants the White and the Yolk to be the Substance of the Egg. Next that this Substance of the Egg the VVhite and the Yolk is changed into a Chicken Now unless he will affirm that the Substance of a Chicken after it comes to be a Chicken is the VVhite and Yolk I see not how he will avoid a Transubstantiation that is a changing of the Substance of the Egg which was VVhite and Yolk into the Substance of a Chicken which of all the Chicken I have eaten of I always took to be Flesh Blood and Bones If he thinks otherwise and it should ever happen that he and I should be F●llow-Commoners at a Chicken let him but let me have what I call the Substance of it and I will readily resign all the rest to him even the VVhite and the Yolk if he can find it and in requital of his Courtesie some part and the most solid of that which I call the Substance too which will not be unsuitable to a Cynical Philosopher But whereas he makes himself a little sport with VV. Penn's Philosophy he might have considered that what VV. Penn writ on that subject was not to entertain the Schools but to inform common and vulgar Capacities and therefore he handled it Scripturally not Philosophically using the Terms he writ in according to the ordinary Signification and common Acceptation of them What he says of a Chymical Operation I take to be but a Chymical VVhimsie in his Head or a Chimera which he pleases viz. That a gross Body of Herbs or other Substance can by Chymical Operation be made so subtile volatile and spiritual without any Transubstantiation or Change of the Substance that a Glass can scarce confine or hold it I don't think many have that understanding that he pretends to have of Chymical Operations That a subtile volatile spirituous Substance may by Chymical Operation be extracted from a gross Substance or Body of Herbs is easily apprehensible And that which is so extracted is usually called the Spirit of that Body out of which it is drawn not the Body it self But that the gross Body it self of Herbs or other Substance can be made so subtile and volatile as scarce to be contained in a Glass requires better Proof to gain belief than his bare saying it Besides if the gross Body be made so subtile and volatile as he says how is the Faeces or drossy part left behind as he says But that which must make his Chymical Conceit bear any right Parallel with that Notion of the Resurrection which VV. Penn opposed must be that this gross Body of Herbs which he says may be made so subtile and volatile must still remain the same gross Body of Herbs that it was before notwithstanding it s almost unconfinable subtility by Chymical Operation as they hold the Body that dies and is laid in the Grave to be changed in the Resurrection and yet to be the same Body after the Resurrection as it was when it died and was laid in the Grave This is that which VV. Penn compared to the Absurdity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Folly of which Doctrine not to meddle here with the Impiety of it lies in this that the Patrons of that Opinion affirm the very Substance of the Bread and VVine after the Words of Consecration as they call them are spoken to be really changed into the very Substance of Christ's Body and yet the Accidents of the Bread and Wine enforce the Senses to confess that the Substance of the Bread and VVine remains in them as before I perceive he has done and that quickly with his Third Head about the Resurrection Which as he has stated it he needed not at all have attempted to prove our denial of For it is a known thing that as we have always asserted a Resurrection of Bodies so we have always denied the Body which shall be raised to be the same Body that died with respect to Grosness and Carniety and that 1. From the Principles of our Opposers about it who hold that it is wonderfully changed and therefore it is a wonder it should be the very same 2. From the Reason and Nature of the thing which will not admit a Natural Carnal Body to be a suitable