Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	body_n	bread_n	signify_v	12,985	5	8.1471	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A02568	The peace of Rome Proclaimed to all the world, by her famous Cardinall Bellarmine, and the no lesse famous casuist Nauarre. Whereof the one acknowledgeth, and numbers vp aboue three hundred differences of opinion, maintained in the popish church. The other confesses neere threescore differences amongst their owne doctors in one onely point of their religion. Gathered faithfully out of their writings in their own words, and diuided into foure bookes, and those into seuerall decads. Whereto is prefixed a serious disswasiue from poperie. By I.H.	Azpilcueta, Martín de, 1492?-1586.; Hall, Joseph, 1574-1656.; Bellarmino, Roberto Francesco Romolo, Saint, 1542-1621. Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei. English. Selections.	1609 (1609)	STC 12696; ESTC S106027	106,338	252

c. 11. p. 347. Fourthly Bellarmine against Dominicus a Soto Sanctius Alanus c. HEnce may be refuted the common error which possesses many of this time concerning the Author of this heresie for as Thomas Waldensis witnesses there was an olde booke of Diuine offices without any name of the Author wherein Wickliffe did marueilously triumph and vexed the Catholikes with it boasting it one while to be Ambroses another while Isidores another while Fulgentius At last the Catholickes suspected that Walramus or Valeramus was the Author of it So write Dominicus a Soto Claudius Sanctius Gul. Alanus and others But he was not the first for the Berengarians were before him neyther was Walramus the Author hereof but Rupertus Tuitiensis from whose bookes this opinion is to be fetch 't which Dominicus a Soto idlely expoundeth vpon 4. dist 9. q. 2. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 11. p. 348. Fiftly Waldensis and Bellarmine against Iohannes Parisiensis THE sixt opinion or heresie rather is of one Iohannes Parisiensis which as Waldensis reporteth openly opugned that other heresie and brought in a new for he taught that the bread is assumed by the Sonne but by meanes of the body of Christ as the body is taken for part of his manhood not for the whole and hee said as part not as whole least hee should be constrained to admit that God is bread Bellarm. l. 3. c. 11. confuted l. 3. c. 16. pag. 348. Sixtly Durandus against the Councels of Constance and of Trent and Bellarmine THE third error is of them which will haue onely the matter of bread to remaine which doth expresly contradict the Councell of Trent Sess. 13. cha 4. and Can. 2. And the Councell of Constance Sess. 8. Yea also this opinion of Durandus is contrary to the Councell of Lateran for neyther would that Councel haue said that there is a transsubstantiation made vnlesse it would haue signified that the whole substance of the bread is changed c. Therefore this opinion of Durandus is hereticall though he himselfe be not therefore to be called an heretike because he was ready to yeelde to the iudgement of the Church Bellarmine lib. 3. c. 13. pag. 351. Seuenthly foure diuers opinions of Diuines ABout the time of Christs instituting the Sacrament there are foure opinions first of the greeks who hold that Christ did keepe his passeouer and institute his Sacrament the thiteenth day of the first moneth The second of Rupertus who teaches that the Hebrewes were neuer wont to celebrate two feast dayes together and therefore when the feast of vnleauened bread fell the sixt day it was wont to be deferred to the Saboth following This opinion of Rupertus both is false and doth not satisfie that maine argument of the Greekes The third of Paulus Burgensis who holds that both the feast of vnleauened bread and of the Passeouer might be deferred vpon the Tradition of the Elders to the day following and that in the yeare wherein Christ suffred the Hebrewes did eate their Passeouer on Friday euening Christ his on Thursday in the euening The fourth is the common opinion of Diuines that Christ instituted his Sacrament in that time wherein according to the law and custome of the Iewes all leauen was cast away which was the 14. day c. This opinion is onely true c. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 7. p. 455. Eightly the Popish Doctors disagreeing THe Catholike Church hath euer thought it so necessary that water should be mixed with wine in the Chalice that it cannot without a grieuous sin be omitted But whether the Sacrament can consist without water it is not so certaine the common opinion leanes to the affirmatiue part Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 10. pag. 476. Ninthly Popish Diuines differing HEre is therefore a question to be handled whether those onely words For this is my body c. pertaine to the forme of the Sacrament The Catholike Church affirmes it with great consent Councell Florent Catech. of Concil Trident Diuines with the Master of Sent. Lawyers For although Diuines dispute and cannot agree whether all the seuerall words which are had in the forme of the consecration of the Chalice in the Latine Masse-bookes be of the essence of the forme thereof yet all agree that they are of the integrity and perfection of the forme so as no one of them can without sinne be omitted and their consent in this point is sufficient Bellarm. l. 4. c. 12. p. 486. Tenthly Io. de Louanio against George Cassander IOhan de Louanio in his booke of the Communion vnder both kinds chiefely confutes a B. of a certain Aduiser who without any name set forth a B. of this quest perswading to this vse but after it was known that the B. was George Cassanders Bellar. l. 4. c. 20. p. 538. DECAD V. First some Papists against the Councell of Trent FIrst the opinion of some is to be confuted who hold that from the words This is my body is gathered that whole Christ is vnder the forme of bread for they say that by the word Body is signified a liuing body and therfore a body with a soule and blood But this opinion is flatly contrary to the Councell of Trent Sess. 13. ca. 3. who teaches that by the power of the wordes onely the body is there vnder the forme of bread the soule the Diuinity and blood onely by a Concomitance Bellarm. ibid. c. 21. p. 540. Secondly Alexand. Alensis and Gasper Cassalius against the common opinion THere is no spirituall fruit receiued by both kinds which is not receiued by one this proposition is not so certaine as the former for our Diuines are of diuers iudgements concerning it But it is my opinion and the common and most probable assertion of Diuines of St. Thomas S. Bonauenture Richard Gabriel Roffensis Caietane c. And though Richardus seemes to incline the other way yet he doth it onely to reconcile Alexander Alensis vnto the common opinion for of all the ancients there is onely Alexander in 4. part Sum. q. 53. which holdes the contrarie and of the new writers Gasper Cassalius cals it into doubt and question in his second booke of the Supper c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 23. p. 554. Thirdly Io. of Louan Cornel. Iansenius opposite OF this place are two opinions of Catholickes First of Iohn of Louan and others who holde that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was giuen to the two Disciples in Emmaus and they bring for them Austen Chrysost. Bede Theophilact Ierome Isychius The other of Cornelius Iansenius vpon the place who teaches that the bread blessed by Christ in Emmaus was not the Sacrament but onely a figure of it Bellarm. l. 4. cap. 24. pag. 563. Fourthly two sorts of Popish Doctors dissenting WE teach that the very Sacrament is to be adored as the Councell of Trent speaketh but this maner of speech is taken two wayes Those that thinke the Sacrament of the

Eucharist to bee formally the body of Christ as he is vnder those formes doe graunt that the Sacrament is iustly said to be formally adored But those that say the Sacrament of the Eucharist is formally the Species of bread and wine as they containe Christ doe teach consequently that the said Sacrament is materially to be adored Bellarm. ibid. cap. 29. pag. 607. Fiftly Hugo de Sancto victore Peter Lombard Thomas Rabanus c. disagreeing MAny Catholikes endeauour to shew the word Missa Masse to be Hebrew for Deut. 16. there is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same signification and not the Catholikes only but Philip Melanchton acknowledges this deriuation Other and their opinion is more probable hold it to be Latine of whom also some hold it to be a Mittendo because our offerings and prayers are sent vp to God So Hugo de Sancto victore lib. 2. de Sacram. Others lesse probably for that an Angell is sent from God to assist the Sacrifice and carry it to God as the Master of Sent. and Thomas 3. p. q. 83. But their opinion is most likely which deriue it a missione seu dimissione populi This opinion is Isidores Rabanus and Hugo and others later Diuines admit this Etymology Bellarm. de Missa l. 1. c. 1. p. 616. Sixtly Bellarmine against a nameles Doctor 1. G. Cassalius NEare to this opinion of Melanchton seemes to be a certaine late Doctor a man otherwise learned and godly who in his booke of Sacrifice chap. 5. teacheth that euery good worke which is done that we may in an holy fellowshippe cleaue to God is a Sacrifice properly But this opinion of his is false and may be confuted with many and manifest arguments Bellarm. ibid. c. 2. p. 621. Seuenthly Bellarmine against Arias Montanus THis testimony of Malach. 1. cannot be vnderstood of the sacrifice of the crosse nor of any Iewish sacrifice nor of the sacrifices of the heathen Idolaters wherefore the exposition of Arias Montanus is no way to be suffered for it doth not onely contradict the opinion of al those Fathers which we will straight-way cyte but the Apostle himselfe and the open truth for to what end were the blood of so many thousand Martyres shed for not communicating with the Gentiles sacrifices if those had beene cleane and acceptable to God Bellarm. 1. b. of Masse cap. 10. pag. 679. Eightly Cassalius confuted by Bellarm. TO this purpose make all those places of the Fathers which teach that there is one only sacrifice of the church which succeeded al the multitude of the old sacrifices Leo Chrysost. Aug. c. whence appeares that the opiniō of Gasper Cassalius in his 1. b. de sacrificio is altogether improbable who affirms there are two sacrifices of the Eucharist one of bread and wine another of the body and blood of Christ. Bellarm. b. 1. of the Masse c. 27. pag. 756. Ninthly diuers opinions of Popish Doctors THe consecration of the Eucharist belongs to the essence of the sacrifice This sentence thus generally proposed hath many vpholders for of the greeks Nic. Cabasilas of the latines Ruardus Iodocus Tiletanus Gasper Cassalius Alanus and others maintain it But al hold it not a like Some thinke it to be therefore because by the consecration there is made a true and reall change of the bread into Christs body and a true sacrifice requires such a mutation whereby the thing ceases to be But this opinion hath no smal argumēts against it Others think it to be because by this consecration Christ is truely though mystically and vnblooodily ffred This opinion doth not yet fully satisfie Thus therfore it seemes to be set forth There are three things in a Sacrifice which are found in the consecration of the Eucharist first a prophane and earthly thing is made holy Secondly that thing thus made holy is offered to God Thirdly the thing thus offered is ordained to a true reall and externall mutation and distinction c. This seemes to me the opinion of St. Thomas in 2.2 q. 85. art 3. Bellarm ibid. c. 27. p. 759. Tenthly one or two Popish Doctors against the Councell of Trent THE Sacrifice of the Masse hath not onely or principally his vertue from the act of him that offers it but euen from the worke wrought which is the common opinion of Diuines and of the Councell of Trent Sess. 22. c. 2. although there be one or two of our Writers found that dissent from it Bellarm. 2. booke of the Masse c. 4. p. 773. DECAD VI. First Bellarm. against Platina and Polidor Virgil. DAmasus in his Pontificall in the life of Soter and Siluester Popes amongst other holy vessels makes mention of Censers wherefore it is false which Platina in the life of Sixtus 1. and Polidore Virgil in his booke of the Deuisers of things write that Leo 3. which liued An. Dom. 800. was the first that vsed Frankincense in the Masse Bellarm. 2. b. of Masse cap. 15. pag. 843. Secondly Bellarmine against other Papists THat Celestinus 1. was not the first Author of the Introitus in the Masse see defended by Bellarm. against the consent of their Writers as himselfe confesses Bellarm. ibid. c. 16. p. 846. Thirdly Bellarmine against many Papists THat Anastasius 1. was not the first Author of standing at the Gospell is held by Bellarmine against many of their writers ibid. c. 16. p. 853. Fourthly foure seuerall opinions of Popish Doctors SCotus Occam and Gabriel vpon 4. Sent. dist 14. place the essence of the Sacrament of Penance in absolution onely c. The question then is whether there be any thing besides absolution which belongs to the nature and essence of this Sacrament Of this there are foure opinions the first is that only absolution makes the essence of this Sacrament So of our Catholike Diuines Scotus Occam Io. Maior Iacob Almaine and others c. The last and truest opinion is that the Sacrament of penance consists of two parts inward and essentiall to it the absolution of the Priest as the forme and the acts of the penitent as the matter which was the opinion of many old Diuines St. Thomas Richardus Durandus and others vpon 4. Sent. dist 14. and is now held by almost all that write of this Sacrament Bellarm. 1. b. of penance cap. 15. pag. 92. Fiftly Gratian and Bonauenture against the rest THen Chemnitius addes that there are diuers opinions of our Catholikes concerning the necessity of confession and this he proues out of Gratian and a Glosse of his out of Bonauenture these are all his fathers c. But say that confession doth not stand by the law of God as Kemnitius would proue out of a certaine Glosse which yet the Catholikes mislike Bellarm. 1. b. of penance cap 11. pag. 79. Sixtly Scotus confuted by Bellarmine NEyther is that aptly and well said by Scotus that penance is the absolution of the penitent

of the bread if bread were there Their reason is because they thinke that the Vnion of Christ with the accidents of bread is eyther personall or very like to it and therefore that there is a communication of properties betwixt Christ and those accidents c. But the common opinion of Diuines teach the contrary Bellar. of the sacram of the Eucharist l. 1. c. 2. p. 28 Seuenthly Gabriel Cusanus Caietane Tapperus Hesselius Iansenius against all other Papists ALmost all Catholikes will haue the wordes of Iohn 6. vnderstood of the Sacrament of the Eucharist or of the Sacramentall eating of Christs body in the Eucharist but there are some few who the better to disproue the Hussites and Lutherans hold that this Chapter medleth not with any Sacramental eating of Christs body or drinking his blood of which sort are Gabriel Nicholas Cusanus Thomas Caietanus Ruardus Tapper Iohannes Hesselius and Cornelius Iansenius All other Catholikes whom Nicholas Saunders in his booke of the sixth of Iohn citeth with great consent teach that this Chapter intreateth of the Sacramentall eating of Christ which doubtlesse is most true Bellarmine ibid. cap. 5. pag. 41. Eightly two sorts of Doctors opposite THe Catholikes doe not agree in the manner of explicating what is properly meant by this pronoune Hoc or Hic This in the words of consecration This is my body And there are two more famous opinions One that this pronoune Hoc This signifies the body of Christ confuted in this place of Bellarmine by two arguments The other opinion is of Saint Thomas 3. p.d. 78. art 2. and vppon 1. Cor. 11. that the pronoune Hoc This doth not precisely signifie the bread or the body but in common that substance which is vnder these forms yet so as the signification doth properly pertaine to the formes that so the sense should be Not This that is These formes are my body but thus vnder these formes is my body as it was of old expounded by Guitmundus l. 2. Bellarmine ibid. c. 11. p. 83. Ninthly most Papists and Bellarmine against Thomas SOme Catholikes hold that a body may be locally in two places at once for say they if one place may hold two bodies so as neither the places are diuided nor the bodies confounded as it was done in Christs comming forth of the graue then one body may fill two places c. But some others and amongst them Saint Thomas thinkes that one body cannot be totally in two places His reason by the leaue of so great a Doctor is not found Bellarm. l. 3 of the Eucharist c. 3. p. 291. Tenthly Durand Occam Albertus Thomas Bonauenture Richardus Scotus dissenting THere were two particular opinions and both false and erroneous deuised in the Schooles for the vnfolding the greatnesse of this mystery One of Durandus vpon 4. dist 10. c. who held it probable that the substance of the body of Christ is in the Eucharist without magnitude or quantity and he vsed those arguments to this purpose which now are taken vp by the Sacramentaries Another opinion was of some auncient Diuines which Albertus without any name reports and confutes which afterwards Occam vpon 4. q. 4. followed who say that there is in the Sacrament the very magnitude or quantity of the body of Christ which yet they thinke cannot be distinguished from the substance but they adde that all parts doe so runne into other that there is no shape in the body of Christ nor any distinction and order of the parts of the body But the common opinion of the Schooles and Church is that in the Eucharist there is whole Christ with his magnitude and bignesse and all other accidents c. And besides that the parts and members of Christs body doe not one runne into another but are so distinguished and disposed among themselues as they haue both order and shape agreeable to an humane body so teach Albertus S. Thomas Bonauenture Richardus Scotus and others vpon 4. dist 10. or 13. and Alexander 3. p. q. 10. in 7. c. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 5. pag. 301. DECAD IIII. First Bellarmine against Durandus c. AVgustine discoursing of Christs comming into the world through the wombe of the Virgin still continuing closed saith that in these workes all the reason of the fact is the power of the doer The same is held by common consent of other Fathers Gregor Nazian Theodoret Hierome c. But I am ashamed to say what Durandus and Beza answere to this c. That which Durand saith that her Virginity might and did still remaine inuiolable and yet that the passages were somewhat dilated according to the best Physitians implies a contradiction for Io. Fernclius teacheth that the losse of Virginity doth not consist in the breaking of any filme but onely in the dilatation of the parts Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 309. Secondly Bellarmine against Durandus THe fift example is of the ascension of Christ and the Saints into heauen for we beleeue that Christ ascended aboue all heauens and likewise that the bodies of the Saints after their resurrection shall ascend But there is no doore in heauen no window no gappe through which they may ascend for as Iob 47. The heauens are solide as brasse therefore there must needes be more bodies in one place To this Durandus answeres that by the power of GOD the heauens may be diuided when the bodies of the Saints shall ascend But if the heauen be in it owne nature solide and incorruptible as all Diuines and Philosophers teach surely it is not probable there should be so many holes made in heauen as there are bodies of the Saints to ascend c. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 6. pag. 311. Thirdly sundry opinions of Popish Doctors DVrandus holdeth that one essentiall part of the bread namely the forme is turned but that the other part which is the matter is not turned vpon 4. dist 11. Others that there might no errour be missing haue contrarily taught that the matter of the bread is turned into Christs body but that the substantiall forme of the bread remaines still the same This errour St. Thomas reports without the name of the Author 3. p q. 25. art 6. A fift opinion is that of Rupertus the Abbot which was some fortie yeares after Guitmundus which Rupertus taught that the bread of the Sacrament is personally assumed by the second person in the Trinity in the very same manner that the humane nature was assumed by the same word as appeares in his sixt booke vpon Iohn This errour is noted and confuted by Algerus in 1. B. of Sacraments chap. 6. where he saith that this is a new and most absurd heresie this Algerus liued in the same time with Rupertus about the yeare 1124. as witnes Trithemius and Petrus Cluniacensis who notes that Algerus did most accurately confute the errours of some moderne Writers concerning the body of our Lord. Bellarm. l. 3.