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	life_n	lord_n	8,820	5	4.1237	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56600	An answer to a book, spread abroad by the Romish priests, intituled, The touchstone of the reformed Gospel wherein the true doctrine of the Church of England, and many texts of the Holy Scripture are faithfully explained / by the Right Reverend Father in God, Symon, Lord Bishop of Ely.	Patrick, Simon, 1626-1707.	1692 (1692)	Wing P745; ESTC R10288	116,883	290

of Confirmation is not to be used Answer HE knew very well that tho we deny Confirmation to be a Sacrament yet we use it not as a Sacrament nor as absolutely necessary to Salvation for we have declared that children baptized dying before they commit actual sin are undoubtedly saved but so necessary unto compleat Communion that we require the Godfathers and Godmothers to bring children baptized to the Bishop to be confirmed by him when they come to years of discretion and we admit none to the Holy Communion of Christ's Body and Blood till they be confirmed or be ready and desirous so to be Now where doth the Scripture say it is a Sacrament There is not a word of it in VIII Acts 14. VIII Acts 14. much less is it there expressly declared and declared to be necessary or so much as to be used by others but only that the Apostles laid their hands on those who were baptized and they received the Holy Ghost which I am sure no body can now communicate in such Gifts as were then bestowed But above all it is to be noted that there is nothing said here of the Chrysm or anointing with holy Oyl in which they make this Sacrament consist but only of laying on of hands unto which they have no regard For thus Confirmation is performed in the Roman Church the Bishop takes sanctified Chrysm as they call it made of Oyl and Balsom and therewith anoints a person baptized with the thumb of his right hand in the form of a Cross upon the forehead which is bound with a fillet on the anointing till it be dry and it is also accompanied with a box on the ear all which is plainly ordered to be done in their publick Office of Confirmation But nothing of laying on of Hands is there mentioned which they deny to be either the matter or the form of this Sacrament tho we read of nothing else but this laying on of hands either here or in what follows A clear Demonstration that this place is expresly against their pretended Sacrament of Confirmation VI. Hebrew 1. is so far from being contrary to our Doctrine that some of their own Authors * Salmero Justinianus think it doth not speak of Confirmation at all but of the Benediction of Catechumens and others and some of our Authors think it doth even Mr. Calvin himself But then it is expresly said to consist in laying on of hands and ought not to be turned into a Sacrament but look'd upon as a solemn Form of Prayer as St. Austin calls it for Youth who being grown beyond Childhood made a Profession of their Faith and thereupon were thus blessed Which pure Institution as Mr. Calvin's words are is to be retained at this day and the Superstition corrected Behold how vilely the Protestant Doctrine is calumniated by such wretched Writers as this who seem not to understand Common Sense For he saith Confirmation is here called not only one of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ but a Foundation of Repentance when all but such as himself clearly see that the Apostle here makes the Foundation of Repentance from dead Works to be one of the Principles of Christ's Doctrine as laying on of hands is another He betrays also notorious ignorance or falshood in the Citations of his Fathers to which he sends us For Tertullian plainly speaks of the Vnction which accompanied Baptism in his Country not of a distinct Sacrament from Baptism And Pacianus also mentions it as a solemn Right in the Sacrament of Baptism wherein Children are regenerated So doth St. Cyprian likewise even in that place which he mentions where is no such sense as he dreams For he disputes for the Re-baptizing of Hereticks because it is not enough if hands be laid upon them unless they receive the Baptism of the Church for then they are fully sanctified and made the Children of God if they be born by both Sacraments for it is written Vnless a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit c. This latter part this Man conceals which shows St. Cyprian speaks altogether of Baptism in which there were then Two Rites Washing with Water and Laying on of Hands Which were not Two Sacraments properly but Two parts of the same Sacrament which he calls both the Sacraments of Baptism Just as Hulbertus Carnotensis calls the Body and Blood of Christ in the Communion Two Sacraments which in truth are but one For speaking of three things necessary to Salvation he saith of the Third that in it Two Sacraments of Life that is the Lords Body and his Blood are contained St. Hierom likewise speaks of Laying on of Hands but not as a distinct Sacrament For he earnestly contends in that Book that the Spirit is conferred in Baptism and that there can be no Baptism of the Church without the Spirit I have not taken any notice of St. Ambrose for those Books of the Sacrament which gounder his Name are none of his XXXIX That the Bread of the Supper of the Lord was but a Figure or Remembrance of the Body of Christ received by Faith and not his true and very Body Answer THIS is Fiction and false Representation For we expresly declare in the XXVIII Article of our Religion That it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's Death in so much that to such as rightly worthily and with Faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ c. And in our Catechism we also declare That the inward and spiritual Grace in this Sacrament is the Body and Blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper And Mr. Calvin himself saith as much But if we had not been of this mind his first place of Scripture XXII Luke 15. XXII Luk. 15. would have proved nothing against us for it speaks only of eating the Passeover in which he instituted this Sacrament but that followed after Here he speaks only of the Paschal Feast Insomuch that Menochius thus interprets it He most earnestly desired to eat the Paschal Lamb of this year and this day in which the Eucharist was to be instituted and shortly after it was to be shown by his Death how much he loved Mankind whom he so redeemed It was not therefore the Pasche as this Man speaks of his true Body and Blood which our Saviour thus desired to eat This is an idle fancy of a dreaming Divine who hath a Divinity by himself which forbids him to admit Faith to have been in the Son of God But St. Peter was a better Divine than he who applies those words of David to our Blessed Saviour My flesh shall rest in hope because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell c. II. Acts 26 27. Now I would fain know of this Learned Divine whether there can be any Hope without Faith which made him confidently expect

to be raised out of his Grave XXII Luke 18. That which follows also in XXII Luke 18. I will not drink of the fruit of the vine c. plainly belongs to the Paschal Feast as they stand in St. Luke who immediately thereupon proceeds to the Institution of the Sacrament and speaks of the Cup that is there administred as different from the Cup he had before mentioned If this Man had understood his business he should rather have alledged XXVI Matth. 29. where immediately after the Institution of the Sacrament he adds these words But I say unto you I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine c. which St. Luke puts before the Institution But it is a wonderful stupidity to conclude from hence as this Man doth That Christ will drink his own Blood in Heaven or else he concludes nothing because there is no material Bread and Drink in use there Menochius to name no others might have taught him better who thus expounds this passage Our Saviour speaks after the manner of men who being to depart from their Friends for a long time are wont to say We shall Eat and Drink together no more As I shall not drink of this fruit of the vine till that day c. when I shall drink ANOTHER New and Coelestial Wine with you in the Banquet of Eternal Glory And he might have known that we from hence with a wonderful force to use his own phrase conclude That Wine remains in the Sacrament after Consecration because our Saviour calls that which he said before was the New Testament in his Blood the fruit of the Vine that is Wine And so not only we but Origen Cyprian Chrysostom Austin Hierom Epiphanius Bede Euthymius and Theophylact refer the fruit of the Vine unto the Blood of Christ before mentioned as Maldonate himself acknowledges and could not produce so much as one Father to the contrary He might have known also that a great many of his own Church VI. John 51. do not think St. John VI. 51. and other verses of that Chapter speaks of Sacramental Bread as for other reasons so for this that if he did then such as Judas who eat the Sacramental Bread must have Eternal Life Which we find our Lord promises v. 40 47. to those who believe on him and this we take to be the eating he here speaks of as appears by the whole scope of the Chapter For if any such Conversion as they fancy in the Sacrament and call Transubstantiation could be proved out of this Text it would prove the Flesh of Christ is turned into Bread rather than the Bread into his Flesh because he saith The Bread that I will give you is my Flesh To make this good literally it is manifest his Flesh must be made Bread See into what Absurdities these men draw themselves by their perverse Interpretations It is not worth considering what he saith about Beza's interpretation of one word in this Verse there being those of his own Church as well as he that by living Bread understand Bread that gives Life which is must suitable to the words preceding and unto v. 33. We have noted often enough our Saviours words both in XXVI Matth. 26. and XXII Luke 19. And therefore do not say as he slanders us That Christ gave and the Apostles received nothing else but bare Bread for it was the Sacrament of Christ's Body as Druthmarus and a great many more Ancient than he expound those words This is my Body We believe also and thankfully acknowledge that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ But those are St. Paul's words 1 Cor. X. 16. not our Saviours which spoils this man's Observation that our Lord calls it his Body both before and at the very giving of it Which if he had done tho these as I said are St. Paul's words who only calls it the Communion of his Body c. it would prove nothing but that the Bread is his Body which we believe and they are so absurd as to deny Tho we have bidden them note how St. Paul in that very place he next mentions 1 Cor. XI often calls that which he saith is the Lord's Body by the name of Bread v. 26 27 28. But they shut their Eyes and will not take any notice of it Why should we then regard his frivolous Argument to which he at last betakes himself against our true and real receiving of Christ by Faith Unto which Dr. Fulk hath long ago given a sufficient Answer in his Notes upon this Chapter We receive him after a Spiritual manner By Faith on our behalf and by the working of the Holy Ghost on the behalf of Christ So there is no need either of our going up to Heaven or Christ's coming down to us as he sillily argues His Ancient Fathers have been so often viewed and shown to be against them by our Writers and that lately particularly the two first he mentions that I will not go about a needless labour to give an account of them XL. That we ought to receive under both kinds and that one alone sufficeth not Answer VEry true for so Christ appointed so the Apostles both received and gave it so the Church of Christ for above 1000 years practised and wo be to them who alter Christ's Institution Which cannot be justified by such fallacious Arguments as this man here uses instead of giving us express Scripture for it That he promised but alas could find none and therefore makes little trifling reasonings his refuge First from VI. John 51. VI. John 51 53. which I have shewn doth not speak of Sacramental eating but if it did the next Verse but one he could not but see told him that it is as necessary to drink Christ's blood as to eat his flesh To which the Answer is not so easy as he fancies for we have only Dr. Kellison's word for it that the conjunction and is used for or Men may put off any thing by such shifts and it is as sufficient and as learned for us to say it is expresly and in our Bible and not or and you do nothing if you confute us not as you undertook by the express words of our own Bible How strangely do men forget what they promise and what they are about Besides the Fathers from these very words prove the necessity * See late Treatise against Communion in one Kind Ch. 3. of giving both the body and blood of Christ and attribute a distinct effect to each of them Particularly the Author of the Comments under the name of St. Ambrose in I. Cor. XI The flesh of Christ was delivered for the salvation of the body and the blood was poured out for our souls He should have proved not barely affirmed that Christ gave the Sacrament to the Disciples at Emaus XXIV Luke 30 35. XXIV Luke 30 35. We say he did not though