Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	bread_n	true_a	wine_n	11,224	5	7.9379	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49714	A relation of the conference between William Laud, late Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite by the command of King James, of ever-blessed memory : with an answer to such exceptions as A.C. takes against it.	Laud, William, 1573-1645.; Fisher, John, 1569-1641.	1673 (1673)	Wing L594; ESTC R3539	402,023	294

Calvinists if they might be rightly understood they also maintain a most true and Real presence though they cannot permit their Judgement to be Transubstantiated And they are Protestants too And this is so known a Truth that ‖ Bellarmine confesses it For he saith Protestants do often grant that the true and real Body of Christ is in the Eucharist But he addes That they never say so far as he hath read That it is there Truely and Really unless they speak of the Supper which shall be in Heaven Well first if they grant that the true and Real Body of Christ is in that Blessed Sacrament as Bellarmine confesses they do and 't is most true then A. C. is false who charges all the Protestants with denyal or doubtfulness in this Point And secondly Bellarmine himself also shews here his Ignorance or his Malice Ignorance if he knew it not Malice if he would not know it For the Calvinists at least they which follow Calvin himself do not onely believe that the true and real Body of Christ is received in the Eucharist but that it is there and that we partake of it verè realitèr which are Calvins own words and yet Bellarmine boldly affirms that to his reading no one Protestant did ever affirm it And I for my part cannot believe but Bellarmine had read Calvin and very carefully he doth so frequently and so mainly Oppose him Nor can that Place by any Art be shifted or by any Violence wrested from Calvin's true meaning of the Presence of Christ in and at the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist to any Supper in Heaven whatsoever But most manifest it is that Quod legerim for ought I have read will not serve Bellarmine to excuse him For he himself but in the very Chapter going before quotes four Places out of Calvin in which he says expresly That we receive in the Sacrament the Body and the Bloud of Christ Verè truly So Calvin says it four times and Bellarmine quotes the places and yet he says in the very next Chapter That never any Protestant said so to his Reading And for the Church of England nothing is more plain than that it believes and teaches the true and Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist unless A. C. can make a Body no Body and Bloud no Bloud as perhaps he can by Transubstantiation as well as Bread no Bread and Wine no Wine And the Church of England is Protestant too So Protestants of all sorts maintain a true and Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and then where 's any known or damnable Heresie here As for the Learned of those zealous men that died in this Cause in Q. Maries days they denied not the Real presence simply taken but as their Opposites forced Transubstantiation upon them as if that and the Real presence had been all one Whereas all the Ancient Christians ever believed the one and none but Modern and Superstitious Christians believe the other if they do believe it for I for my part doubt they do not And as for the Unlearned in those times and all times their zeal they holding the Foundation may eat out their Ignorances and leave them safe Now that the Learned Protestants in Queen Mary's days did not deny nay did maintain the Real presence will manifestly appear For when the Commissioners obtruded to Jo. Frith the Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament and that without all figure or similitude Jo. Frith acknowledges That the inward man doth as verily receive Christ's Body as the outward man receives the Sacrament with his Mouth And he addes That neither side ought to make it a necessary Article of Faith but leave it indifferent Nay Archbishop Cranmer comes more plainly and more home to it than Frith For if you understand saith he by this word really Reipsa that is in very deed and effectually so Christ by the grace and efficacie of his Passion is indeed and truly present c. But if by this word Really you understand Corporalitèr Corporally in his natural and Organical Body under the Forms of Bread and Wine 't is contrary to the Holy Word of God And so likewise Bishop Ridley Nay Bishop Ridley addes yet farther and speaks so fully to this Point as I think no man can adde to his Expression And 't is well if some Protestants except not against it Both you and I faith he agree in this That in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body and Bloud of Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into heaven which sits on the right hand of God the Father which shall come from thence to judge the quick and the dead Onely we differ in modo in the way and manner of being We confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament and dissent in the Manner of Being there I confess Christs natural Body to be in the Sacrament by Spirit and Grace c. You make a grosser kinde of Being inclosing a natural Body under the shape and form of Bread and Wine So far and more Bishop Ridley And Archbishop Cranmer confesses That he was indeed of another Opinion and inclining to that of Zuinglius till Bishop Ridley convinced his Judgement setled him in this Point And for Calvin he comes no whit short of these against the Calumny of the Romanists on that behalf Now after all this with what face can A. C. say as he doth That Protestants deny or doubt of the true and Real presence of Christ in the Sacrament I cannot well tell or am unwilling to utter Fifthly whereas 't is added by A. C. That in this present case there is no peril of any damnable Heresie Schisme or any other Sin in resolving to live and die in the Roman Church That 's not so neither For he that lives in the Roman Church with such a Resolution is presumed to believe as that Church believes And he that doth so I will not say is as guilty but guilty 〈…〉 is more or less of the Schism which that Church first caused by her Corruptions and now continues by them and her power together And of all her Damnable Opinions too in point of Misbelief though perhaps A. C. will not have them called Heresies unless they have been condemned in some General Councel And of all other sins also which the Doctrine and Misbelief of that Church leads him into And mark it I pray For 't is one thing to live in a Schismatical Church and not Communicate with it in the Schism or in any false Worship that attends it For so Elias lived among the Ten Tribes and was not Schismatical 3 Reg. 17. And after him Elizaeus 4 Reg. 3. But then neither of them either countenanced the Schism or worshipped the Calves in Dan or in Bethel And so also beside these Prophets did those Thousands live in

her Corruptions were part of the Catholike Faith of Christ. So the whole passage is a meer begging of the Question and then threatning upon it without all ground of Reason or Charity In the mean time let A. C. look to himself that in his false security he run not into the danger and loss of his own salvation while he would seem to take such care of ours But though this Argument prevails with the weak yet it is much stronger in the cunning than the true force of it For all Arguments are very moving that lay their ground upon the Adversaries Confession especially if it be confessed and avouched to be true But if you would speak truly and say Many Protestants indeed confess there is salvation possible to be attained in the Roman Church but yet they say withal that the Errours of that Church are so many and some so great as weaken the Foundation that it is very hard to go that way to Heaven especially to them that have had the Truth manifested the heart of this Argument were utterly broken Besides the force of this Argument lies upon two things one directly Expressed the other but as upon the By. Num. 3 That which is expressed is We and our Adversaries consent that there is salvation to some in the Roman Church What would you have us as malicious at least as rash as your selves are to us and deny you so much as possibility of Salvation If we should we might make you in some things strain for a Proof But we have not so learned Christ as either to return evil for evil in this heady course or to deny salvation to some ignorant silly souls whose humble peaceable obedience makes them safe among any part of men that profess the Foundation Christ And therefore seek not to help our Cause by denying this comfort to silly Christians as you most fiercely do where you can come to work upon them And this was an old trick of the Donatists For in the Point of Baptism whether that Sacrament was true in the Catholike Church or in the part of Donatus they exhorted all to be baptized among them Why Because both parts granted that Baptism was true among the Donatists which that peevish Sect most unjustly denied the sound part as S. Augustine delivers it I would ask now Had not the Orthodox true Baptism among them because the Donatists denied it injuriously Or should the Orthodox against Truth have denied Baptism among the Donatists either to cry quittance with them or that their Argument might not be the stronger because both parts granted But Mark this how far you run from all common Principles of Christian Peace as well as Christian Truth while you deny salvation most unjustly to us from which you are farther off your selves Besides if this were or could be made a concluding Argument I pray why do not you believe with us in the Point of the Eucharist For all sides agree in the Faith of the Church of England That in the most Blessed Sacrament the Worthy receiver is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real Body and Blood of Christ truly and really and of all the Benefits of his Passion Your Roman Catholikes add a manner of this his Prefence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans a manner of this Presence Consubstantiation which more deny If this Argument be good then even for this Consent it is safer Communicating with the Church of England than with the Roman or Lutheran Because all agree in this Truth not in any other Opinion Nay Suarez himself and he a very Learned Adversary what say you to this A. C doth Truth force this from him Confesses plainly That to Believe Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to Salvation And yet he knew well the Church had determined it And Bellarmine after an intricate tedious and almost inexplicable Discourse about an Aductive Conversion A thing which neither Divinity nor Philosophy ever heard of till then is at last forced to come to this Whatsoever is concerning the manner and forms of speech illud tenendum e●t this is to be held that the Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and the Blood of Christ is substantial but after a secret and ineffable manner and not like in all things to any natural Conversion whatsoever Now if he had left out Conversion and affirmed only Christs real Presence there after a mysterious and indeed an ineffable manner no man could have spoke better And therefore if you will force the Argument always to make that the safest way of Salvation which differing Parties agree on why do you not yield to the force of the same Argument in the Belief of the Sacrament one of the most immediate means of Salvation where not onely the most but all agree And your own greatest Clarks cannot tell what to say to the Contrary Num. 4 I speak here for the force of the Argument which certainly in it self is nothing though by A. C. made of great account For he says 'T is a Confession of Adversaries extorted by Truth Just as Petilian the Donatist brag'd in the case of Baptism But in truth 't is nothing For the Syllogism which it frames is this In Point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree on But Papists and Protestants which are the differing Parties agree in this that there is salvation possible to be found in the Roman Church Therefore 't is safest for a man to be and continue in the Roman Church To the Minor Proposition then I observe this only that though many Learned Protestants grant this all do not And then that Proposition is not Universally true nor able to sustain the Conclusion For they do not in this all agree nay I doubt not but there are some Protestants which can and do as stifly and as churlishly deny them Salvation as they do us And A. C. should do well to consider whether they do it not upon as good reason at least But for the Major Proposition Namely That in Point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the Adversary confesses or the Differing Parties agree on I say that is no Metaphysical Principle but a bare Contingent Proposition and being indefinitely taken may be true or false as the matter is to which it is applied but being taken universally is false and not able to lead in the Conclusion Now that this Proposition In point of Faith and Salvation 't is safest for a man to take that way which the differing Parties agree on or which the Adversary confesses hath no strength in it self but is sometimes true and sometimes false as the Matter is about which it is conversant is most evident First by Reason Because Consent of disagreeing Parties is neither Rule nor Proof of Truth For Herod and

again in the second Prayer or Thanksgiving after Consecration thus We give thee thanks for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us which have duly received these holy Mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Bloud of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ c. † Jo. Fox Martyrolog Tom. 2. London 1597. p. 943. ‖ Fox Ibid. * Cranmer apud Fox ibid. p. 1301. † I say Corporalitèr corporally for so Bellarmine hath it expresly Quod autem Corporalitèr propriè s●●●atur Sanguis Caro c. prob●●i potest omnibus Argumentis c. Bell. L. 1. de Eucharistic 12. § Sed tota And I must be bold to tell you more than That this is the Doctrine of the Ch. of Rome For I must tell you too that Bellarm. here contradicts himself For he that tells us here that it can be proved by many Arguments that we receive the Flesh and the Bloud of Christ in the Eucharist corporalitèr said as expresly before had he remembred it that though Christ be in this Blessed Sacrament verè realiter yet faith he non dicemus corporaliter i. e. co modo quo s●d naturâ existunt Corpora c. Bell. L. 1. de Euchar. c. 2. § Tertia Regula So Bell. here is in a notorious contradiction Or else it will follow plainly out of him that Christ in the Sacrament is existent one way received another which is a gross absurdity And that corporaliter was the Doctrine of the Ch. of Rome meant by Transubstantiation is farther plain in the book called The Institution of a Christian man set forth by the Bishops in Convocation in H. 8's time an 1534. c. Of the Sacrament of the Altar The words are Under the form figure of Bread Wine the very body and bloud of Christ is corporally really c. exhibited and received c. And Aqui●as expresse●●● thus Quia tamen substantia Corporis Christi realiter non dividitur à sua quantitate dimensiva ab aliis accidentibus ind● est quòd ex vi realis Concomitantiae est in Sacramento tot● quantitas dimensiva Corpori● Christi omnia accidentia ejus Tho. p. 3. q. 76. Ar. 4. c. * Apud Fox ibid. p. 1598. † Apud Fox ibid. 1703. ‖ Tantùm de modo quaestiö est c. Et ●acessat calum●ia auferri Christum à Coenâ suâ c. Calv. L. 4. Inst. c. 17. § 31. Veritatem Dei in quâ acquiescere tutò licet sine controversia amplectar Pronunciat ille Carnem suam esse Animae meae cibum Sanguinem esse potum Talibus alimentis animam Illi meam pascendam o●●●●o In S. Coena jubet me sub Symbolis Panis Vini Corpus Sanguinem suum sumere manducare bi●ere Nihil dubito quin Ipse Verè porrigat ego recipiam Calv. ibid. § 32. Punct 5. A. C. p. 66. 3 Reg. 17. 4 Reg. 3. 3 Reg. 19. 18. 3 Reg. 13. 11. * Petilianus dixit Venite ad Ecclesiam populi aufugite Traditores ita Orthodoxos tum appellavit si cum iisdem perire non vultis Num ut facilè cogno●catis quòd ipsi sunt rei de fide nostra optimè judicant Ego illorum infectos baptizo Illi meos quod absit recipiunt baptizatos quae om●ino non ●acerent si in Baptismo nostro culpas aliquas agnovissent Videte ergo quod damus quam sanctum sit quod destruere metuit Sacrilegus Inimicus S. August respondet Sic approbamus in Haereticis Baptismum nox Haereticorum sed Christi sicut in Fornicasoribus Idololatris Veneficis c. approbamus Baptismum non eorm sed Christi Omnes enim isti inter quos Haeretici sunt sicut dicit Apostolus Regnum Dei non possidebunt c. ● August ● 2. cont Lit. Petiliani c. 108. * Galat. 5. 19 20 21. † Non ergo vestrum est quod destruert metuimus sed Christi quod in sacrilegis per se sanctum est S. August Ibid. A. C. p. 64 65. A. C. p. 66. * For though Prateolus will make Donatus and from him the Donatists to be gullty of an impious Heresie I doubt he means Arrianism though he name it not in making the Son of God less than the Father and the Holy Ghost less than the Son L 4. de Haeres Haer. 14. yet these things are most manifest out of S. Aug. concerning them who lived with them both in time and place and understood them and their Tenets far better than Prateolus could And first S. Aug. tells us concerning them Aryiani Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti diversas substantias esse dicunt Donatistae autem unam Trinitatis substantiam confitentur So they are no Arrians Secondly Si aliqui eorum minorem Filium esse dixerunt quàm Pater est ejusd●m tamen substantiae non ●●gârunt But this is but si aliq●● if any so 't was doubtful this too though Patreolus delivers it positively Thirdly Plurimi ver● in iis ●oe se dicunt omnino credere de Patre Fili● Spirit● Sancto quod Catholica credit Ecclesia Nec ●●sa cum illis vertitur Questio sed de sola Communione i●●oeliciter litigant c. De sola Only about the Union with the Church Therefore they erred not in Fundamental Points of Faith And Lastly All that can farther be said against them is That some of them to win the Goths to them when they were powerful said Hoc se Credere quod illi Credunt Now the Goths for the most were Arrians But then faith S. Aug. they were but n●●nulli some of them And of this some it was no more Certain than sicut andivimus as we have heard S. Aug. knew it not And then if it were true of some yet Majorum s●orum Authoritate convincuntur Quia nec Donatus ipse sic credidisse asseritur de cujus parte se esse gloriantur S. Aug. Epist. 50. Where Prateolus is again deceived for he says expresly that Donatus affirmed the Son to be less then the Father Impius ille asserebat c. But then indeed and which perchance deceived Patreolus beside Donatus the founder of this Heresie there was another Donatus who succeeded Majorinus at Carth●ge and he was guilty of the Heresie which Prateolus mentions Et extant scripta ejus ubi appare● a● S. Aug. confesses L 1. de Haeres Haer. 69. But then S. Aug. adds there also nec facilè in iis quisquam that scarce any of the Donatists did so much as know that this Donatus held that Opinion much less did they believe it themselves S. Aug. Ibid. † §. 21. N. 1 c. Punct 6. A. C. p. 66. * §. 35. N. 1 2. A. C. p. 66. * I●gemuit totus Orbis Arrianum se esse miratus est S. H●er advers Luciferian post medium To. 2. Arrianorum Venenum non ●am portiunculam quandam sed p●●è