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	water_n	wine_n	8,430	5	7.9588	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34969	Exomologesis, or, A faithfull narration of the occaision and motives of the conversion unto Catholick unity of Hugh-Paulin de Cressy, lately Deane of Laghlin &c. in Ireland and Prebend of Windsore in England now a second time printed with additions and explications by the same author who now calls himself B. Serenus Cressy, religious priest of the holy order of S. Benedict in the convent of S. Gregory in Doway.	Cressy, Serenus, 1605-1674.; Pearson, John, 1613-1686.; Falkland, Lucius Cary, Viscount, 1610?-1643. Discourse of infallibility.	1653 (1653)	Wing C6895; ESTC R29283	288,178	694

conversion not significative but reall true and substantiall 4. Because the same Fathers to make their auditours more capable of the mystery exemplifie in other kinds of changes or conversions as of the change of the Bread which Christ did eat into his owne flesh of the miraculous conversion of water into wine of Moyses rod into a serpent and the waters of Nile into blood Which language would be extremely ridiculous if they intended not a reall and substantial change 5. To prove that they understood not only a presence of Christ in the action of the Sacrament as some English Protestants explain themselves or a presence consistent with a Lutheranical coëxistence of the substance of bread and wine S. Ambrose will satisfie us who answering that very objection that the difficulties would be less if it were affirmed that the substance of bread and wine remained together with the body and blood of Christ after the consecration hath these words de Sacr. l. 4. To the first objection we must thus answer That in matters of faith a man ought not to make choice of that which is accompanied with less difficulties for otherwise we should affirm that in God there is one only hypostasis c. But he ought to affirm that which is most conformable to the testimonies of the holy Fathers and to the Tradition of the Church although never so many difficulties present themselves seeing that he ought to captivate his understanding under the obedience of Faith So likewise S. Ignatius quoted by Theodoret in Dialog 3. speaks of certain Heretikes who received not the Oblations and Eucharists because they believed not that the Eucharist was the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ. Which is a proof undeniable that the most primitive church taught this Catholike dgctrine of the reall Presence for if there had beene onely a spirituall presence what pretence could those Heretikes have to resuse them 6. Because both the antient Liturgies and Fathers of the church do testifie the generall custome of Gods people to adore Christ present upon the Altar after Consecration and this not onely in the time of administration but afterwards also as supposing that that which remained was and continued truly the body of Christ according to those words of S. Cyrill of Alexandria I know what they say namely That the mysticall benediction if any reliques remain of it to the next day is unprofitable to sanctification But they that say thus are mad For there is not another Christ made neither can his holy body be changed but the vertue of the benediction and the quickning Grace remains perpetually in it 7. Lastly because by this argument of the reall transmutation of the visible elements into the body of Christ the third Generall Councell of Ephesus and severall antient Fathers confuted the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches about the two natures of our Saviour as I mentioned occasionally before So that such a world of testimonies of Antiquity concurring the Tradition being so constant and uniform S. Leo the Great had just cause to say Ep. 23. In the church of God this is so consonantly witnessed by evemans mouth that the truth of the body and bloud of Christ is not even by the tongues of infants concealed among the Sacraments or Mysteries of the common Faith 6. An Universall Tradition therefore of the Reall Presence hath been so forcible and unconquerable as that it constrained even the English Protestants themselves to acknowledge it and that simply and unhypocritically How could I then defend my self from submitting and captivating my understanding to the same Tradition as constant for a reall change and conversion I must professe ingenuously that during the time of my being a Protestant the only or I am sure principall hinderance from an entire conformity to the Faith of Catholikes in this point was the inextricablenesse of those arguments which my reason suggested to me out of naturall Philosophy against it as how it could be possible that the same body could be in heaven and upon the Altar at the same time how accidents could remain without their proper subjects c. considering with all the small or rather no satisfaction which the Scholasticall subtilties gave me 7. But now if it be demanded what new Philosophy I have learned since I learned that the Catholique church was to be believed and obeyed and what preservative I have found against those former arguments of naturall reason I must answer freely and ingenuously that I have not learned to answer such arguments but to despise them and to say God forbid that vain Philosophy should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make a prey of me defrauding me of the most necessary communion with the church of Christ and most essentiall vertue of captivating my understanding to the obedience of all Evangelicall Mysteries I do therefore freely confesse my ignorance and inability to demonstrate how this particular Mystery can consist even with those rules of Philosphy which I my self receive But withall I must not conceale that when I was a Protestant also I did the same for other points as the Mystery of the blessed Trinity the Incarnation of the Son of God c. And I did not find any scruple in those mysteries because I could not reconcile them with Aristotle or any other Patriarch of Heretiques as Tertullian calls the Philosophers 8. I will further add that that which gave me entire satisfaction and obliged me in conscience to silence and not to answer my reason when it would raise objections against Transubstantiation was that the same authority for whose sake I believed it taught me to believe it to be a mystery inexplicable and incomprehensible and that it was not lawfull so to examine it as that it should stand or fall according to the dictates of naturall reason Insomuch as S. Gregory called the Divine spoke like one that deserved that surname in the second Generall Councell of Constantinople That it was not permitted to the Maobites and Ammonites to enter into the church of God that is saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to Logicall and vainly curious and subtill discourses I refer the Reader to an abundant collection of the testimonies of Fathers forbidding this curiosity of examining the possibility of this mystery upon the grounds of naturall reason which are to be found in Cardinall Perrons Reply to King James Repl. lib. 4. cap. 1. 2. c. Therefore far be it from me to determine this Mystery by the subtill and too too curious disputations of the Schoolmen I do not envy them their leasure to employ their fancies about such matters within their owne walls but if they begin to passe for competent Judges of this Mystery I must prosesse that I disclaim them and I cannot without grief remember what dangerous use Protestants make of their vaine and sometimes ridiculous Philosophicall Questions about this Mystery who satisfie themselves that the Mystery it self is

present age that so the former ages delivered to her What shall we say then when to the evident testimony of the present age for Catholike verities may be added a world of testimonies both of Scripture and antient writers beyond all comparison far more then for her enemies contradictory assertions even those enemies themselves being judges as will appeare undeniably to any man that will consult that one book of Brercley's Apology of Protestants for the Catholique church CHAP. II. Of the Reall Presence and Transubstantiation Of the Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament and of Communion under one Species 1. THe six speciall controversies which I shall briefly consider shall be 1. Concerning the Eucharist and therein of the Reall Presence of Christs body by way of Transubstantiation as likewise Of the Adoration of our Lord present in the Sacrament and communion under one Species 2. Of Invocation of Saints 3. Of Veneration of Images 4. Of Prayer for the Dead and Purgatory 5. Of Indulgences 6. Of the Publike Service in Latin The reason why I make choice of these is both because these are the especiall controversies wherein there is a reall and manifest difference between Catholiques and Protestants who make these points the principall causes of their separation For as concerning the debates about Grace and Free-will Predestination and Justification as likewise the merits of good works though ignorant-popular-preaching Protestants make a great clamour about them yet I was most assured that there was indeed a reall agreement when they came to explaine themselves sensibly about them As for the controversie concerning the Pope I have spoken sufficiently in the 52. chapter at the latter end of the fourth conclusion 2. First therefore concerning the Reall presence of Christs body in the Eucharist and that by way of Transubstantiation In discoursing upon which because my designe is not to write the controversie in generall but only in reference to the doctrine which following the church of England I was taught there it will be sufficient for me to signifie that by that church I was taught that in the blessed Sacrament the body and bloud of our Lord were really present exhibited and received by the Communicants really I say not onely as the objects of Faith or not onely as really exhibiting the effects of Christs suffering but as truly and properly as the Roman church professeth onely I was forbidden to say that there was any reall change made in the bread and Wine which remained after Consecration as they were before In a word I was taught to say what neither I nor any other was able to expresse save onely that the Romish doctrine was false which taught that that presence was made by a presence of Christs body under the Species which only remained of the visible elements 3. Now when I say that I was taught to expresse my belief thus by the church of England my intention is not that that church obligeth every one to believe thus For the truth is so a man will but renounce the two words of Transubstantion and Consubstantiation he may preserving the terme really interpret himself as if really signified only figuratively or as the object of the understanding as we see a world of writers allowed there to have expressed themselves Yea in the 28. and 29. Articles of that Church there are certain clauses which require only a figurative sense to be understood as when it is said The body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the supper only after an heavenly and spirituall manner and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper is Faith And again The wicked c. are in no wise partakers of Christ but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing Which clauses being allowed those Articles do admit yea require not only the Calvinistical but even the Zuinglian sense concerning that point Yet notwithstanding this whether the Calvinisticall party there had with their usuall importunity extorted the inserting of those clauses into the Articles I know not yet those that followed the Prelaticall Governing Faction never considered those expressions but without any Calvinisticall hypscrisie professed that they believed the Reall Presence as truly and really and properly as the Catholiques did And so King James commanded Monsieur Casaubon to signifie his sense to Cardinall Perron in the words of Doctor Andrews then Bishop of Ely 4. Now what other reason can be imagined should move the most learned and prudent part of the English Clergy to expresse themselves so neer the Catholique sense but only a conviction that besides the formall words of Scripture the Ecclesiasticall Tradition and generall doctrine of the Fathers enforced such a sense But by what mystery it came to passe that they should dispense with themselves for following Tradition no further but that under a pretence that the Sacrament was a mystery inexplicable they should forsake the same Tradition and Fathers who generally professe that that presence is made by a reall transmutation of the visible elements into the very Body and Blood of Christ this I confesse I could never comprehend 5. Now that such was the Traditionary doctrine of the Catholique church besides the testimony of the present age which will be of infinite weight to any one that duly considers it and to omit a world of quotations out of Councells and Fathers wherein expressions to prove the same are as full yea perhaps more rigid then the Decision of the Councell of Trent it selfe I became convinced from these considerations viz. 1. Because in all the antient Liturgies that ever I saw there are expresse mention of the verity and reality of this change and not any the least intimation of a figurative sense there are expresse prayers that God would by his omnipotent power cause the Bread and Wine to become the Body and Bloud of our Lord and not the least intimation that the way of communicating of these mysteries should be only by Faith or by the operation of the understanding 2. Because in the form of communicating both in the Easterne and Westerne churches which form or Canon S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Basile c. attribute to the Apostles themselves as authors there was required from the communicants a confession of their beliefe of the reality of this change or to expresse it in S. Ambrose his language de Sacr. l. 4. c. 3. The Priest viz. presenting to thee that which before consecration was bread saith unto thee This is the body of Christ and thou answerest Amen that is to say it is true That which the tongue confesseth let the heart believe 3. Because generally the Fathers when they speak of this argument have recourse to the omnipotence of the Word of Christ and to wonderfull operations exalted above all humane credibility as the cause of this change thereby leaving no doubt that they understood a

not true because they find no satisfaction in the discourses and answers which the Schoole-writers endeavour to give to a thousand foolish objections which they conjute up out of Aristotles Philosophy against this Mystery to be adored and trembled at It is onely Scripture testimonies of Fa●hers Ecclesiasticall Tradition Generall Councells and the Profession of the present Catholique Church which are the proper Judges of this controversie and whose authority when it is employed as it ought will assert this divine truth of the Reality of Christs presence by way of conversion in the blessed Sacrament to the confusion of all Novelties and all Blasphemies of Heretiques The antient both Latin and Grecian Fathers who certainly were of wits as subtill and pierceing as any that have succeeded them yet never thought upon such nice enquiries as now every young Philosopher can prattle of and therefore I professe since I am far from finding any obligation at all lying upon me to the contrary yea since the Councell of Trent Sess. 13. c. I. hath defined this point in the language of Antiquity and not of the Schools saying that Christ is present in the Sacrament Sacramentaliter i. e. mysteriously inexplicably I will never endeavour to answer any Philosophicall arguments any other way then with such words as these of S. John Damascene The Bread and Wine is changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord but this after an unsearchable manner For of this matter we know no further but only that the word of God is true and efficacious and omnipotent Damasc. de Orthod Fide lib. 4. cap. 14. Of the Adoration of our Lord Jesus Christ present in the holy Eucharist 9● Let us now consider to what the church obliges all Catholiques in this point If any one saith the Councell of Trent Sess. 13. Can. 6. saith that Jesus Christ the only Son of God ought not to be adored with the exteriour worship of Latria it self in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and that for that end it ought not to be proposed publikely to the people to be adored and that those who adore him are Idolaters let him be Ana●hema Which worship of Latria is not given to the outward Symbolls of the Eucharist but only to Jesus Christ himself there present A certaine degree of respect even by the confession of the Calvinists is due to all outward instruments of Religion as to Chalices to the books of Scripture to the water of Baptisme and to the Species of Bread and Wine in the Holy Eucharist And Catholiques allow no more But the true object which a Catholique adores with this sublime act of adoration or Latria is in the case in hand Jesus Christ himself who is to be adored every where wheresoever he is present and therefore likewise in the holy Eucharist in the which the Catholique church knows and acknowledgeth no other substance as the Calvinists desire to impose on them but only Jesus Christ. And if they be Idolaters for this the Lutherans are so too who teach the same doctrine though they expresse themselves in the point of the Reall Presence after another new-invented manner yet notwithstanding the Calvinists when their worldly interests obliged them could be content to comunicate with the Lutherans and could swallow their pretended Idolatry but out of fear and hatred of Catholique union make even the church her self a prejudice against her doctrine 10. For mine own part whilest I was a Protestant I professe I could never answer to mine own reason why we should condemn the worshipping of Christ whom we professed to be present in very truth without figures or fancies If he had not been there after a peculiar Sacramentall manner I might lawfully notwithstanding have worshipped him there because I may and ought to worship him every where as being God omnipresent yea though his humane nature be locally present only at the right hand of the Father in glory yet I may worship the man Jesus Christ every where because that person which is God and Man is every where present viz. according to his divine not humane nature and yet it seems when a new acc●ssion of another kind of Sacramentall truly reall presence is added to the former though I acknowledge this later presence to be as reall as the former I must be forbidden to expresse that I acknowledge and believe it any other way then by saying with my lips that I do so I must then deny unto him in that place at his owne table and altar and at that time whilest are celebrated those mysteries adorable even to Angells themselves that worship and respect which I would have given him at mine own table or whilest I was doing the ordinary works of my calling But it will be said perhaps you are not forbidden to worship him but you must not worship him as present there And why for Gods sake Bid me rather believe that he is not after an epseciall manner present But this is tyranny and injustice in the highest degree to command me to believe that he is as truly though after another manner present there as at the right hand of his Father and at the same time to command me by my works to belye my belief No no. Quàm magis ingenuè Peribonius How much more ingenuous are the Socinians then all other Sects for whereas the rest would gladly pretend Antiquity and take much unprofitable pains to make a Father now and then speak a word in their favour The Socinians instead of puzling themselves to untye cut asunder all such knots and difficulties they with an impudent resolutenesse break through all obstacles Let the antient church determine what it please and let the antient Fathers agree to speak as they have a mind if what is spoken and decreed either suit not with what they fancy that the Holy Ghost does mean or naturall reason being Judge ought to mean or if the Holy Ghost in their opinions hath been silent in it without more a●o they presently reject and condemn it upon which grounds they strein not to alter all the language almost of the church they know no such thing as a Sacrament they acknowledge no promises to nor no ●ffects of such ceremonious actions as the church and all Christians call Sacraments they scoffe at the Reall Presence and abominate the adoration of Christ in his Mysteries Let S. Ambrose de Sp. 5. l. 3. say By his footstool is meant the earth and by the earth the body of Christ which every day we adore in the mysteries and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Jesus Let S. Augustine in Psa. 48. say For he took earth from earth both because be conversed here in very flesh and gave us likewise very flesh to eat for our salvation Now no man eats that flesh but that he adores it first And thus a way is found how the Lords footstoole is adored And again Epist 120. expounding that of the Psalmist All