Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	day_n	flesh_n	life_n	5,692	4	5.5881	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A08891	The fal of Babel By the confusion of tongues directly proving against the Papists of this, and former ages; that a view of their writings, and bookes being taken; cannot be discerned by any man living, what they would say, or how be vnderstoode, in the question of the sacrifice of the masse, the reall presence or transubstantiation, but in explaning their mindes they fall vpon such termes, as the Protestants vse and allow. Further in the question of the Popes supremacy is shevved, how they abuse an authority of the auncient father St. Cyprian, a canon of the I Niceene counsell, and the ecclesiastical historie of Socrates, and Sozomen. And lastly is set downe a briefe of the sucession of Popes in the sea of Rome for these 1600 yeeres togither; ... By Iohn Panke.	Panke, John.	1608 (1608)	STC 19171; ESTC S102341	167,339	204

made partakers of his flesh and blood of the sacrament of the aultar without any transubstantiatiō of the bread into the body of Christ Vt ante can 8. sacramentally really are a tearmes contrary yet cōfounded More ouer they hold that Christ is eaten there sacramentally really which two tearmes as they vtter them are very opposit for if there be nothing to be eaten but the reall substātiall body of Christ what is eaten sacramentally Wee affirme that Christ is there sacramentally is eaten sacramentally by his spirit present by his grace as hee is in the sacrament of baptisme that is properly sacramentall Againe speaking of the vse and profite of that sacrament Cap. 8. de vsu admirabilis hu ius sacramenti 1. Sacramentally they say there be three sorts of Receiuers some that receaue it only sacramentally as sinners others spiritually in desire by a liuely faith thirdly those that receaue it sacramentally spiritually both together Which three waies may bee taken for sound Orthodoxall 2. Spiritually who cannot for the time communicate if we could cause them to tell vs what they meane by sacramentally If by sacramentally they mean really fleshly and substantially as at the first they treated of his presence there 3. Sacramentally spiritually who doe cōmunicate as they ought Ioh. 6.54.56 Sacramentally Spiritually so say the Protestants how doe they make good that sinners and wicked persons doe eate his verie flesh and drinke his verie blood as they saie they doe since the worde of life it selfe that mouth which neuer spake guile hath said He that eateth my flesh drinketh my blood hath eternall life I will raise him vp at the last daie And hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me I in him And by the third waie described that those eate him sacramentally spiritually who doe duly prepare themselues puting on the wedding garmēt doe come vnto that holy table doth breed an other scruple how sacramentally can stand with spiritually vnderstanding by sacramentally Really substantially may stād to gether but spiritually cannot as they did before really fleshly substātially those two tearmes being also vsed of the Protestants who say the wicked doe eate sacramētally only that is the sacrament of his body and bloud the godly sacramentally spiritually that is bread and wine with the hand mouth the body blood by faith and noe otherwise which are the right vse of the words sacramentally spiritually Againe I may demand of them why they doe not describe the presence of Christ to be spiritual sacramental aswel as describe him so to be eaten they saie he is eaten by on of those three waies of al men in generall good bad and to al men good bad they describe him presēt really truly substantially body soule diuinitie and al yet eaten only sacrementally spiritually now it is not possible to be thought but that the spirituall eating of Christ in the sacrament excludeth the corporall as his spiritual presence wil his corporall or substantiall nether can noe one meat be fit both for the body and soule as al men knowe And therfore if they will dissent from vs not from themselues also they must dispute either of a corporall eating of the flesh of Christ De manducati one corporis domini sit ne illa vera antropica sensibilis an insensibilis modo corporeo an spirituali l. 4. chron fol. 790 Fallacia alia aliā trudit Ter. in And. act 4. scen 4. De sac euc l. 1 c. 11. fol. 92. c. 14. fol. 117. l. 2. c. 8. fol. 163 or of a spiritual only as Genebrard confesseth was brought in about Bertrams time almost 800. yeares since not to a corporall to adde a spiritual of one the same thinge nor confound the tearmes of sacramentall spirituall reall Againe it is alwaies seene one absurditie draweth on an other I demand how their tearme of receauing spiritually doth agree with Bellarmine whoe saith that the body of Christ is verily properly eaten in the Eucharist by our body sent frō the mouth into the stomake that the body of Christ entreth in at the mouth of the communicants and is verily receaued by the mouth of the body small spirituall receauing is there by the instruments of the mouth belly Faith must haue other food if it were so it should not be said Crede manducasti beleiue thou hast eaten but lay hold with thy hand thou art safe The next in authoritie to the Trent Fathers is the Romish Cathechisme gathered by their decree Catec Rom. p. 1. art 6. c. 7. fol 57. The right sēce of the article ouerthroweth Transubstantiation published by Pius quintus the Pope The catechisme intreating of that article of our beleife He ascended into heauen and suteth one the right hand of god the father almightie doe say the right sense of that article is that the faithful without al doubt ought to be leiue that Christ the mysterie of our redemption being perfected and finished vt homo est in coelum corpore animâ ascendisse as he is man is ascended in body and soule into heauen For as hee is God hee was neuer from thence Vt qui diuinitate sua loca ominia cōpleat The causes why hee ascēded ib. fol. 59. The benefits of his ascention ibid. fol. 61 filling al places with his diuinitie And speaking of the causes whie Christ our sauiour would ascend vp into heauen one is beecause by ascending say they hee would bringe to passe that wee should mount vp thither in minde and affection and amongst many benefits which come vnto men by his ascention into heauen they reckon this a great one quod amorem nostrum ad coelum rapuit ac diuino spiritu inflammauit that it draweth our mindes and loue to heauen inflameth them with a diuine spirit for it is truly said There our harte is Marc. 6. where our treasure is surly if Christ our Lord were conuersant in earth omnis nostra cogitation in ipso hominis aspectu consuetudine defixa esset al our cogitations would be placed in the looking maner of him we shold behold him only as man becaus he had don so great things for vs But ascending into heauen it maketh our loue heauenly and causeth that whom wee think of being absent him we worship and loue as God which doctrine of theirs being very sound and Catholike cannot chuse but ouerthrowe their owne opinion of Transubstantiatiō Catec p. 2. c. 4. fol. 181. which bringeth the same body of Christ that same that was borne of the Virgin which is ascended and sitetth now euer shal at the right hand of his father in heauen to bee transubstantiated into bread to bee contained in the sacrament

into his blood the showes of bread wine only remaining which conuersion the catholike Church doth aptly call Transubstantiation let him be accursed Can. 8. gaine if anie man saie That Christ is exhibited or set forth in the Eucharist to the intent to bee eaten spiritually not also sacramentally really let him be accursed Not to speake heare how blasphemous contrary this their doctrine is to the holy institution of Christ at his last supper the verie manner of their handling seting downe their opinions is by their leaues erronious yet not vnder stood by their owne Doctors For first it must follow of their words if the whol substāce of the bread be turned into Christs body then is the body of Christ made of bread as is verified in the decrees which saith The bodie of Christ his blood by the power of the holy ghost is made of the substance De Cons dist 2. can vtrum sub figura of bread and wine Then will it follow that it is not that bodie which was made of the flesh blood of the virgin Mary Hard. cont Iu. art 12. fol. 168 D. Harding seeing this impietie of making our sauiour Christ haue two contrary bodies both avoideth his own authorities ouerthroweth his Transubstantiation for thus he saith Where the bodie blood of Christ is said to be made of bread wine beware thou vnlearned mā thou thinke not them therof to bee made as though they were newly created of the matter of bread and wine nether that they be made of bread wine as of a matter but that where bread wine were before This is noe trāsubstantiation after consecration there is the verie bodie blood of Christ borne of the verie substance of the Virgin Mary To say where bread was before there is the bodie of Christ as M. Harding saith is a departing or annibilation of the bread a comming of it as it were to nothing not a transubstantiation a turning of the substance of the bread into the substance of the bodie of Christ as the Trent fathers define Againe if bread be made the body of Christ or is the bodie of Christ as they are willing to grant why shoulde it not be said to be made of bread as of a matter If it bee made of the substance of bread why not made of bread as of a matter Againe They themselues teach vs Lumb l. 4. dis 1. b. Alan de sac in gener l. 1. c. 2. Dureus cont Whit. rat 2 fol 103. Hard. cont Iuell art 8. f. 144. b. Tonstal l. 1. fol 33. Allen de Euch sacra l. 1. c. 3. fol 217 Bellar. de euch sac l. 2. c. 9. fol. 151. ex Iren l. 4 cont haer c. 34 that a sacrament is a signe of an holy thinge or a visible signe of an invisible grace so that on two things doth a sacrament consist by both our cōsents Now least there should be anie strife what those two things are they teach moreouer that the on is earthly the other heauenly so they al teach our of Ireneus that ancient father who saith this being not commō bread but the Eucharist after consecration consisting of two things earthly heauenly what that earthly thing is al men may vnderstād that wel to be verie bread the substance of bread except he bee driuen to say as al they doe in those places quoted that by the earthly thing named by Ireneus is ment not the substance of bread but the accidents that is the tast colour waight show sauour fashion of bread What earthly thinge the tast colour shew waight and sauour of bread can bee I appeale to anie indifferent iudge So that to say as the Trent fathers saie that noe substance remaineth after consecration Transubstantiation ouerthroweth the nature of a sacrament They keepe it in the one and destroy it in the other Tons l. 1. f. 30. 48. b. ex cā conc Nicen. considera divinā vim quae in aquis latet Step. Gardin fol. 8 b. but the real and substantial bodie of Christ is to ouerthrowe the nature of a sacrament and to take awaie the earthly part of it instead of exhibiting the Grace of Christ putteth the Person of Christ God man in the roomth But see how they retaine the true nature definition of a sacrament in the one destroy it in the other They saie there remaineth the nature and substance of water the invisible grace of the spirit the holy Ghost commeth down halloweth the water there we cōsider the diuine spirit which lieth hid in the water there wee consider our baptisme not with the eies of our flesh but with the eies of our soules And as in the sacrament of Christs most precious bodie and blood we receaue Christs verie flesh drinke his verie blood to cōtinue augmēt the life receaued so in baptisme we receaue the spirit of Christ for the renuing of our life's And therfore in the same forme of words Christ spake to Nichodemus of baptisme In both sacraments Christ is exhibiteth himselfe vnto vs. Andra. Ortho. expl l. 3. f. 239. that he spake of the eating of his body drinking of his blood in both sacraments giueth dispenseth exhibiteth indeed those celestiall guifts in sensible elements In both sacraments the blood of Christ is included the sprinkling of our bodies with the water of Baptisme is nothing but that the soule be washed rinced with the blood of Christ If all this bee verified of the sacrament of Baptisme if Christ can giue exhibite himselfe as he doth indeed vnto vs without anie transubstantiation retaining the substance of the element of water we cannot but say so of the sacrament of the supper Lumb l. 4. dist 9. a Torren l. 3. c. 6. parag 3. fine vide tale a liquid apud Aug. tom 7. de peccat merit remiss l. 3. c. 4 that there we maie feed on Christs flesh drink his blood without anie transubstantiation of the bread wine Nay in more plainer maner they tell vs that Saint Augustine doubteth not to say of infants other faithfull people Nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum Noe man may in anie wise doubt but that euerie faithful man is then made partaker of the body blood of Christ when in baptisme he is made a member of Christ that he is not without the fellowship of that bread the cup although before hee eate of that bread and drinke of that cup he depart this world beeing in the vnity of Christs bodie for he is not made frustrate of the communion and benefit of that sacrament whiles hee findeth that thinge which is signified by the sacrament If infants and other faithfull people may be made partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of Baptisme I demand of our Trent fathers why we may not be

ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt And by reason of this similitude they vsually take the names of the things themselues This is without glose or ambiguitie Christ saith S. Augustine was once offered in himselfe And is offered daily in a sacrament for that the speech should be vnderstood how once how daily it is added in a sacrament and in himselfe And why when it is done now but in a sacrament may it yet be truly said Christ is offered because sacraments haue the names of the thinges them selues for a certaine resemblance that is betweene thē This doth the words immediatly following shew Sieut ergo secundum quendam medum Therfore after a certaine manner of speech the sacrament of Christs body is Christs body the sacrament of Christs blood is Christs blood the sacrament of faith is faith this he illustrateth afteriby the sacramēt of Baptisme out of S. Paule Rom. 6. whoe saith by Baptisme wee bee buried with Christ into death he saith not we signifie buriall but he saith plainly wee bee buried so that the sacrament of so great a thinge is not called but by the name of the thing it self Cip. tom 2. de vnct Chris mat fere fine Thus far Augustine S. Cyprian was before S. Augustine certaine hūdreds of yeares hee telleth vs without any scruple or bone cast in of doubt both what Christ did at his last supper and what on the crosse in sound words few Dedit dominus noster in mensa Our Lord at the table wherat hee receaued his last supper with his disciples with his own hands gaue bread wine But vpon the crosse he gaue his own body with the souldiers hands to be wounded This is by S. Cyprian the sacrifice of the table the sacrifice of the crosse at the one he gaue bread wine vpon the other he gaue his body Here is noe vailing of him vnder formes and shewes of bread and wine nospeaking of quantitie● qualities without substāce nor offering vp of him to God his father In an other place he saith in most plaine words Tom. 2. de bap tism Christi manif trinit fine Nec sacerdotij eius paenituit deū It neuer repented God saith he of Christs preisthood For the sacrifice that he offered vpō the crosse is so acceptable in the goodwil of God so standeth in continuall strength virtue that the same oblatiō is noe lesse acceptable this day in the sight of God the Father then it was that daie when blood water ranne out of his wounded side semper reseruatae in corpore plaga salutis humana exigant pretium obedieutiae donatiuum requirant And the skarrs teserued stil in his body doe suffice for the redemption of man and doe require a fauour because of the obedience This is plaine according to the scriptures Heb 7.23.27 10. v. 12. 9 v. 28. that once Preist by one sacrifice once offered that is our sauiour by giuing himselfe to death vpō the Crosse hath reconciled vs to God sanctified vs for euer cuteth of their many Preists to offer oftē as though there were left now after the death of Christ an offering for sin or his pretious blood were of noe greater value then the blood of Bull Goates which were offered often because they coulde not purge sinne There is a Master amongst them called the Master of the esntēces Vide Genebr Chron l. 4. an 1159. fol. 932. P. Lumbard or Longobardus who collected a breife of doctrine out of the Greeke latine Fathers ancienter by far then the counsel of Trent Allen Canus or the Rhemists and before any Protestant if they saie true that are accustomed to lie who liued in the yeare of our Lord Bishop of Paris anno Paris 1160. vpon whose bookes suruey hath bin made although they haue gathered noe Index vpon him as they haue done vpon others yet they haue noted him in manie places where they misl●ke him with a non tenetur the master is not allowed here Magister hic non tenetur This Catholike Doctor much renowned amongst them taught euen as the Protestāts doe in this quae●stiō of the sacrifice of Christ in the Masse yet hath escaped frō amongst them without so much as an item for it which manifestly sheweth that though they haue vs offenders in that matter they haue their cheife Master also a ringleader therin themselues or brethrē accessary therto because they haue not taxed him therfore And howsoeuer we maie be faultie the case standing as it doth our aunswere is the same with the womans in the poet Nam si ego digna hac contumelia sum maximè Terenc in Eunueh act 5. scen 2. Senec. in Medea act 3. at tu indignus qui faceres tamen For although I be neuer so wel worthy to be so spitfully handled yet were you no meete man to doe it saith shee And as Medea saith to Iasō Omnes coniugem infamem arguant solus tuere solus insontem voca Tibi innocens sit quisquis est pro te nocens Let others defame me with infamie yet doe thou only take my part doe thou call me iust vndefiled let him be an innocent to thee who for thee doth transgresie The words of Lumbard are these Sent l. 4. dis 12 parag 7. Christ is not now really offered but the memorie of his sacrifice is celebrated Post heac quaeritur si quod gerit sacerdos propriè dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio si Christus quotidie immolatur vel semel tantum immolatus sit I demand saith he whether that which the preist doth be properly called a sacrifice an oblation or not and whether Christ bee daily offered or else were offered only once To this saith he our answere in breif is that that which is offered consecrated by the Preist is called a sacrifice oblation because it is a memory representation of the true sacrifice holy oblation which was made on the aultar of the crosse Et semel Christus mortuus in cruce est ibique immolatus est in semetipse Christ also died once on the Crosse there was he offered himselfe quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento but hee is offered daily in a sacrament because in the sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was once don on the Crosse And this is not Peter Lumbardes opinion only but his strong proofe collection out of all the Fathers Greeke and Latine noe one of thē euer dreaming of sacrificing the sonne of God to his father or of making the same sacrifice vnbloody which Christ made bloody or to haue the sacrament both the thing it selfe and a remembrance of it selfe al at one time Wherfore although the sacrifice be a true proper soueraigne propitiatorie sacrifice as it is defined by the Trent Fathers yet

haue an other An other they wil not say they haue then must they needs iterate Christs which indeed as he saith is blasphemous to thinke on And againe he would inferre out of Lumbard Ibid. 148. b. that the same most precious body and blood is offered daily that once suffered was once shed And yet in the next page he saith Ibid. 149. b. The Catholike doctrine teacheth not the daily sacrifice of Christs most precious body blood to bee an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the Crosse Ibid. 149. b. Of the vertue of the sacrifice of the Masse and of Christs on the Crosse Gard. Ibid fol. 149. b. Christs sacrifice on the Crosse was is propitiatory but a sacrifice that representeth that sacrifice sheweth it also before the e●es of the faithfull and refresheth the effectual memory of it What should any cockle doe amongst this corne why should he presently insert that the catholike doctrine teacheth the daily sacrifice to be the same in Esse●c that was offered on the Crosse once Come to the comparison betweene the sacrifice of the Masse and that of the Crosse of the strenght vertue force of the one and of the other they knowe not what to say The offering on the crosse saith he was is propitiatorie satisfactory for our redemption remission of sinnes Note well Ibid 150. a. The masse is propitiatory also so they make 2. propitiatory sacrifices which can noe more stād together thē if they should make 2 almighties wherby to destroy the tyranny of sinne the effect whereof is giuen dispenced in the sacrament of Baptisme The daily offering meaning the Masse is propitiatory also but that it is not in that degree of propitiation for to call the daily offering a sacrifice satisfactory must haue an vnderstanding that signifieth not the action of the Preist but the presence of Christs most precious body blood the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered being propitiatory satisfactory for all the world And yet not ten lines after in the same page he saith that the act of the Preist done according to Gods commandement must needes be propitiatory prouoke Gods fauour and ought to bee trusted on to haue a propitiatory effect with God Tantae molis er at Romanā cōdere gentē Here any man may see what a businesse hard worke it is to patch these popish doctrines together what absurdities they fal into therby One while hee saith that the act of the Preist must needes bee a sacrifice propitiatory And now to haue an vnderstanding for the same hee is driuen to a very shamfull shift that he must either say cleane contrary that it is not the action of the Preist but the presence of Christ or else that the action of the Preist is noe otherwise satisfactory then al other Christian mens workes be for so he averreth that all good workes good thoughts and good me ditations may bee called sacrifices and the same bee called sacrifices propitiatory also D. Allen hauing shewed by some reasons that both the sacrifice of Christ at his last supper and that on the crosse stand well together De euch sacrif l 2. c. 10. f. 544 Quam hodie cuiuslibet sacerdotis sacrū in ecclesia and are in their natures very commodious addeth but it is saluo meliori indicio according to his own opiniō that that sacrifice which Christ himselfe offered at his last supper had not any other effect or greater strength then the Masse of euery Preist performed in the Church now hath wherby without quesion is confirmed the action of the Preist or else Gardiners staggering is in vaine And yet me thinketh Ibid. post c. 23. fol. 596. Allen himselfe stumbleth at this againe when he would haue the sacrifice of the masse to be held not an absolute and independent sacrifice but to be referred as all the Iewish sacrifices were to the only fountaine of sacrifices the death of Christ why should it not be absolute independent since you say that Christs sacrifice at his last supper had noe greater effect then that of your masse done by the Preist that of your masse being the same in essence with that of the Crosse what blasphemy is it in Allen to cōpare it with those sacrifices of the Iewes r●ferre it to the fountaine that is to it selfe Againe is it any maruaile if Gardiner shew himselfe vnconstant in these kinde of questions Mirum vero impudenter mulier si facit meretrix Ter. in And. act 4. seen 4 Gard. ib. 151. b 152. a. The pure sacrifice of the Church saith he is there offered for the effect of the increase of life in vs as it was offered on the crosse to atcheiue life vnto vs. And yet in the verie next page out of Cyrill he wold haue the sacrifice of the Church to be vinificum a sacrifice giuing life And yet he addeth which is more woūderful that that cā be only said of the very body blood of Christ so that one where he deuideth our redēption betweene the Preists sacrifice Christs Intollerable blasphemy the one to giue life the other to increase our life that is noe lesse then flat blasphemy For al Christians doe beleiue that the sacrifice made on the crosse doth both giue vs life also increase continue the same the Priests oblation doth neither of both for our redemption eternall saluation standeth not only in giueing vs life but in continuing the same for euer as Christ said that hee came not only to giue vs life but also to make vs increase and abound therin Iohn 10. Gal. 2. And S. Paule saith the life which I now liue in flesh I liue by the faith of the sonne of God who loued me gaue himselfe for me And therfore if we haue the one by the oblation of Christ the other by the oblation of the Preist then deuide we our salvation betweene Christ the Preist shal haue our saluation redemption as much by the sacrifice made by the Preist as we haue by that of the Crosse done by Christ himselfe If any man rescue him by saying he referreth vinificū that sacrifice gyuing life to the body blood of Christ whether on the Crosse or sacrificed in the masse then ouerthroweth he his owne distinction made before of giuing and increasing life maketh the masse an independent and absolute sacrifice which Allen wil none of Thus haue you a breife of what Gardiner hath said touching the sacrifice of the masse where you see he runneth too fro so astonied amased as if hee were at his wits end knewe not what to say For one while the Preist maketh a sacrifice propitiatory an other while he doth not now hee giueth life now hee giueth none nowe is Christ the ful sauiour satisfactiō now the Preist hath halfe