Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	drink_v	eat_v	see_v	5,566	4	3.8208	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12482	An answer to Thomas Bels late challeng named by him The dovvnfal of popery wherin al his arguments are answered, his manifold vntruths, slaunders, ignorance, contradictions, and corruption of Scripture, & Fathers discouered and disproued: with one table of the articles and chapter, and an other of the more markable things conteyned in this booke. VVhat controuersies be here handled is declared in the next page. By S.R.	Smith, Richard, 1566-1655.	1605 (1605)	STC 22809; ESTC S110779	275,199	548

absurdity is it more then for a body to be in twoe places for that being once done one may carry him self as wel as an other As the soule because it is in al parts of the body as it is in the legges carrieth it selfe as it is in the body The second absurdity is that Christ at his last supper was both liuing and dead But this followeth not for he was a liue in the Sacrament though there he shewed no acts of life and as long as he is a liue according to his natural being he is neuer dead in the sacrament because his sacramental being is a memorial of his natural being representing and depending of it 2. The third absurdity is that Christ was both visible and inuisible Nether doth this follow For though he were inuisible in the Sacrament yet it is not true to say absolutely he was inuisible because he was there visible in his proper forme But that he was visible in his proper forme and inuisible in Math. 29. Mar. 16. Luc. 20. Ioan. 20. 21. the sacrament is no more absurd then that after his resurrection he was visible to the Apostles and inuisible to the Iewes visible to S. Paul and not to his Companions Act. 9. v. 7. Willet saith that S. Paul did see VVillet Cōtrou 4. q. 3. p. 11● no man But we wil rather beleue Ananias saying that Christ appeared to him in the way Act. 9. v. 17. The fourth absurdity is that Christ was at his supper long and short broad and narrow light and heauy But rather these follow for what length bredth or weight Christ had in his proper forme the same he had in the sacrament albeit it had not there the like effects of filling roome or weighing as nether he had when he was Math. 14. Marc. 6. Ioan. 6. borne and walked vpon the Sea 3. The fift is that Christ was a sacrifice for our sins before he dyed for vs. This which Bel condemneth of impiety we haue before proued it out of Scripture to be certayne verity for such the holy Fathers auouch it let Bel heare one or twoe for al. S. Gregory Nissen orat 1. de Resurrect Christ offereth S. Gregor Nissen him self an oblation and hoste for vs being both the Priest and the lamb of God VVhen was this when he gaue his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk to his disciples For it is manifest to euery one that man can not eate of a sheepe vnles slaughtering goe before eating Seing therfore he gaue his disciples his body to be eaten he euidently shewed that the sacrifizing was already perfect and absolute S. Chrisostome also hom de S. Chrysostom proditione Iudae tom 3. saith On that table was celebrated both Paschaes of the figure and of the verity Againe Iudas was present and partaked of that sacrifice And the Fathers are so playne for this matter as Kemnitius confesseth Kemnitius they vsually say that Christs body and blood was at this supper a sacrifice an oblation an hoste and victime and he could not escape their authorities but by casting of a figure 4. The Sixt and last absurdity or impietie which Bel inferreth is that al Christs sacrifice at his supper was imperfect or at his passion needles But nether this followeth For Christs sacrifice at his supper was a most perfect vnbloodly sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech and yet his sacrifice on the crosse was needful as the peculier price which God exacted at his handes for the redemption of the world that Hebr. 2. v. 15. as the apostle saith by death he might destroy him who had the Empier of death For albeit not only Christs whole body and blood in the Eucharist but euen the least drop of his blood had been a sufficient sacrifice to redeeme the whole world neuertheles God partly to shew his great hatred towards sinne wherof Christ bore the punishment partly to manifest his infinite loue towards man kinde for whose saluation he would not spare the life of his only sonne partly for many other causes exacted of Christ the superaboundant price and ransome of his bloody sacrifice on the crosse But let vs heare how Bel disproueth this 5. He citeth fowre places out of S. Paule Heb 9. and 10. to proue that one oblation of the crosse was sufficient to take away al sinns in the world and that by it once made we are made holy and after it once donne Christ sitteth at the right hand of God But what is this to the purpose For we affirme not Christ to haue offered sacrifice at his last supper because his sacrifice on the Crosse was not sufficient or we not made holy by it but because the scripture and fathers teach so and Christ therby executed the function of his priesthood accordinge to the order of Melchisedech and applyed vnto his apostles the vertue of his bloody sacrifice as he applyeth it vnto vs by the dayly sacrifice of the Masse and did not make perfect and consummate his bloody sacrifice as Bel falsly chardgeth vs to thinke As Bellarmin whom onely I cite because Bel accounteth his testimony most sufficient sheweth at lardge lib. 1. de Missa cap. 25. Wher also he answereth Bels arguments But he should do wel to obiect the aforesaid wordes of S. Paul against Caluin blaspheminge lib. 1. instit 16. num 8. 10. That nothinge had been done for vs if Christ Caluin 2. instit c. 16. paragr 10. had only suffered corporal death but we needed a greater and more excellent price For this is plainly to say that the oblation of Christs body once was not sufficient nor that Christ perfected al by one oblation which is expresly against S. Paule Hebr. 10. v. 10. Hebr. 12. 14. And thus much for Bels second argument against the Masse 6. The third is this The Eucharist is a testament Bel p. 24. ergo either no sacrifice at al or of no valew before the testators death because S. Paule Hebr. 9. Hebr. v. 17. denieth a testament to be of force before the testators death Answer The Antecedent we grant with S. Luke 22. v. 20. though Bel him selfe deny it soone after The consequence we deny for as the blood of calues wher with the old testament was confirmed was both the peoples sacrifice to God and his testament to them as appeareth Heb. 9. 20. and Exod. 24. v. 8. so Christs blood at his supper was both his sacrifice to his father and his testament to his apostles And as a sacrifice it tooke effecte immediatly because a sacrifice is an absolute gifte made to God dependinge of no condition to come as the sacrifice of Abel and Noe Gen. 4. 8. pleased god immediatly But as a testament it was not of force til as S. Paule saith it Hebr. 9. v. 17. was confirmed by death because a testament is a deed of gift not absolute but vpō condition that

liuely body to want in the Sacrament his quantity and figure and considering better of the nature of quantity found that no commensuration to place was essential vnto it but onely a natural propriety and therefore separable by Gods power from it as light is from the Sunne taught that Christs hath his quantity in the Sacrament as a natural accident accompaning his body And albeit this be a certaine truth and not onely the common opinion of Schooles but seemeth also to be the common sense of Catholiques yet saith Suarez a learned author Tom 3. in 3. part Suarez disput Si stec 2. It is to hard a censure to condemne the contrary of heresie For saith he I find nether expresse definition nor irrefragable testimony of Scripture against it nor yet any thing which can be conuinced out of reuealed principles and al the reasons made against it are deduced out of Philosophical Principles true and certaine but not altogether euident In like sorte Claudius de Sainctes repetit 4. de Euchar c. 4. testifieth Sainctes that this matter is not clearly defined by the Church or Scripture What shame therfore must it be to Bel to auouch that al Catholiks hold as a point of their faith that Christs body is organical in the Eucharist and declining the principal question about the being of Christs body in the Sacrament which is an vndoubted point of our faith and against which his cheefe argument which as he saith al the Papists in England can not answer taketh no hold to impugne the being of Christs quantity in the Eucharist 7. Neuerthelesse because it is a thinge most true and most agreable to our faith I willingly vndertake the defense therof Let vs see therfore how Bel disproueth it Forsooth because it implyeth contradictiō for a greater body as Christs is to be cōtained in a lesser as in a cake pag 20. Reason the ground of Bels faithe Behould the foundation of Bels faith the best weapon of this stout challenger the strong reason which al English Papists can Scripture Matth 26. v. 26 28. Marc. 14. v. 22. 24. Luc. 22. v. 19. 20. 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. 25. not solue We bring Christs expresse words auouching that what he gaue to his Apostle at his last supper was his body giuen and his blood shed for remission of sinnes which vndoubtedly he ment of his true body and blood For he neuer gaue bred nor shed wine for remission of sinnes We obiect also his other words where he calleth his flesh truly meat and his blood drinke as it were preuenting Ioan. 6. v. 55. the figuratiue exposition of Caluinists Besids the words of S. paul testifying that who receaueth vnvvoorthily the B Sacrament is guilty 1. Cor. 11. v. 29. not of bread and wine il receaued but of the body and blood of our Lord. 8. To these testimonies of holy writte Fathers we adioyne the vniforme consent of Fathers who not onely continually cal the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ and not once a bare figure but withal some Damasc l. 4. de fid c. 14. 7. Synod Act. 6. of them affirme that it is no bare figure but the very body and damne the contrary as abhominable and extreme madnes contrary to tradition of Apostles and Fathers and against the Chrysosto hom de Euchat in Eucenijs Cyril catech 3. verity and propriety of Christs vvords Others deny it to be bread albeit our taste so iudge Others say that the nature of bread is changed Nissen orat mag catech c. 37. Cipria serm de Caena Cyril Alex ad Calosyr Chrysosto hom cit Damas sup August lib. 2. cont aducrs legis Prophet c. 9. tom 6. Leo serm 6. de ieiun 7. mensis Aug. serm 1. in psalm 33. tom 8. Hilar. 8. de Trinitat that bread changed in nature not in shevv is by the omnipotency of God made flesh that bread and vvine are turned supernaturally into the verity of Christs proper flesh Others say vve eate Christs flesh and drink his blood vvith our mouthes that vvhat we beleue with faith we receaue vvith mouth Others auouch that Christ at his last supper carried him selfe secundum literā that is truly really in his hands Finally others say that as Christ is the true sonne of God so is it true flesh blood vvhich vve receaue and drinke These kind of speeches and many other of the like sort can neuer be verified vnles the real presence of Christ in the B. Sacrament be defended 9. Against al these irrefragable testimonies Quod intelligimus debemus rationi quod credimus authoritati Aug. l. de vtil cred c. 11. Heretiques shift to expound scriture figuratiuely Ioan. 10. v. 30. Heretiks be figure slingers 10. 1. v. 14. of Gods word and holy Fathers Bel opposeth humane reason though he expound them figuratiuely because he dare not deny them in bare words which hath bene cuer the shift of heretiques For so the Arrians being vrged with these words I and the Father are one expounded them figuratiuely because they durst not deny them and their reason could not conceaue how two persons should be one nature Likwise the Marcionits vnderstood those words The vvord vvas made flesh figuratiuely because by reason they could not vnderstand how two natures shold be in one person And for the self same cause Bel and Protestants Tantum ritati obstrepit ad ulter sensus quantum corrupt or stilus Tertull lib. de praescript Scripture teacheth more plainly Christs real presence in the Sacrament then it doth his Godhead and humanity S. Augustin lib. 3. de doctrin Christian cap. 10. tom 3. Caluin 4. instit c. 17. parag 20. 23. vnderstand these words This is my body giuen for you my blood shed for you in remission of sinns figuratiuely For these words doe as playnly teach the verity of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist as those other teach the verity of his Godhead or humanity yea more plainly because in these words it is expressed what body and blood is in the Eucharist vz. that which was giuen for vs and shed in remission of sinnes which kind of addition is not in those other words 10. But as S. Austin saith If an opinion of error haue preoccupated the mind vvhatsoeuer is othervvise affirmed in Scripture men vvil vnderstand it figuratiuely Hereupon Caluin said that the reuerence of Gods vvord vvas no sufficient pretence to reiect his reasons And calleth it foolish stubbernes to contend vpon the vvords of Scripture and them catchers of sillables foolish superstitious vvho stick fast to Christ vvords What is this good Reader but to make reason the rule of faith and not to captiuare our vnderstanding to Gods word but to captiuate it to our reason and make it speake properly or figuratiuely according as reason Magdeburg in praefat centur ad reginam Elizabeth can comprehend it Truly therfore wrote the Magdeburgian Protestants of

touched And these kind of speaches we learnd of the holy Fathers For S. Chrisostom speakinge S. Chrysost hom 24. in 1. Cor. to 4. Hom. 83. in Math. to 3. of the sacrament saith expresly that Christs body is broken In other place we see feel eate and haue Christ within vs. Agayne Christ gaue him selfe to vs to touch to eate and Hom. 46. in Ier. to 3. 61. ad populum to 5. Tertul. l. de Idolatria fasten our teeth marke Bel on his flesh Tertullian inueighinge against vnworthy receauers saith Corpus Christi lacessunt They vex Christs body S. Ciprian of the same affirmeth They vse violence to Christ● body and S. Ciprian serm de lapsis blood and with their mouthes do offend him And they learnt these speeches of Christ him selfe saying This is my body which is broken 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. in the greeck Wil Bel now condemne Christ and these holy fathers of wickednes villany blasphemy and horrible impietie Surely they vse the very wordes of touching breaking and fasteninge or chewing with teeth Nay Bel pag. 30. wil he condemne both English and many forrayne Protestants whose constant doctrine Bel admitteth Christs body to be consumed saith he is that Christs body is broken torne consumed with mouth and teeth Behold good reader for Papists to say Christs body is touched broken and torne is villany wickednes blasphemy and horrible impiety but for Protestants to say the same and ●dde consuming too is good doctrine 4. But Bel wil say that he addeth that al Bel pag. 29. these are to be vnderstood significantly and sacramentally True And the same adde wee For as him selfe citeth out of Bellarmin lib. 2. de Concil c. 8. It is and al wayes Bellarm. was certayne that Christs body being now vncorruptible can be nether broken nor torne but in a signe or sacrament But the difference is in the vnderstanding For we say Christs body is Catholiques and Protestants agreement and difference about the breaking of Christs body broken in a signe which really and truely contayneth it and Protestants say it is broken in a signe from which Christ is as far as heauen is from earth and to expresse this difference and to exclude the sense which Berengarius vsed and the Protestants haue learnt of him the Pope and Councel made him to professe That he beleeued this to be in rei veritate in the verity of the thing Not as if Christs body weare in it selfe so handled for therof there was neuer doubt but that it was not handled so in a bare signe but in such a signe as in rei veritate truely contayneth Christs body As the woman Luc. 8. did in rei veritate truely touch Christ when she touched his garment in S. Luke which he truely was as appeareth by his words ib. v. 46. Some body hath touched me But the Crucifiers when they parted the S. Ihon. 19. v. 23. same garments did not touch him in rei veritate truely because then he was not truely in them And hereby appeareth how the contrariety which Bel noteth betwixt the pag. 29. Councel and Bellarmine is none at al and how protestants can not verifie the breakinge of Christs body so wel as Catholiques can and least of al can as Bel imagineth verify Christs wordes of his body giuen blood shed for remission of sinns because neuer was any bare figure giuen or shed for remission of sinnes 5 But a singuler note saith Bel and pag. 30. worthy to be marked is gathered out of the glosse vpon the foresaid decree when it aduiseth vs That vnles we vnderstand Berengarius words soundly we may fal into worse heresie Marke these words saith Bel for th●y teach vs playnly that it is a most dangerous thing to rely vpon Popish decrees euen then when they pretend to reforme the Church and condemne heresies But better may we saye marke this note for it discouereth Bels malice and folly teacheth vs plainly that it is a most dangerous thing to rely vpon heretikes euen when they promise to auouch no vntruth of any man as Bel did a litle before For pag. 22. what aduiseth the glosse against the relying vpon Popes decrees and not onely against misunderstanding them May we not in like manner say of the scripture that vnles we soundly vnderstand those wordes ●hon 6. except you eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood you shal haue no life in you but grosly as the Capharnaits did of eating it sodde or rosted or cut in peeces as testify Ciprian de caena Domini S. Augustin tract 27. in Ioh. S. Ciprian and S. Austin we shal fal into greater heresie then that of Berengarius was What now Syr Thomas may we therfore infer that it is a most dangerous thing to rely vpon scripture 6. Finally Bel concludeth this third Bel pag. 30. 31. S. Augustin tract 59. in Ioan. member of his article with an argument drawne out of S. Austins words Illi manducabant panem Dominum illi panem Domini contra Dominum They the Apostles eat the bread our lord he Iudas eat the bread of our lord against our lord Out of which wordes Bel frameth an argument so inuincible in his conceypt as he promiseth to subscribe and neuer more to write against any parte of Papists doctrine if it be answered Marke therfore I pray thee gentle reader his argument and my answer and iudge whether he be not bound to turne his coate the third tyme if he wil performe his promise The argument he proposeth out of forme but it may be reduced to this Iudas receaued but Panem Domini the bread of our lord and not Panem Dominum the bread our lord therfore in the Eucharist is not Dominus our Lord. The Antecedent saith he is playnly auouched by S. Austin the consequence is cleere because if in the Eucharist weare our lord doubtles Iudas in receauing of it should haue receaued our lord Before I answer this argument I must aduertise the reader of three things first ●ow slenderly this fellow is grounded in his faith who promiseth to subscribe to the contrary if one onely argument grounded vpon one saying of one father can be solued Euident it is that he hath neyther playne scripture nor conuincent reason nor the testimony of other fathers for his religion who for answering of one fathers word wil forsake it Albeit this be les maruelous in Bel because hauing already twise altered his religion he wil find les difficulty to change the third tyme. 2. I note the extreame blindnes of this fellow who biddeth vs note and marke seriously that S. Austin Bel noteth a point quite against him self telleth vs that the bread vvhich the Apostles eate vvas our lord I would Bel had marked this him selfe for it is the very vpshot to vse his owne tearme of this controuersy and vnaswerable by any

Protestant For if as Bel noteth out of S. Austin the bread which the Apostles eate was our lord how can protestants deny it and say it was bare bread Or if as S. Aust speaketh they eate bread our lord how can Bel say they eate not our lord but bare bread Can one ●ate flesh mutton if the flesh he eate be no mutton 7. Thirdly I note his notorious abusing S. Austins authority For first in Englishing Bels abusing of S. Austins vvords his words he addeth to them though in a parenthesis these words Not our lord but afterward he saith S. Austin telleth vs that vvhich Iudas receaued vvas but the bread of vntruth 38. our lord then as imboldened to lye auoucheth that S. Austin affirmeth most constantly vntruth 39. that Iudas receaued barely Panem Domini bread of our lord and lastly as cocke sure not to be tript in lying professeth that S. Austin playnly auoucheth that Iudas receaued not Panem vntruth 40 Dominum bread our lord Wheras S. Austin saith no one of al these but onely that the Apostles receaued bread our lord and Iudas bread of our lord without but or barely or denyal of the other Marke therfore good Bels steps of vntrue dealing reader his steps First his vntruth is cogged into S. Austins words with a parenthesis then is it put with a but afterward with barely and lastly playnly auouched These steps might Bel haue found in his ladder of lying better then he deuised the like before in the Popes ladder to his supremacy But here may the reader take a taste of the vntrue dealing of heretiques For who would not haue sworne but that Bel would haue dealt truely in an argument wherof he counteth so much as if it be solued he wil recant the third tyme. But now to come to his argument 8. I answer directly by denying the Antecedent for S. Austin said not that Iudas eate but or barely Panem Domini bread of our lord and much les said he eate not Panem Dominum but onely said that the Apostles did eate Panem Dominum bread our lord he Panem Domini bread of our lord Wherfore the doubt can be onely why he altered his speech calling that bread our lord which the Apostles eate and that bread of our lord which Iudas eate The reason wherof can not be because he thought the Apostles and Iudas receaued a bread of different substance ●or Epist 162. he expresly S. Austin saith Iudas eate our price to 2. S. Chrysost tom 3. writeth that Iudas receaued pretium nostrum our price which in substance is Panis Dominus bread our lord and S. Chrysost hom de prodit Iudae affirmeth that Christ offered to Iudas the blood which he had sold and Theodoret. in 1. cap. 2. Cor. that he gaue to Iudas his precious body and blood The reason therfore is that which S. Aust Buccella Dominica ven enum fuit Iudae See S. Austin l 2. cont lit Petil. c. 47. tom 7. S. Augustin tom 6. Cortuptio carni hoc nomen imponit Aug. l. 2. cont aduers legis Et prophet c. 6. t0 6. him selfe insinuateth in the words immediatly following illi vitam ille paenam they eate life he punishment vz because the bread had a different effect and operation in Iudas then it had in the Apostles For as him selfe proueth lib. 11. cont Faust cap. 7. one thing of different effects or operations may haue different names What maruaile then if he called that which the Apostles receaued bread our lord because it was both in substance and operation food and life to them and that which Iudas receaued bread of our lord because though in substance it was the same yet through his malice in operation it was poyson and death vnto him And here by the way wold I propound one choise to Bel whether he A choise for Bel wil beleeue the Eucharist to be Panem Dominum with Catholiques or bate Panem Domini with Protestants If the first he may eate Panem Dominum with the Apostles if the second he may eate Panem Domini but it shal be with Iudas 9. But suppose S. Austin had said as he hath not that Iudas did not eat bread our Lord Bel could not therof infer that the Eucharist is not truly our Lord seing he auoucheth that the Apostles who vndoubtedly receaued the Eucharist did eat bread our Lord but at most that what Iudas receaued was not the Eucharist which diuers think and it is a far different question S. Hilar. can 30. in Math. and maketh nothing to this purpose But nether could Bel infer this because S Austin S. August epist 162 to 2. tract 26. 62. in Ioan. tom 9. other where affirmeth Iudas to haue receaued the Sacrament and our price which in substance is bread our Lord and because it is vsual to him to deny the name to a thing if it want the accustomed quality or operation So lib. 11. cont Faust c. 7. he saith S. Augustin tom 6. In resurrection there shal be no flesh and serm 5. de verb. Apost c. 12. There shal be not the same body because it shal not be mortal Which kind of speech he vseth other where and proueth it out of 1. Cor. 15. and 2. cor 5. The most therfore that Bel can infer and he may wel do it is that the bread which Iudas eate was not in operation our Lord and life to him but iudgment and death which I willingly graunt but it maketh nothing for his purpose Let now euery indifferēt Reader iudge whether this argument out of S. Austin be not sufficiently answered and Bel if he wil be as good as his word bound to recant yet once againe And thus much of this member CHAP. VI. Bels imaginary contradictions in the Masse answered and true Contradiction in his Communion shewed THE fourth member Bel maketh of ●●l pag. 32. the apparent contradictions which are as he saith in the Masse The first is that Catholiques say that Christs body is the same in the Masse which was on the crosse yet confesse it to be a figure therof This he proueth to be a contradiction because Bellarm. l. 1. de Euchar. c. ● a figure must needs be inferior to the thing figured as Bellarm professeth and S. Paul testifieth Answer First I deny al figures S. Paul Hebr. 10. to be inferrior to things figured some be both figures verity as God the Sonne figure of the substance of his Father Heb. VVhat figures be inferior to th● things figured vvhat not 1. v. 3. and yet true God And Seth an image of Adam Gen. 5. v. 3. and yet true man And such figures are equal to the things figured and such a figure of Christ is the Eucharist Others be bare figures as images are of men and the Sacraments and Sacrifices of the ould law were wherof S. Paul and Bellarmin spake and the Apostles Heb.