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	spiritual_a	7,539	5	7.5251	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64337	A treatise relating to the worship of God divided into six sections / by John Templer ...	Templer, John, d. 1693.	1694 (1694)	Wing T667; ESTC R14567	247,266	554

call the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ 2. They say that they are not so essentially but figuratively and therefore stile them signs Symbols Figures Antitypes Memorials It is usual to call the sign and the thing signified by the same name 3. They affirm that after Consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine remains and the change made is only in respect of Use Office and Dignity 4. They say That they nourish our flesh and blood and have the same effect that other food has and therefore they use to give the remains of the Euchariscical Bread to boyes and to abstain from the Communion upon Fasting days 5. They assert that wicked men do not eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ but interpret the eating of his flesh Jo. 6. the receiving of him in a spiritual manner namely by Faith 6. When they deny the Eucharist to be a figure or sign they mean a bare sign The Sacrament is more than so It feals and exhibits It is a means whereby we receive the Body and Blood of Christ not only the benefits of them but Christ himself in a spiritual manner as crucified for us and is a real pledge to assure us thereof Tho' the crucified body of Christ is in Heaven yet that spirit which dwells in it being communicated to a worthy Receiver in the Sacramental action we are made to drink into one Spirit it produceth such a union betwixt us and Christ Jesus as laies a clear foundation of Communion with and participation of him 7. When they say there is a mutation in the nature of the Bread they mean by nature the use and property only as is manifest by their own explications Before Consecration it was appropriated to the nourishment of the body but now by Consecration it is exalted to a higher purpose A new dignity is put upon it It becomes a means whereby a worthy Communicant gains Communion with our blessed Lord. 8. When it 's said That the Senses are deceived and no competent judges of the mutation this may be very true altho' the change be Sacramental only The change is not the proper object of sense but of faith The knowledge of it with its effects is conveyed to us by a Divine Testimony extant in the holy Scriptures 9. When it is affirmed That under the species of Bread is given the Body and under the species of Wine the Blood by Species we must not understand the Accidents without their proper subjects This apprehension never entred into the thoughts of the antient Fathers They were perfect strangers to this kind of Philosophy S. Aust l. 4. cal ●● T●in Serm. de Temp. 38. S. Ambr. l. 4. de Init. By species they understand the specifical nature of a thing and by the species of Bread and Wine True Bread and True Wine as is manifest to any who consult their discourses 10. Where it is said That the Lord who changed Water into Wine could change in the Eucharist Wine into Blood the intention of Cyril is not to make these two conversions in every thing parallel Jerus as is manifest by the words that follow he presently asserts That the eating of Christ's flesh must be understood spiritually and calls the Table mystical and intellectual And therefore all that his words can import is this He who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changed Water into Wine by a corporal mutation changed at his mystical Table Wine into Blood not corporally but spiritually and mystically Lastly It must be acknowledged that there are many Hyperbolical expressions in the Fathers Hom 23. in Mat Par. 〈◊〉 as S. Chrysostome and others in relation to the Sacrament The design of them is to secure it from contempt and to elevate and raise the devotion of Communicants They being improper Speeches must not be expounded in such a sence as is inconsistent with what is elsewhere expressed by the same Authors in plain words without any figure They all agree in this in as clear expressions as can be desired That the substance of the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist Their Rhetorical flourishes cannot be interpreted to the prejudice of that which is plain and manifest When S. Chrysostome says That Christ mingles himself with us and not by Faith only but indeed makes us to be his Body His meaning is not That there is any corporal mixture or immediate contact betwixt us and his body but that when we receive the figure of his body which is in Heaven the Spirit which dwells in it is communicated to the worthy Receiver and produceth a union betwixt them and therefore what we receive ● 870. he presently calls the Grace of the Spirit Damascen who lived in the eighth Century was one of the first who deserted the Orthodox doctrin of the Fathers He being concerned in the controversie concerning Images and the opposers of them asserting that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament were the only Image and representation which Christ allowed of himself he was transported with an intemperate zeal and affirmed they were no image or figure at all L. 4. c. sid O●t ● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho' in these words he did not design any real conversion of the Elements but rather a corporal presence or consubstantiation yet he gave occasion to some in the ninth Age to dispute for a substantial mutation Paschasius Ratbertus was the first who writ seriously and copiously about it as Bellarmine asserts His sentiments about this argument were received with a warm opposition Rabanus Maurus Bertram Joannes Scotus Erigena did strongly assert the contrary doctrin In the tenth Age which was a night of ignorance all things fell asleep controversies were laid aside Darkness did reconcile them as the want of light does various colours In the eleventh Age Berengarius was awakened and did with great perspicuity assert the Truth Tho' the violence of his enemies and infirmity of his nature induced him to submit to a recantation The controversie all this while was managed with so much ambiguity that Joannes Duns Scotus asserts That it was not necessary for any to believe a substantial conversion or Transubstantiation till the Lateran Council held under Innocent the Third in the year 1215. and therefore the master of the Sentences who flourished in the Century before about the year 1145. useth these words What kind of conversion it is 〈…〉 illa 〈…〉 whether formal or substantial I am not able to determine The truth is that Transubstantiation was brought forth by Paschasius confirmed by Innocent the Third and at last so firmly married to the See of Rome by the Council of Trent that there was no possibility of a divorce tho' there is just reason to believe that the most Learned of that Community could heartily desire it The issue produced by this unhappy conjunction is the mutilation of the Sacrament the Adoration of the Host the Sacrince of