Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	eat_v	flesh_n	wine_n	6,675	5	7.7468	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03334	The first motiue of T.H. Maister of Arts, and lately minister, to suspect the integrity of his religion which was detection of falsehood in D. Humfrey, D. Field, & other learned protestants, touching the question of purgatory, and prayer for the dead. VVith his particular considerations perswading him to embrace the Catholick doctrine in theis, and other points. An appendix intituled, try before you trust. Wherein some notable vntruths of D. Field, and D. Morton are discouered.	Higgons, Theophilus, 1578?-1659.	1609 (1609)	STC 13454; ESTC S104083	165,029	276

not be but finite and seeing it hath no personall subsistence of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated vnto it which is infinite and without limitation it can not be denied to haue an infinite subsistence and to subsist in an incomprehensible and illimited sort and consequently euery where Thus then the body of Christ secundum esse naturale is contayned in one place but secundum esse personale may rightly be sayd to be euery where So he and then he glorieth of the facility to reconcile all the assertions of your Diuines touching this part of Christian faith to stopp the mouths of your pratling aduersaries c. Truly the Geneuians themselues who excell in the art of * See D. Bancrofts Suruay pag. 195. reconciliation may yeald the buckler vnto him 5. But yet he hath fayled exceedingly in two poynts FIRST in saying that there is no place where the body of Christ is not vnited personally vnto that God who is euery where and that it doth subsist euery where c. For though the diuine Person wherein the humane nature subsisteth be euery where yet the humane nature subsisteth therein finitely and in one determinate place the vnion it self being a created thing You may take a familiar example to illustrate this poynt for your more exact comprehension thereof tota in tato tota in qualibes parte So the whole diuinity of Christ assumed the humanity The soule of man is euery where in the body and is not diuided in quantity but hath different operations according to the disposition of the organicall parts wherein and whereby she exerciseth hir functions Now though it be indiuisibly in all the parts of man the head and feete being vnited vnto the same soule yet the head is not vnited vnto the soule in the feete nor the feere vnto the soule in the head howbeit she is the same equally impartibly in both Likewise the similitude holdeth in this case For the diuine Person is essentially present in all places alike as much without heauen as within but yet to say that the body of Christ hath vnion with his person in all places because it is vnited vnto that which filleth all places it is an heresy which the Doctours falsehood hath cast him into as you may sensibly perceiue 6. The SECOND errour is notorious viz. the humane nature of Christ may rightly be SAYD to be euery where in asmuch as it is vnited personally vnto that which is euery where For it is a knowen infallible maxime in your schooles that by virtue of the personall vnion in Christ the proprieties of the diuine nature are attributed vnto the Person in concrete viz GOD and MAN not vnto the humane * quando ●a quae sunt propria diuina natura non possūt participari ab humanā c. See S. Thomas p. 3. q. 16. art 5. ad tertium nature in abstracte viz. vnto the manhood For as we may say truly that GOD suffered but not the Luther sayth that diuinitas passa est GODHEAD and MAN raised vp Lazarus but not the MANHOOD so in regard of the personall vnion we may truly say that the Man Christ is euery where but not the manhood And therefore in this poynt also your learned Doctour hath abused you with a pseudotheologicall conclusion 7. This shall suffice briefly concerning the matter of Vbiquity and no doubt when he hath scanned the doctrine of the SACRAMENT but his reconciliation therein will be proportionable vnto his deuice in this And that you may be furnished to expect his skill therein I will prepare some obseruations for your better direction in this important matter 8. To this end you must conceiue how your Euangelicks differ from the Catholicks and from themselues also in this issue The CATHOLICKS teach with one consent that after the words of consecration This is my body 1. Transubst This is my bloud there is the true reall body and bloud of Christ contayned vnder the similitude of bread and wyne For benedictious etiam natura mutatur by the benediction the nature it self is chandged As the word of Christ can make something of nothing De mysterijs init cap. 9. 2. Consubst so it is able to turne one thing into an other as S. Ambrose doth perspicuously and irrefragably deliuer vnto vs touching this sacred transelementation 9. The LVTHERANS teach that in the Sacrament there is the true reall body and bloud of Christ together with or vnder the bread Sir Th. More and wine A good child was Luther that would not eate his flesh without bread for feare of breeding wormes in his belly 10. The SACRAMENTARIES so stiled by Luther and you may not forget it because the Doctour sayth that some mēs malice called them so haue many idle and base interpretations of this mystery The Sacramentary sect hath now six heades as I take it sayth M. Luther borne in one yeare See Fabric in loc com Luth. part 5. pag. 48. it is a wonderfull spiritt that so dissenteth from himself But the fayrest and best exposition which any Sacramentary hath made is this viz. the body of Christ is truly and really exhibited vnto vs in the Sacrament to be participated onely by a true and a liuely faith This is the proper doctrine of Iohn Caluin whereby he would seeme to speake more magnifically then Zwinglius and the rest Howbeit they and he concurre absolutely in two poynts wherein they all differ from the Catholicks and from M. Luther himself FIRST that Christ is not otherwise in the Eucharist then by a sacramentall vnion of the thing signified in and with the signe SECONDLY that he can not be participated there otherwise then by the act of faith and consequently the faithfull onely do eate his body and drink his bloud in the holy communion This also is the doctrine generally of your English Church See M. Rogers in his Cathol doctr pag. 178. 11. Now whether your learned Doctour can possibly excogitate or scanne out any reconciliation betwixt the Lutherans and Sacramentaries in this matter you may informe your self by him and vse him as the liuing commentary of his dead letter Meane while three reasons do very strongly perswade yea assure me that their difference herein is not capable of any reconciliation My FIRST reason is deriued from M. LVTHER writing thus vnto his friend See Fabricius in loc com Luth. part 5. pag. 49. Fabric ibid The opinion of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius spreadeth it self farr and hath diuers sects within it self But thou if thou regardest my counsayle shalt fly it as the pestilence for it is blasphemous against the word of Christ and against our faith 12. To the same effect he enditeth a letter vnto an other friend and sayeth Vnlesse I knew the wrath of God and saw the experience of it I could neuer haue bene perswaded that so many and so great men could be seduced by such

base silly and childish reasons into this testilent and sacrilegious * of Zwing c. heresy For what argument I beseech you is this Christ is at the right hand of his Father therefore he is not in the Sacrament The flesh profiteth nothing therefore the body of Christ is not there And theis are their principall † the same they bring against the Catholicks also arguments But it is a madnesse to be mooued by theis toyes from the simple and playn words of Christ THIS IS MY BODY Which cleare sentence the Sacramentaries depraue by their interpretation viz. this is a signe of my body An exposition no lesse absurd * Tom. 7. contra fanaticos Sacramentariorum Spiritus sayeth Luther then if a man should make this glosse vpon the Scripture In the beginning God made heauen and earth that is to say the cuckow did eate vp the titling bones and all or The VVord was made flesh that is to say a crooked staff was made a kyte 13. But I will leaue Sir Martin in his facetious vayne and come vnto a farther poynt which toucheth your religion to the quick For in his commentaries vpon the epistle to the Galathians a work which I know to be singularly magnified by your Ghospellers and it is translated into our mother-tongue for the publick vtility of your Church he maketh sondry digressions against the Sacramentaries but I suspect your translation to be vnfaithfull in this behalf and namely in his exposition of this sentence * Chap. 5. vers 9. a little leauen corrupteth the whole lump he sayeth VVe must highly esteeme of this cautele in our age The SACRAMENTARIES who deny the corporall presence of Christ in the Lords supper obiect vnto vs that we are intractable and contentious c. Theis are the collusions of the Diuell whereby he laboureth to subuert not that article alone but all Christian doctrine A true saying of M. Luther To deny God in one article is do deny him in all for he is not diuided into many but he is all in eueryone and one in all Charity in this case is not to be exercised neither is errour to be approoued For here viz. in the Sacramentaries heresy the word faith Christ eternall life are all lost Wherefore we continually returne vnto them this prouerb of the Apostle a little leauē corrupteth the whole lūp 14. This is such a waighty and seuere reprehension of your Sacramentarisme as would mooue any heart amongst you tenderly affected in matters of so great consequence and sublimity to be fearfull and suspicious of his soules estate But I will proceed vnto an other consideration of greater importance and farr more effectuall then the rest For what can be more horrible and dreadfull vnto you then that the Diuell himself should vrdge Luther your great Reformer and presse him with the argumēts of Zwinglius his cōfederates See the places cited by Iustus Caluinus in his annotat vpon Tertull praescript cap. 43. to draw him vnto your Sacramentary opinion And though the Diuell disputed earnestly with Luther to this effect as he confesseth yet he solued the Diuells obiections and vanquished him and therefore all your English professours in him by the power and maiesty of the word 15. By this euidence you may well coniecture what admonitour he was that instructed your Patriarch Zwinglius in his fanaticall interpretation of theis wordes hoc * est pro significāt see before booke 1. part 1. chap. 1. §. 3. num 8. est corpus meum and by it also you may know that the spirit of truth doth not teach you though † pag. 183. D. Field hath confidently affirmed it where he speaketh of the inward testification and of the great happy and heauenly alteration which you find in your hearts vpon the receyuing of your doctrine Which internall perswasion the Brownists the Anabaptists and other sectaries do boast of as well as any Sacramentary euer did or can But what verdict M Luther hath passed concerning the Spirit and truth of Sacramentaries you can not but tremble to vnderstand * Brent in Recognit pag. 277. Vos habetis alium Spiritum quàm nos sayd Luther vnto Zwinglius you and we haue not the same SPIRIT And as for your TRVTH he giueth this terrible censure vpon the perfidiousnes for so he speaketh of Bucer in this Sacramentary doctrine † Fabric in loc com Luth. part 5. pag. 50. 2. He that taketh pleasure in his owne damnation let him belieue that the TRVTH is taught by theis SPIRITS since they beganne and defend their opiniō by lyes 16. I leaue the due ponderation of theis things vnto your best thoughts and so I proceed vnto my SECOND reason which is deriued from the Magdeburgian Centuriatours who in their * Cētur 4. epistle vnto Q. Elizabeth complayn that some men viz. the Caluinists euacuate the testament of our Lord by their philosophicall reasons when against the most cleare most euident most true and most powerfull words of Christ This is my body they remooue the presence of his body and bloud out of the Sacrament and deceiue men with their wonderfull perplexity of speach c. Likewise † Cētur 11. cap. 10. col 527. they do expressely commend Pope Leo 9. because he damned the Berengarian heresy which now is a piece of your Caluinian ghospell with the authour as soone as it peeped forth In the same * ibid. cap. 11. col 656. history they place Berengarius in the catalogue of Hereticks saying that he transmitted his poyson by wicked schollers and impious writings into sondry regions Howbeit † in resp ad Campian rat 3. M. Doctour Humfrey feareth not to affirme that Vigilantius Berengarius Caluinus homines profectò singularibus diuinae gratiae muneribus prastabiles c. And no doubt but D. Field hath taken order to draw all theis men with Gerson himself into the communion of his true visible Catholick Church Which is a deuice to turne religion into a fable 17. My THIRD and last reason is deriued from an authority which with you is free from all exception For your Church deliuereth this assertion See M. Rogers in his Cathol doctr pag. 178. 179. as hir CATHOLICK DOCTRINE in this matter The wicked and such as be voyd of liuely saith do not eate the body nor drink the bloud of Iesus Christ in the vse of the Lords supper Which assertion being explicated by M. Rogers he proceedeth according vnto the accustomed manner of his discourse to note the errours and aduersaries vnto this truth and sayeth The aduersaries of this doctrine are the VBIQVITARIES both Lutheran and Popish For the Lutherans teach that the very body of Christ at the Lords supper is eaten aswell of the wicked as of the godly and that the true and reall body of Christ In VVith Vnder the bread and wine may be eaten chewed and digested euen of Turks which were