Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	blood_n	body_n	sacrament_n	7,094	5	7.4356	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35021	The legacy of the Right Reverend Father in God, Herbert, Lord Bishop of Hereford, to his diocess, or, A short determination of all controversies we have with the papists, by Gods holy word	Croft, Herbert, 1603-1691.	1679 (1679)	Wing C6966; ESTC R1143	85,065	144

the-flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him What can be more plainly exprest even to the meanest capacity of men Good Reader I suppose you conceive that here we are hard beset for these words certainly carry far more appearance for their transubstantiating the Bread into real Flesh than the bare saying This is my Body which as I shewed you is a common figurative way of speaking in Scripture But yet as our Saviour saith If ye have faith ye may say unto this mountain be thou removed and it shall be done So you shall see this their mountain of Objection presently removed Come then my Papist Doctors Will you have these words in St. Iohn literal down right literal without any figure I beseeeh you then tell me What becomes of all the Laity in your Church Will you send them into Hell Body and Soul for ever to make good this new-found Transubstantiation Doth not our Saviour here expresly declare That Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you Eat and Drink mark and Drink And do the Laity eat and drink literally no certainly How then shall they enter into life Must none but the Priests be saved Poor miserable Laity I am sure you must literally be damned for ever to save Transubstantiation a sad doctrine for you whatever becomes of your Priests I fear they will fare little better that thus blindly lead you into this fatal ditch of damnation Consider I beseech you how they delude and gull you They press these words of St. Iohn upon the ignorant Laity My flesh is meat indeed to perswade them 't is real flesh in the Sacrament but when we press them with those words Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you thereby shewing That 't is necessary for all to drink the blood as well as eat the flesh then they say all here is to be taken in a spiritual sence of eating and drinking by Faith Wherein they say truly but yet shew they deal falsly with you making you believe all here is to be taken literally whereas in truth all is to be taken spiritually and they compelled to acknowledge it so by their unlucky Decree of taking the Cup from the Laity Had it not been for this good God how would they have dunn'd our ears with this Chapter of St. Iohn there would have been no enduring their lowd clamors for their literal sence But now I beseech you calmly to consider this passage in St. Iohn Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you Who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day These words carry far more appearance of Christ's real Flesh in the Sacrament than those in St. Matthew This is my Body which as I said before is a figurative way of speaking very frequent in Scripture and no body startled at it but when our Saviour pronounced those words in St. Iohn most that heard them were very much startled and disordered at them yea many Disciples left following our Saviour upon them crying This is an hard saying who can bear it for really it sounds very hard if you take the bare words in themselves without our Saviour's Comment upon them whereof we shall speak by and by This then is the thing I pray you to consider if these words in St. Iohn which carry so much a greater appearance of real flesh in the Sacrament yet may and ought to be taken and are taken by the Papists themselves in a Spiritual sence Is it not a most unreasonable and senceless thing in the Papists to cry out upon us for taking those words in St. Matthew This is my Body in a spiritual sence It is just the same as for a man that refuses to take a guilded shilling for pure Gold 〈◊〉 out on me because I will not accept of a piece of plain brass for pure gold But setting aside the Papists who take all Scriptures right or wrong as they serve most for their turn and as they blasphemously call the Scripture a nose of wax so use it and shape all to their own ●ancy let us now see our Saviour's own Comment on his own words that is the sure way to have the right sence of them I pray you then observe how our Saviour in this Chapter v. 47. just before he began this discourse prepares his Disciples for the spiritual understanding of what follows by saving Verily verily I say unto you He that believeth on me hath everlasting life Which plainly shews that the words he was going to speak were to be apprehended by Faith and not in a carnal way for as he saith in this 47 Verse with a double asseveration Verily verily I say unto you He that believeth on me hath everlasting life So Verse 53. Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you Here he affirms the very same of eating his flesh as before of believing in him shewing that our eating must be by Faith and not carnally And then again after our Saviour saw that many were offended at those words of Eating his flesh to take them off from any gross carnal apprehension he tells them The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life After that our Saviour had thus instructed his Disciples in the true spiritual sence of his words we find it so rectified their Understandings as that when he administred to them this holy Sacrament and gave them that which figuratively he called his Body to eat not one of them in the least scrupled at it which doubtless some one or other would have done had they imagined our Saviour had given his real Flesh. They who startled at hearing it would much more at acting it for their Faith was not yet so strong as to believe such a miraculous Transubstantiation as the Papists fancy and that his whole Body should enter in at the narrow circle of their mouthes For we see how weakly they staggered at our Saviour's Resurrection though forewarned of it several times by him and they had seen him also raise several others from the dead yet would not believe his Resurrection till they saw him and scarce then All which plainly shews they took the Bread as real Bread according to Christ's Institution in remembrance of his Passion and Death and not as his very Body entring in at their mouthes into their breasts which doubtless some of them

of Truth and the way of Error the way of Godliness and the way of Iniquity the way of Life and the way of Death I most humbly and most earnestly beseech our most Gracious God for his Son Christ Iesus's sake to give you a right understanding in all things and to preserve you continually in the way of Truth Holiness Righteousness and Life Everlasting Amen THE END A SUPPLEMENT To the PRECEDING SERMONS TOGETHER WITH A TRACT concerning the Holy Sacrament OF THE Lords Supper Promised in the PREFACE By the Right Reverend Father in God HERBERT Lord Bishop of HEREFORD London Printed for Charles Harper 1679. A SUPPLEMENT To the Preceding SERMONS IN the Preceding Sermons I have proved these six things 1. That by God's special appointment all persons are to read and learn the Scriptures for their Edification in Faith and good Life and therefore 't is both foolish and impious for vain Man to take upon him to give reasons why the People should not read them 2. The reason of this because that in the Scriptures we have eternal life as our Saviour tells us which St. Paul explicates more particularly saying That they make us wise unto salvation that is they teach us all things necessary for our belief and they throughly furnish us unto all good works that is they teach us all things requisite for good life And these things the Scriptures compleatly contain in themselves without any Humane Doctrines so that if there were no other Writings nor Instructions in the World but the Scriptures alone yet we should not want any thing necessary to eternal life 3. That we are not to believe any thing with Divine Faith but what is clearly contained in Scripture for such a belief is a Duty belonging to God alone and 't is the greatest and most acceptable Duty and Sacrifice we can perform unto God to captivate our understandings in Obedience to Faith in God and therefore to give this principal Divine Service unto Man is high Idolatry and consequently to believe in the Apostles themselves had been great Idolatry had not Christ fully assured us That they should have the Holy Ghost to guide them into all Truth So that to speak properly we do not believe in the Apostles and Prophets but in God the Holy Ghost speaking in them And for this reason we find St. Paul very wary in distinguishing and declaring to the people what he delivered as from the Lord and what he delivered as from himself though he was perswaded he had the Spirit of the Lord even in that But yet no clear and full assurance that it was spoken directly by the Lord. Nay our blessed Saviour himself though God and Man yet would not have us believe in him as Man and therefore assures us That the words he spake were not his but the Father's speaking by him 4. I have proved that we have not any clear and full assurance from God That any Assembly of Men or Church since the Apostles are infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost into all Truth and therefore to believe in any Assembly of Men or Church without this full assurance of the Holy Ghost's speaking in them is Idolatry also for by such a belief you pay them the greatest Divine Worship 5. Though we should grant That some promise of Infallibility were made in Scripture to the Church yet this must include the Laity as well as the Clergy for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Church is always set in Scripture for the Congregation of the Faithful and is not once set for the Clergy distinct from the Laity But there is no such thing as Infallibility granted to any neither Priests nor People nor both together 6. Grant yet farther that the word Church in Scripture should signifie the Clergy and a promise of Infallibility made to them as Successors to the Apostles yet the same Promise being made and the same Authority given to all the Apostles alike the Successor of St. Peter and his Clergy cannot from hence challenge any more Infallibility than the Successors of the other Apostles with their Clergy and Church But the Papists deny this Infallibility to other Churches Certainly then other Churches may as well deny it to them All these things I have proved But now for a fuller conviction of the Papists and perchance for better satisfaction to some others I have a mind to grant yet farther That Christ made some particular Promise to St. Peter above the other Apostles yea and to St. Peter's Successors also 't is impossible from Scripture to prove either of these but let it pass so let us now see how the Papists can from hence fix this Infallibility to the Bishop of Rome and his Churches For I have shewed you from Scripture which doubtless is of better Authority than any Writings the Papists can bring for St. Peter that Rome was comprised in St. Paul's Jurisdiction and that he lived and preached and suffered there But we will pass over this also and yield to St. Peter's Jurisdiction over the whole World What then Then St. Peter was Bishop of Rome and setled his Successor there And how do the Papists prove this They answer that many authentick Historians tell them so is this all their Proof Humane Testimony from History is this a sufficient foundation for a prime Article of Faith on which depends the Salvation of all Christian Souls Is this a sure Rock or rather a bank of Sand to build their Infallibility upon Do not the same Historians relate that St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch and we have more reason to believe History for this because the Scripture tells us he was there but not one tittle of his ever being at Rome but strong Presumptions to the contrary St. Luke in the Acts speaking so much of St. Paul's going thither hath not one word of St. Peter's who being as the Papists believe so eminent an Apostle above all the rest seems somewhat neglected by St. Luke which makes me suspect St. Luke was not of their Opinion And shall we accuse St. Paul also for want of charity or civility never to mention St. Peter in all those his particular and numerous Salutations to and from others in his Epistles we must not think that their quarrel at Antioch where St. Paul withstood St. Peter stuck so long in his mind as to omit all Salutation to him in several Epistles We ought rather in charity to St. Paul to believe St. Peter was not at Rome And truly methinks the Papists themselves who pretend so much to honour St. Peter do him no small dishonour in affirming him to be at Rome when St. Paul answered for himself before Nero the first time St. Paul complaining that no man stood with him but all forsook him And if those Historians which the Papists rely on for St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome speak true in the circumstance of time then he was at Rome when St. Paul first answered

Papists farther Object Many damnable Heresies may arise which the Fathers of that Council being no Prophets could not foresee I grant it What then why then it will be necessary to suppress them I grant this also and earnestly desire it Suppress whatever is new set up but set up no more new as necessary to be believed This is the Point we still hold to Men were saved and may still be saved without believing more Till they can confute me in this their talk is vain and without weight And thus all both Men and Women may be able to stop the mouth of Papists with their own Argument when they cry unto you in their absurd wonted manner Hear the Church You must believe as the Church believes answer Yes you do believe as the Church believes as the Church and Council of Nice believed you hold every Article of their Creed 'T is you Papists who believe not as the Church and Council of Nice believed you have altered the Faith and have built a great deal of Wood Hay Stubble upon the old foundation which can never abide the trial of Scripture From whence 't is evident you are the Hereticks for you have wilfully taken up to your selves several Opinions contrary to Scripture which you profess to be the Word of God and therefore you are according to St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned of your selves for you acknowledge the rule and yet go on in your will-worship contrary to the rule Yet notwithstanding all that I have said here I declare this When there are several Opinions and Disputes in a Nation about Matters in Religion the Supream Magistrates and Church-Governours may in Prudence think it necessary for the peace of Church and State to require all that are to enter into places of trust in Church or State to subscribe to such Articles as they conceive most conducing thereto and he that refuses they may refuse him no man is injured by this either in his Salvation or Life or Liberty or Estate he is as free as he was before I hold only to this That no man be required to believe any thing as necessary to Salvation but what is plainly contained in Scripture A Tract concerning the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper which I promised in the Preface Good Reader YOu must first understand What it is to take a saying in a Literal or a Figurative sence For example If a Man take a Stick in his hand and say This is my Staff you take this in a Literal sence that is you take it according to the bare words and usual meaning of them that this Staff is his he is the owner of it But if he say This is my Horse you see that Stick is not a real Horse therefore you conceive he means not a real Horse but that as a Horse is used for a help to carry a Man on his way so this Stick helps to support his Body and carry him on his way This we call a Figurative sence that is signifying something otherwise than the bare words usually express For the word Horse is not here taken as usually for a real Horse but for another thing used as a Horse Now all Men that reade the Scripture find it necessary to take many things spoken there in a Figurative sence for it would be contrary to all Reason and Religion to take them in a Literal sence As when our Saviour said I am the Door no Man conceives Christ to be a real Door and therefore he takes it in a Figurative sence by way of comparison to a Door that as a Door is the entrance into a House so Christ tells us he is the Door the entrance for us into Heaven no Man can enter there but by him and his Merits So Christ said I am the Bread that came down from Heaven no Man takes this in a Literal sence according to the usual meaning of the word Bread for real Bread but by way of comparison as Bread nourishes our Bodies so Christ is come down from Heaven to nourish our Souls Again Christ taking Bread in his hand said This is my Body We know that Bread is not Christ's real Body we therefore conceive Christ means a comparison that as this Bread is broken and bruised under your teeth and so passes down into your breast to nourish your Body so my Body shall be broken bruised and killed that by my Sufferings and Death your Souls may be nourished to eternal Life In all reason we must conclude thus unless Christ had said something more to make us think otherwise for we have no other way to understand any thing Christ spoke but according to the Rule of Reason which God hath given us to speak and understand all things But the Papists who understand the former words I am the Bread in a Figurative sence meerly because their Sense and Reason tells them that Christ is not real Bread yet will needs understand these words This is my Body in a Literal sence That the Bread is made Christ's real substantial Body though their Sense and Reason tells them 't is still real Bread for which I desire them to give me a satisfying Reason for in all appearance both Affirmations are of the same nature Certainly then they must shew us some great Motive that induces them to take the two forms of speech so very differently being in themselves both alike First From Reason no Motive can possibly be found for by Reason 't is equally hard to understand Christ to be Bread as Bread to be Christ. Secondly If according to Religion we captivate our Reason in obedience to Faith 't is as easie to believe Bread to be Christ as Christ to be Bread And 't is very impertinent here to talk of God's infinite Power how that can effect things impossible to Reason for we most readily grant it And therefore the Papists do as falsly as foolishly accuse us of Unbelief and that we are wholly guided by our Reason and deny the Bread to be Christ's Body because our Reason cannot comprehend it Do not we believe God created all the World of nothing three Persons to be one God God and Man to be one Person Christ Sure these are harder to believe than that God can change Bread into his Body and we would more readily believe this than the former highest Mysteries had we this miraculous change as plainly set forth in Scripture as those Mysteries greater and harder to be believed Let them then plainly shew us in Scripture that Christ changed the Bread into his Body and we shall as readily believe it as they but they barely tell us Christ said of the Bread This is my Body and we again tell them Christ said I am the Bread They require us to believe the first to be a miraculous change and we likewise require them to believe the second to be as miraculous a change they refuse the second so we refuse the first why not This is