Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	blood_n	body_n	wine_n	4,504	5	8.0226	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00597	The grand sacrilege of the Church of Rome, in taking away the sacred cup from the laiety at the Lords Table: detected, and conuinced by the euidence of holy Scripture, and testimonies of all ages successiuely from the first propagation of the catholike Christian faith to this present: together with two conferences; the former at Paris with D. Smith, now stiled by the Romanists B of Calcedon; the later at London with M Euerard, priest: by Dan. Featly, Doctor in Diuinity.	Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.	1630 (1630)	STC 10733; ESTC S120664	185,925	360

for the opinion of the Romish Church For they signifie that Christs blood is to bee drunk but vnder the forme of bread not vnder the forme of wine As for Haymo hee answers him with a short come-off saying He spake of the vnity of the Chalice and that his meaningis that they that receiue the blood of the Lord receiue out of one Cup. Refutation The threefold answer of Bellarmine to Paschasius is not like a threefold cable that cannot be broken but rather like a rustie twisted wyer-string that breakes with the least strayne First he beareth vs in hand that the place in Paschasius seemes to be corrupted Corrupted By whom by Papists Surely they would neuer haue corrupted this text to make against themselues by Protestants That cannot be for no Protestants haue set forth Paschasius for ought we find or haue had any thing to doe in that Edition of Paschasius which we cite Besides in all the ancient impressions of Paschasius and the Manu-scripts that haue come to our sight the words are found as we cite them Yea but Iohn of Louane suspects that the copies are faulty and that bibite is put for edite Drinke yee for eat ye why so because the words going before are he distributeth the bread by the hands of his ministers to the beleeuers saying Take yee and drinke yee all of this This reason like a rope of sand hath no coherence at all For though Pascasius spake of bread yet to proue that Christ is he who alone by his Ministers distributeth the sacrament he rehearseth the words of the institution both concerning the Bread and the Cup neither can bibite or drink you in Paschasius be put for edite eate ye but must stand as it doth drinke yee For the words immediately following in Paschasius are for this is the new and eternall Testament Now what a ridiculous inference were it if we read the words as Iohn of Louane would haue vs take eate this for this is the Cup of the blood of the new and euerlasting testament Bellarmine his second answer is as absurd as his first For Paschasius his words make more strongly for vs and against himself if Paschasius expound the words Drinke ye all of this as they seeme to bee spoken by Christ not at the first Institution but afterwards whensoeuer the sacrament is administred in the Church If now also whensoeuer the sacrament is administred in the Church Christ commandeth drink ye all of this that is with Paschasius glosse all Ministers other beleeuers it followeth that all other beleeuers as well as Ministers ought now by Christs command to drinke of the cup. Thirdly as Bellarmine his first answer is against the text of Paschasius and his second against himselfe so his third is against common sence How can blood bee drunke vnder the forme of bread if we speake of drinking siguratiuely by faith this kind of drinking the Romanists explode If he speake of drinking properly with the mouth euery suckling is able to confute the Cardinall who know by meere sense that nothing cā be drunk but that which is moist and of liquid substance Nay the Cardinal discourseth like a man that had drank too deep of the wine forgetting in this page what he said in the former There he saith that the fathers doe not say that Christs blood is to be drunke of the people by the mouth of the body but here he saith that other beleeuers as well as Ministers by Christs command ought to drinke it but after a manner neuer heard of before to drinke it vnder the forme of bread Now for his answer to Haymo pari facilitate reijcitur quâ profertur t is as easy to be reiected as vrged For first the Cardinal corrupteth the text of Haymo hee saith not the Cup is the Communion because all drinke of that one Cup the word one is not in Haymo Admit it were this no way disapointeth our allegation out of Haymo For still this word omnes or al remaines And be it out of one Cup or more Haymo saith expresly that all did partake of it and receiued of the blood of Christ contained in it If all then the people as well as the Priests SECT X. The testimonies of the practise of the Church from 900. to 1000. ARistole rightly obserueth that it so falleth out in the descent of families as it doth in diuers grounds in which sometimes wee haue great plentie sometime as great scarsitie so saith he some families haue afforded store of noble personages at other times scarse any of note or eminence So it fareth here with vs in the last Age wee had plentifull store of testimonies for the truth but in this we are like to haue Penury Although if wee consider aright this scarsity may be imputed rather vnto the iniury of the time and want of Records of History which happily being extant might haue afforded vs no lesse plentie of Testimonies then the former Ages as well in this as in other points in question The Poet wisely obserued Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona Multi sed omnes vrgentur ignoti longâ Nocte carent quia vate sacro Dan. Chamier after much inquiry can bring notice but of one witnesse and him hee dares scarse avow Bellarmine brandeth with a note this ninth Age as being the most obscure and darke that the Sunne euer cast his beames vpon yet euen in this Age wee haue somewhat to shew for the right of Gods people to the holy Chalice of the Lords Table Anno 910. Rodolphus Tongrensis testifieth that the people in his time tooke the sacred body of Christ and drank a blessed draught of his blood Anno 920. The Abbot of Prumes Regino teacheth vs that what Rodolphus witnesseth of the practise of the people in his age was not an abuse or disorder in the people but done in obedience to the sacred discipline of the Church whose Canon he mentioneth Let the soules of the weake be refreshed and strengthned with the body and blood of our Lord. Anno 950. Stephanus Edvensis saith These gifts or benefits are dayly performed vnto vs when the body and blood of Christ is taken at the Altar Anno 990. Vincentius writes of Elgifa an old Matrone in this age who being ready to giue vp the ghost tooke the body and blood of our Lord. Anno 995. Aelfricus first Abbot of Saint Albons and after Archbishop of Canterbury in his epistle to Woulfinus and in his sermon translated of late out of the Saxon in die S. Paschae is as ful for the entire Communion as hee is against Transubstantiation the Howsell or Hoste saith he is Christs body not bodily but Ghostly not the body which he suffered in but the body of which he spoke when hee blessed bread and wine to Howsel ep ad Wolfin and in his sermon Without they be seene bread and wine both in figure and in taste and they

that meane while had been kept it would haue been dead in the Pixe Hugo Card. saith Christs Passion is the truth and the Sacrament is a figure of the same Therfore when the truth is come the figure giueth place Consider we the weight of these reasons The Apostles fled sixteene hundred yeeres agoe on Good-Friday therefore we must not now on that day consecrate the elements or communicate in both kinds On Good-Friday Christ suffered his blood then was seuered from the body Therefore now wee must not receiue his body and blood on that day Christs Passion was on that day therefore wee must neuer receiue the figure thereof on that day 2. Concerning the custome of the Greeke Church It is true that the Greeke Church in Lent vsed to consecrate onely vpon Saterday and Sunday and on the other dayes of the weeke they did communicate ex praesanctificatis of the presanctified formes which had been consecrated the Saterday or Sunday before as may be gathered out of the 49. Canon of the Councell of Laodocea and 52. Canon of the Councell in Trullo Sed quid ad rhombum we dispute not of the Communion of things before consecrated but of the communion of both kinds Such no doubt was this communion of the Greekes as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or praesanctificata in the plurall number doth implie It is not called by Balsamo vpon the 52. Canon of the sixth Councell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a communion of presanctified bread but of presanctified mysteries This headlesse arrow therefore as all the former may be thus headed and shot backe vpon our aduersaries Retortion If the Communion of presanctified elements were in both kindes this Rite of the Greeke Church no way suporteth but quite ouerthroweth the Romish halfe Communion in one kind only But the communion of presanctified elements of the Greeke Church was in both kinds Ergo this Rite of the Greeke Church no way supporteth but quite ouerthroweth the Romish halfe Communion in one kinde onely That this Communion in the Greeke Church was in both kinds wee need no better euidence then the Seruice-booke or Office of the Greeke Church wherein we reade that after the Priest hath sanctified the bread he powreth wine and water into the sacred Cup and rehearseth the accustomed words in the Liturgie it self called Liturgia praesanctificatorum The dreadfull mysteries are named in the plurall number And that al that communicated receiued in both kinds it appeares by the forme of thankesgiuing there set downe We giue thanks to thee O God the Sauiour of all for all thy benefits which thou hast bestowed vpon vs and in speciall for that thou hast vouch safed to make vs partakers of the body and blood of thy Christ. CHAP. XV. The arguments of Papists drawne from reason answered and retorted SECT I. OVr aduersaries are driuen to rake hell for arguments and to begge proofes from damned hereticks such as were the Manichees From whose dissembling at the Lords Supper our equiuocating Iesuits would make vs beleeue that their halfe Communion was in vse in the Primitiue Church The Manichees saith Fisher liued in Rome and other places shrowding themselues amongst Catholicks went to their Churches receiued the Sacrament publikely with thē vnder the sole forme of bread yet they were not noted nor then discerned from Catholicks A manifest signe saith he that Communiō vnder one kind was publikly in the Church permitted For how could the Manichees still refusing the Cup haue beene hidden amongst those antient Christians if they had bin perswaded as now Protestants are that receiuing one kind onely is sacrilege The like argument Master Harding draweth from a tricke of Leger demaine vsed by a cunning housewife who made her husband beleeue that shee receiuing the bread from the Priest stooped downe as if she had prayed but receiued of her seruant standing by her somewhat that shee had brought for her from home which shee had no sooner put into her mouth but it hardned into a stone If this seeme to any incredible saith Sozomen that stone is a witnesse which to this day is kept amongst the Iewels of the Church of Constantinople By this stone it is cleere saith Master Harding the Sacrament was then ministred vnder one kind onely For by receiuing that one forme this woman would haue perswaded her husband that shee had communicated with him else if both kindes had beene ministred shee would haue practised fome other shift for the auoyding of the Cup which had not beene so easie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ill egge of an ill bird a loose inference of a lewd practise As if the Manichees in Rome or this woman in Constantinople might not pitisare sip and make as if they drank and yet let not a drop go downe or as if this their fraud was not discouered Howsoeuer these disembled it is certaine out of Saint Leo in his 4. Sermon of Lent and Saint Chrysostome 18. Homile vpon the second to the Corinthians that the faithful people of Rome and Constantinople receiued the Communion in both kinds For Saint Leo in the place aboue alleaged giueth this as a marke to discrie Manichees from other Christian people intruding amongst them at the Lords Table by refusing to drink the blood of Christ with them And Saint Chrysostome saith expresly that there is no difference betwixt Priest and people in participating the dreadfull mysteries Therefore as the Priest in Constantinople and euery where else in his time receiued the Communion in both kindes so did the people SECT II. To leaue these absurd inferences of the Papists from the vngodly practise of hereticks I come now in the last place to batter and breake in pieces such weapons as they hammer against vs in the forge of reason The first reason they shape in this wise If whole Christ Body Blood Soule and Diuinity are vnder the forme of bread the Laietie are no way wronged by denying them the Cup But whole Christ is vnder the forme of bread to wit his Body Blood Soule and Diuinity Therefore the Laiety are not wronged by denying them the Cup. That whole Christ is vnder the forme of bread they proue by the vnseparable vnion of the body and blood of Christ c. Since his ascention his body now in heauen is a liue body and therfore hath his blood in his veines and is informed and glorified by a most excellent soule Therfore Christ cannot say truly that a body voyd of blood sence and soule is his body but soule life and blood must needs follow and concomitate his body wheresoeuer it bee Therefore when the Priest in the person of Christ or rather Christ by the mouth of the Priest saith This is my body the meaning must bee a liuing body with blood in the veines The answer First the doctrine of naturall Concomitancie presupposeth the naturall body of Christ to bee substantially and carnally vnder

Christi caro Christs flesh nor coeleste Sacramentum a heauenly Sacrament Therefore the former words cannot be meant of the accidents but of the consecrated Hoste it selfe To which D. Smith with some indignation replyed Gratian with vs is no authenticall Author much lesse the Glosse Well said M. Featly if you so easily auoide Gratian approoued by so many Popes citing in this very place S. Augustine in the Margent for his warrant I will see whether you can so rid your hands of Diuine authorities I argue thus from the Text Christ tooke bread and brake it and gaue it and said This c. Therefore by this word This he meant this bread as the Fathers generally accord in their interpretations of it Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 34. How shall it appeare vnto them that the bread which was blessed was our Lords body Tertullianus lib. 4. cont Marcion cap. 40. He calleth the bread his body Athanas. in 1. Cor. 11. What is the bread Christs body Hieron ad Hedib quaest 2. pag. 416. Let vs heare that the bread which Christ brake and gaue to his Disciples is his body as himselfe saith This is my body August sermon 2. de verb. Apost The bread is Christs ●…ody and the Cup is his blood Epiphan in Anchorato Christ said of that which is of a round figure and without sense This is my body Cyril Catech mystag 4. Christ said of the bread This is my body Theodoret. Dialog 1. In the distribution of the mysteries he called bread his body Gerson contra Flor. c. 4. We must say that the Pronoune this demonstrates the substance of bread I could produce many more of your owne Writers that are cited by Suarez to this purpose but these suffice to prooue that the Pronoune Hoc standeth for Hic panis Now I assume Corpus Christi cannot properly be affirmed of bread sith bread and Christs body are substantiae disparatae Ergo will you nill you either you must accept of a figure in Christs words or put backe and reiect all these reuerend Fathers and your own Doctors also at once I answer quoth D. Smith that the Fathers by panis meant panis Eucharistatus What meane you quoth M. Featly by panis Eucharistatus Transubstantiatus actu actually transubstantiated or not Transubstantiatus actu quoth D. Smith Therefore replyed M. Featly by panis they meant that which is not now panis For panis Transubstantiatus is no more panis then homo mortuus is homo or the Rod being turned into a Serpent is still a Rod. Is this thinke you their meaning Bread is Christs body that is Bread not being bread is Christs body Might not I say with as good reason It is my body that is it is not my body I say quoth D. Smith bread not remaining bread is the body of Christ. Refell you this my Exposition if you can It is needlesse quoth M. Featly it cannot be made worse then it is yet to gratifie you I thus impugne it This Pronoune demonstratiue Hoc must needs signifie some thing that then was existent to which Christ pointed saying This But there was no panis transubstantiatus or your non manens panis when Christ pronounced this Pronoune This pointing to something at the table for you all confesse that the bread is not conuerted into the substance of Christs body till after all the words of consecration are vttered D. Smiths answer was This subiect hoc signifieth when it is vttered the body of Christ but it signifieth not for that instant but for the next not being of the whole proposition What say you is a proposition true when it is not at all Hoc est in non esse suo Aristotle makes signification de esse propositionis defining it Oratio significans verum vel falsum Is this then that you say Christs speech signifieth that is hath his esse pro Proximo non esse How many non esses hath a Proposition which you wil haue signifie pro Proximo non esse Goe on quoth D. Smith with your Argument When Christ said M. Featly vttered precisely this Pronoune Hoc did it signifie any thing then or no It signified This but not for that instant What did it then signifie quoth M. Featly bread transubstantiated or not If you say transubstantiatum you make a false Proposition If you say non transubstantiatum you must acknowledge a figure To this D. Smith said nothing but repeated his old distinction Tunc pro Tunc This your distinction quoth M. Featly is like vnto his in Keckerman by which hee turneth off all arguments ●…rthopodialiter non restexiue which no man was able to refute because they vnderstood it not I professe said he I know not what you will by your Tunc and pro Tunc vnlesse this bee your meaning that the Proposition is true de futuro non de praesente which to say is apparantly to put a figure in the copula est construing it pro erit No figure quoth D. Smith but s an enlarging of the copula I might say likewise quoth M. Featly that no Protestant maketh a figure in the copula or praedicatum but onely an amplification of it in your language I pray you what difference is there betweene that your Ampliatio copulae and the Rhetoricians enallage temporis I see no more then between a siluer and a leaden token of the same value both an halfe penny Let vs not striue about words What is the thing meant by Hoc pro quo nomine stat hoc pronomen For bread transubstantiated saith D. Smith Therefore for the body of Christ saith Master Featly What of that quoth D. Smith Then quoth M. Featly the meaning of the words is The body of Christ is the body of Christ. I grant saith D. Smith that the sense of these words the bread is the body of Christ is this according to the identitie of the thing signified the body of Christ is the body of Christ According to the manner of signifying it is not the same but diuers and not identicall Belike quoth M. Featly the Apostles were ignorant that Christs body was his body and by vertue of these words he made his body his body as if it were not so before Will you stand to this interpretation quoth M. Featly See what will come vpon it What quoth D. Smith That the words of consecration make nothing for Transubstantiation or any thing else For a Proposition that is meerely identicall quoad significatum prooues nothing at all I may truly say pointing to Christs body in heauen at the right hand of his Father This or that body of Christ is his body and will it hence follow that bread or any thing else is substantially turned into Christs body were it not much better to admit a Trope then to commit a Tautologie in your