Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	body_n	bread_n	transubstantiation_n	7,578	5	11.1962	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33220	Seventeen sermons preach'd upon several occasions never before printed / by William Clagett ... with The summ of a conference on February 21, 1686, between Dr. Clagett and Father Gooden, about the point of transubstantiation.	Clagett, William, 1646-1688.	1689 (1689)	Wing C4396; ESTC R7092	211,165	600

be disproved now he is dead And if the great Esteem I had for that Excellent Person and most useful Instrument of God's Service in our late dangerous and critical Times does not render me a very incompetent judg of whatever comes from his hand the Reader will find even in these short Notes enough to reward his Pains and to keep him from thinking the time lost that he shall please to spend in the perusal of them W. W. A Private Conference BETWEEN Dr. Clagett and Father Gooden ABOUT Transubstantiation c. FAther Gooden Proposed the Rule of Faith to be the Subject of the Conference but upon the Request of the Lady for whose sake they met the Question of Transubstantiation was taken And the Father desiring that the Doctor would be the Opponent the Question was Stated on both Sides Dr. That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is salse Doctrine and That the Natural Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament but in Heaven Fa. That after the Words of Consecration the true Body and Blood of Christ are in the Holy Eucharist and that the manner is well exprest by Transubstantiation Dr. This is not all the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Church of Rome The Doctrine of the Church of Rome is this That the Substance of the Bread is chang'd into the Substance of Christ's Body and the Substance of the Wine is chang'd into the Substance of Christ's Blood which Change the Church of Rome does conveniently call Transubstantiation Now against this I thus argue If the Substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist then it is not chang'd into the Substance of Christ's Body But the Substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist Therefore the Substance of Bread is not changed into the Substance of Christ's Body Fath. I deny the Minor viz that the substance of Bread does remain Dr. If Bread remains the substance of bread remains But Bread remains Therefore the substance of bread remains Fath. If the Nature of Bread remains Bread remains but if only the Name of Bread and Species remain then Bread does not remain Dr. That Bread which is properly Natural Bread remains in the Eucharist is proved from 1 Cor. 11.26 As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew forth the Lord's death till he come 1 Cor. 10.16 The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Now from hence we argue thus If that which is here said to be Broken and to be the Communion of the Body of Christ be properly natural Bread then that which is properly natural Bread remains in the Eucharist Fath. I grant the Major Dr. But that which is here said to be broken and to be the Communion of the Body of Christ is properly natural Bread Ergo Properly natural Bread remains in the Eucharist Fath. I deny the Minor. Dr. The Bread of which Saint Paul speaks is Bread that may be broken and therefore it is truly and properly natural Bread. Fath. I distinguish the Antecedent as to the Accidents and Appearance of Bread it may be broken as to the Nature of Bread it cannot because it is not there Dr. This is to beg the Question for the Question is whether Bread be there or not and the Argument to prove that it is there is Because Saint Paul speaks of Bread that might be and was broken but it is no sufficient Answer to this to say that the Accidents of Bread may be broken because the Bread is not there it self which is the thing that was disproved Fath. The Question to be proved was that the Nature of Bread was there therefore it is not a begging of the Question according to the Distinction given to say that the Nature of Bread is not there and consequently could not be broken For the Bread there spoken of is not meant of Natural Bread but of Bread which came down from Heaven and which is the flesh of Christ John. 6.41 I am the bread which came down from Heaven John 6.48 I am the bread of Life Ver. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 58. From whence I infer my Answer to be good that though the H. Eucharist be called Bread and broken as to the Species of Bread yet it is not natural Bread but only in appearance of which St. Paul spoke for the same St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. speaking of the same bread saith He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself not discerning the body of our Lord. Christ also speaking of the same bread saith Take eat this is my Body Matt. 26.26 Also Luk. 22.19 speaking of the same Eucharist This is my Body which is given for you Dr. The Answerer forgetting the Part of a Disputant has pretended to prove largely by the sixth Chap. of St. John and other places of Scripture That St. Paul in the aforementioned places did not speak of Bread properly so called although he spoke of Bread that was to be broken All which places when it is my turn to Answer I will consider particularly But if that which is here said is to go for an Answer the force of it lies in this That by the Bread which St. Paul spoke of we are to understand the Bread which St. John spoke of namely the bread which came down from Heaven by which the Answerer understands the Natural and proper flesh of Christ But that the Bread which St. Paul speaks of cannot be the natural flesh of Christ I prove thus The Bread which St. Paul speaks of was broken But the Natural Body of Christ cannot be broken Ergo. The Bread which St. Paul speaks of cannot be the Natural body of Christ Fath. As to the Species and Appearance of Bread it was broken I grant it as to any Nature contained under those Species of Bread I deny it Dr. This Distinction does not avoid the Argument because if the Bread in St. Paul and the Bread in St. John are really and properly the same and the Bread in St. John be really and properly the flesh of Christ then what is affirmed of the one must be true of the other and therefore if the Bread be broken in St. Paul then the Natural body of Christ must be broken too which cannot be I add further That if by breaking of Bread St. Paul means breaking the Accidents of Bread onely and if the Bread that is broken be really that which is spoken of in St. John as aforesaid it follows also that the Accidents of Bread are properly the body of Christ Fath. That which St. Paul calls Bread had in it both the Accidents of Bread and the substance of Christs body As to the Accidents of Bread it might be broken as to the substance of Christ's body which is mentioned in St. John it is not broken unless you mean as Christ's Body was broken upon the Cross And if the bread which is broken be really that which is spoken of in St. John as aforesaid

compares the Body of Christ The eye cannot say unto the hand I have no need of thee nor again the head to the feet I have no need of you v. 21. Now it being the Apostle's design in this Chapter to press the Christians to Charity and Unity and mutual serviceableness one to another as Members of the same Body he assures them in the Words of the Text which I have chosen That they were indeed Members of one Body and he tells them what it was that made them so For by one spirit says he we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles and have been made to drink into one spirit That is by being Baptized they were made Members of the Body of Christ and united one to another under him the Head and this whether they were Jews or Gentiles bond or free i. e. whatever worldly circumstances made any distinction between them yet all they were one in Christ who professed his Faith and were by Baptism admitted into his Church And this Union of one to another under Christ was testified and declared by their Communion in the Table of the Lord. And whereas he says that by one Spirit they were baptized into this one Body and were all made to drink into one Spirit the meaning is that the Grace of the Holy Spirit was given in Baptism and in the Lords Supper to all the Faithful who do not receive unprofitable signs but one as well as another receives the quickning Grace of God to make them living Members of that one Body So that although there was a diversity and an equality in the Spiritual Gifts that were distributed among the Faithful in those dayes yet they were all equally Members of the same Body of Christ in as much as they were all Baptized into his Body and were all equally Partakers of his Table And thus I have explained the meaning of the Text with the relation it hath to the design of the Apostle in this Chapter That which remains is to speak to the particular design of the Text which is to shew that Christians are one Body or Society of Men and wherein the Vnity of the Church consists and what our part is to maintain it and how we may in this divided state of Christianity be satisfied that we are within that Unity Before I enter upon which I may well make two observations upon the Text in behalf of the Doctrine and Practice of this our Church of England 1. That St. Paul thought the observation of the two institutions of our Saviour viz. Baptism and the Communion of the Holy Table was a sufficient proof that believers were one Body And we have reason to believe that if he had known there were other Sacraments or outward badges of Christian profession instituted by Christ for the Church which is his Body he would not have omitted the mention of them here where he proves the Unity of the Church by Baptism and Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ We know that the Evangelists mention no other outward signs and visible tokens of our profession and God's Grace but Baptism and the Lord's Supper And it is something to our purpose that St. Paul owns no more than these where he industriously proves that Christians are one Body by these 2. I observe that the Communion of the Lords Table is described by drinking into one Spirit i. e. by one part of the Sacrament as sometimes it is by the other of breaking of bread But then nothing can be more plain from such expressions than that one part or kind is as necessary as the other because sometimes one sometims the other is put for both which had been against all rules of speaking if it had been allowable to separate the one from the other But as to that of Drinking the Cup it is most evident that it belonged to all for says St. Paul We have all been made to drink into one Spirit All who All the Priests of the Christian Church only No all that belong to the Body of Christ whether Jews or Gentiles bond or free But now if St Paul had known that it was not necessary for the Christian People to drink of the Cup in the Communion but that it was sufficient for them to have received the Bread only Can we think that he would have described their receiving the Sacrament by receiving a part of it which did not necessarily belong to them and not rather by that which did I do not make this observation to prove only that the People did at first universally receive the Cup for that is not denied by any but by those who have disputed themselves out of all Modesty and even these may be convinced beyond all doubt by this very place that all the Faithful in St. Paul's days received the Cup for otherwise how could he with truth have said that they had been all made to drink into one Spirit But that which I chiefly observe is this That though the Faithful did in those days drink as well as eat at the Lord's Table yet if the Apostle had known and surely he knew it if it was true that however it was the practice then yet it might without injury be altered in after times he would not have used an argument to satisfie the Faithful of his time that they all belonged to the Body of Christ which might afterwards be quite out of doors viz. when the Church should please to alter the Institution of our Saviour in this matter but he would rather have insisted upon receiving in that kind which could not be justly taken away from them and have said that all had been Baptized into the Body of Christ or made Members of his Church by Baptism and all that are of his Body may claim to eat of that one Bread. This by the bye I now address my self to the main business I propounded which is to state the notion of the Vnity of the Church to sh●w what is meant by it and to make some Inferences from it for our farther instruction And in the first place it is evident that St. Paul here speaks not of any one particular Church but of the Society of all Christians whatsoever that are Baptized and have a right to the Holy Communion whether they be Jews or Gentiles And it is concerning the Unity of this Church that we are to enquire or what that is which makes it one Body as the Apostle here calls it To which purpose we are to consider distinctly what are the several grounds or notions of Unity which are laid down in the New Testament or what those things are that belong in common to all Christians as their Duty or their Priviledg and in respect of their joint performance of the former of which and their enjoyment of the latter they may be said to be One. 1. Therefore all Christians do unite in their profession to submit to one Head who is our