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
A59219	A discovery of the groundlesness and insincerity of my Ld. of Down's Dissuasive being The fourth appendix to Svre-footing : with a letter to Dr. Casaubon, and another to his answerer / by J.S.	Sergeant, John, 1622-1707.	1665 (1665)	Wing S2564; ESTC R18151	61,479	125

Opinions which pretend a Subordination to and Coherence with Faith Divines should first clear their Incoherence with it ere They engage their Authority against them and then to do it efficaciously being back't with the Majesty of the Council's Orders My Lds words that the Fathers of the Council set their Doctors as well as they can to defend all the new curious and scandalous Questions and to uphold the gainful trade is indeed to the purpose but withal by his leave an unhandsome and most false Calumny against so many Persons of Honour and Quality and so Invidious a Charge that could he have proov'd it he had not slubber'd it over so carelesly without offering any proof for it but his bare word nor with a sleight proper to himself immediately after he had directly charged it have half recanted it with However it be with them that is whether they did any such thing or no as he had so lately and so pressingly challeng'd them to have done And this I note as a Third Head of his disingenuity frequent in his Book that he brings very good proofs for diverse particulars which concern not our Church but when it comes to the very point and which directly strikes at her his own bare word We know or it is Certain p. 54. l. 22. p. 62. p. 63. p. 67. c. is the best Argument he produces 16. A fourth disingenuity is his Perverting wilfully the Intention of Catholick Authours How he hath dealt with the Council of Trent in the two late mention'd points of Indulgences and Purgatory is already shown In like manner has he treated the Expurgatory Indies For whereas by the word Purgari emaculari in a Citation of his own p. 21 it is manisest they meant but to amend Corruptions of the late by the Antient Copies he makes as though out of gripes of Conscience forsooth that the Fathers were not right on our side they had therefore purposely gone about to corrupt the Fathers themselves p. 18. and 19. so to make them on our side because we could not find them so An Attempt impossible to fall into head of any man not stark mad For this altering the Fathers could not have serv'd our turn unless we had made it known and publish't it and if made Publick could not be imagin'd to do the deed neither for the Fraud must needs be made as Publick as the Book So that an Action thus intended must be a Human Action without a Motive or Reason which is a Contradiction Worse is what follows p. 21 22. but withal the malice of it is more easily discoverable For 't is evident by the particulars he mentions in those Indexes or Tables that the Printer or Correcter who made them was an Heretick and put in those Tables what his perversness imagin'd was found in the Fathers Whence it was but fit his whole Index should be expung'd Not that we fear the Fathers but that we disallow the wicked intentions of the Index-maker who abuses the Fathers to injure us So p. 62. he would make Catholikes themselves dissatisfy'd of the Ground of Transubstantiation because they say 't is not express'd in Scripture as if Catholiks held that nothing could be of Faith but what 's expresly found there whereas he well knows they universally teach and hold the contrary But his abuse of Peter Lombard p. 64. 65. is very remarkable though perhaps it might spring out of his little Experience in School-divinity To make Transubstantiation seem a Novelty he would persuade his Reader Lombard sayes he could not tell whether there was any Substantial change or no Whereas that Authour Dist. 10. brings Testimonies of the Fathers to prove it and concludes thence that 'T is evident that the Substance of Bread is converted into Christ's Body and the Substance of Wine into his Blood which is what the Council of Trent calls Transubstantiation And there ends that Distinction After which immediately succeeds the 11th De modis Conversionis of the Manners of this Conversion and of these he sayes he cannot sufficiently define whether this Conversion be Formal or Substantial or of another kind So that Substantial here supposes the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into Christes Body and is put by him onely to signify one of the manners of this Conversion which he explicates to be Sic Substantiam converti in Substantiam ut haec essentialiter fiat illa that one Substance is so converted into another Substance that the one is made essentially the other Whereas others who also hold Transubstantiation do yet explicate that Conversion by putting the body of Christ to succeed under the same Accidents in place of the Substance of Bread annihilated Now this Manner of Conversion calld by him a Substantial Manner in opposition to Formal which he makes to be a Conversion both of Substance and Accidents and not in Opposition to the change of one Substance into another he leaves Undefin'd but the Conversion it self of the Substance of Bread into the body of Christ which is our point he both defines hold proves out of Fathers Disc. 10. and calls them Hereticks that deny it How unfortunate is my L. to quote an Authour as not holding Transubstantiation then to call that Citation a plain Demonstration that it was not known in his dayes whereas he both professes to hold it and by alledging Fathers for it evidences he holds it was held anciently and lastly gives my L. such hard language for not holding it himself Whether it be likely my L. should light by some accident in reading Peter Lombard onely on the 11th Dist. and never read or light on the end of the 10th let Indifferent men judge I onely desire the Reader to observe how ill my L. comes of with his plain Demonstration and to remark that he ever succeeds worst when he most ayms at a good and solid proof the reason of which is because Truth being Invincible the neerer one closes to grapple with her the worse still he is foil'd Those few Instances may suffice for the 4th Kind of the Dissuaders disingenuities which is to pervert the Intentions of his Authours of which sort were it worth the pains I would undertake to show neer an hundred in my Lds. Dissuasive This piece of Art being now so customary to him that 't is even grown into a second Nature 17. His fifth kind of disingenuity is a most wilful one and most frequent too for it takes up far the better half his book 'T is this that he rakes up together all the less solid or ill Opinions and Cases and sometimes deforms the good ones of some private Writers in the Church which he will needs lay upon the Church her self as Mistress of our Faith Nay so strangely unjust he is in this Particular that whereas it evidently clears our Faith disengages the Church and shows it but Opinion when other Catholick Doctors uncontrolledly write against such an Opinion or Explication