Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
blood_n drink_v eat_v word_n 14,073 5 4.8489 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A36211 The Doctrine of the Catholick Church and of the Church of England concerning the blessed Trinity explained and asserted against the dangerous heterodoxes in a sermon by Dr. William Sherlock before my Lord Mayor and the court of aldermen. 1697 (1697) Wing D1774; ESTC R1156 21,435 32

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

or present Socinianism the Socinianism of Faustus Socinus for the Unity of God or that there is but one God can never be defended by these Men who hold Person and intellectual Substance to be the same but only on the Principles of Faustus Socinus and the modern Socinians Thus I say some Orthodox Writers argue they are perswaded that as this Doctor maintains the Heresy of Laelius Socinus he must of necessity by attending to the Consequences of his Doctrine make a Coalition or Closure in the end with Faustus Socinus and the present Socinianism if it be not already his Opinion and Aim As for Subscriptions Protestations and such like Dr. Sherlock may multiply them as much as he pleases but they are resolved never to believe him for they pretend that his Predecessors L. Socinus G. Blandrata c. never stuck at such Matters but made use of 'em as Artifices to get into Acquaintance and Esteem with the Orthodox and then seduce them But for my part I judg the Dean tho most certainly a Disciple of Laelius Socinus may easily be brought off from the Imputation of being a Socinian according to the Model of Faustus Socinus and the present Socinians For it is true he holds three Essences and Spirits and he thinks Person and intellectual Substance signify the same thing so that in multiplying the one you necessarily multiply the other and it is no less true that on these two Principles or in consequence of these two Principles he can never defend the Unity of God but on the grounds of Faustus Socinus and the modern Socinians namely that God is indeed but one Person I say I grant both these Imputations on the Doctor are true and yet it will not follow that in very deed he is a Socinian after the Model of Faustus or aims to introduce the Socinian Scheme as 't is held by the Modern Socinians For having disclaimed the use of Reason in Matters of Religion he is bound up by no Consequences tho never so clear or certain for all Consequences are the Children of Reason against which in Disputes of Religion and the Articles of Faith the Doctor has protested before my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen If it be never so certain that he holds as Laelius Socinus did and never so evident that the necessary Consequence from thence is the Scheme of Faustus Socinus this can never affect him who disclaiming Reason is therefore discharged of the foolish Trouble of attending to Consequences which are mere Brats of Reason He may be as clear of any Design to introduce the Scheme of Faustus Socinus notwithstanding these Suspicions of some right Orthodox Men as he is of bringing in Presbytery which in my heart I cannot think he intends now he is become a Dean We have said enough to his first Proposition that Reason and Philosophy are the two Idols of Atheists and Hereticks and that make Atheists to be Atheists and Hereticks to be Hereticks To the Second He saith again That to ascertain what is the very and true Faith we must attend only to that Meaning of Scripture which the Words and Phrases do imply rejecting all mixture of Reason and Philosophy in our Disputes about Religion and our Inquiries concerning the Meaning of Scripture That is he is for giving up the Protestant Religion to the Old Gentleman at Rome and the Christian Religion in general to the certain Triumph of Deists and Hereticks Reason and Philosophy he saith must not be admitted into our Disputes about Religion or our Inquiries concerning the Meaning of Scripture no the Words and Phrases of Scripture in their obvious and natural Sense are the only things that must determine our Disputes form the Articles of Religion and settle the meaning of Scripture For instance the Question is concerning the Transubstantiation the Words and Phrases are these This is my Body My FLESH is Meat indeed my BLOOD is Drink indeed He that eateth my FLESH and drinketh my BLOOD the same dwelleth in me and I in him Yes say Reason and Philosophy the Lord Christ had a Body and that Body was Flesh and Blood but when Bread is called his Body or his Flesh and Wine his Blood it could not be intended that Bread is Humane Flesh or Wine is Blood in reality of the thing but only in signification or sign Bread is the Flesh of Christ and Wine his Blood by way of sign and signification and to say otherwise is a Contradiction to the nature of the things spoken of that is to Philosophy and also to Reason which assures us that the real Body of Christ cannot be in Heaven and on the Altar at the same time Exclude now Reason and Philosophy out of this Dispute and from the Enquiry concerning the meaning of the words and phrases of Scripture about this matter and it will be undeniable that the advantage is wholly on the Popish side a Protestant Doctor and he too a Dean of St. Pauls gives away our only Strengths against the common Adversary Our Saviour says of a piece of Bread This is my Body if now Reason and Philosophy must not interpret How will Dr. Sherlock avoid either the Papist on the one side or the Lutheran on the other He cannot have recourse to Sense in the case 't is only Philosophy or Reason that must help him out for tho the Apostles who saw and tasted that it was Bread only and not Flesh might have appealed also to their Senses yet we that never saw or tasted the Substance which Jesus gave then to the Disciples can know by Reason and Philosophy only by nothing else that it was not his Flesh and Blood We argue He took Bread and blessed it and gave to his Disciples and said Take eat This is my Body The Text expresly says it was Bread which he blessed and brake and called it his Body therefore it was his Body in sign and signification not in reality All this is arguing 't is Reason that convinces us not Sense that the Substance he divided to them was indeed Bread not his Flesh which he neither blessed nor brake But if our Preacher says he believes it was only Bread because the Text it self calls it Bread let him consider that seeing what was called Bread before Christ blessed it after the Blessing he calls it his Body We cannot know by Sense or by the Text but by Reason and Philosophy only that it was not changed by the Blessing into what now he calls it namely his Body The Papists believe it was Bread that Christ took but because when he had brake and blessed it he calls it his Body they conclude that by the Blessing it was changed into the substance of Flesh but without change of the Accidents I say now tho Sense might interpret the words this is my Body to the Apostles who saw it and tasted it yet to us who neither saw nor tasted those words cannot be rightly interpreted but only by