Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	blood_n	break_v	shed_v	10,145	5	9.7147	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15734	A dangerous plot discovered By a discourse, wherein is proved, that, Mr: Richard Mountague, in his two bookes; the one, called A new gagg; the other, A iust appeale: laboureth to bring in the faith of Rome, and Arminius: vnder the name and pretence of the doctrine and faith of the Church of England. A worke very necessary for all them which haue received the truth of God in loue, and desire to escape errour. The reader shall finde: 1. A catalogue of his erroneous poynts annexed to the epistle to the reader. 2. A demonstration of the danger of them. cap. 21. num. 7. &c. pag. 178. 3. A list of the heads of all the chapters contained in this booke.	Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626.	1626 (1626)	STC 26003; ESTC S120313	151,161	289

Gagger and subscribe to Bellarmine who maintaine that Peters faith did not faile auoid it if you can I answer and so must your mother the Church of England ioyne with the Gagger too auoide you it if you can for I say no more then what I haue learned of her and so must you also auoid it if you can for you professe to beleeue what it beleeueth and teach what it teacheth in whose faith and confession you hope to liue and dye Appeale p. 48. You haue spun a faire threed you haue hunted all this while and couered your nets close to catch your mother and your selfe in the pitfall I will doe you that fauour as to let you and the Church of England loose I will stand by it my selfe and will professe Peter lost not his faith when he denyed Christ But you must giue mee leaue to expresse my selfe which I doe thus The act of faith is either eliciate or imperate The first is the act of the soule onely remaining in it selfe not knowne to man which wee call beleeuing The second is wrought by the body also and commeth to the knowledge of men as when a man doth professe by his tongue to giue credit and trust vnto Christ Peter lost not his faith in the first kind but in the second I doubt not but Peter did in the inward motion of his heart beleeue that hee was indeed the Christ and trusted vnto and relyed vpon him as such euen in that very moment when in words he denyed that he knew him Peters deniall being but a dissimulation to thrust by the present distresse hee feared If Bellarmine and the Gagger say thus I subscribe to them and that vpon good reason for Peter had long beleeued on Christ and had now no cause to change that beleefe therefore wee may not say he did change it vnlesse the diuine reuelation had said it which hath not a word of any such thing but looke better on your bookes and you shall find Bellarmine saith Peter lost his charity but not his faith because he was Pastor ouer the whole Church and was to teach it the true faith de Pont. Rom lib. 4. cap. 3. which sentence is much more then I say by which it appeareth that Bellarmines doctrine is not the perseuerance I maintaine nor my sentence so good Popery as M. Mountagu hath deliuered contrary to his vniust challenge Appeale pag. 18. It may be he will deny my distinction of the act of faith to establish his owne implyed Gagg pag. 163. which is on this wise Faith is either in the end or the act But this distinction I feare not because end and act are not parts of faith neither as specialls to the generall nor as constitutiue parts making a constituted whole besides what he saith of the end of faith is a riddle which I doubt himselfe vnderstandeth not Thus farre haue I answered to the consequent or position as it lyeth I will now put the disputation into due forme and answer thereunto Thus then it lyeth If you say Peter lost not his habit of grace then you subscribe to Bellarmine and the Gagger who say that Peter lost not his faith But you will not subscribe to Bellarmine c. where he saith Peter lost not his faith for that is Popery Therefore you must not deny that Peter lost his habit of grace I answer This whole argument is a meere caption and no proofe it supposeth that the losse of the habit of grace is denyed to Peter onely which is false and the conclusion nothing to the purpose And so he must be vnderstood for the Papists deny the losse of faith vnto Peter onely But I will take it as it lyeth and answer to it The weaknesse of his cause will the better appeare by my answer which is this I grant the assumption I promise you I am and will be as farre off from ioyning in that article of the Popish faith as M. Mountagu and further too For he comes very neere it in giuing the Church the office to determine all controuersies in faith Yet you get nothing by it for the consequence of your proposition is naught I may say the first and not the second in the sense wherein they take it for they say he lost not his faith neither in the habit nor act by a speciall prouidence and peculiar dispensation vpon the reason and for the end as is aforesaid n o 25. but I say hee lost it not neither in habit nor act by that prouidence and dispensation which is common to him with all other men that haue receiued the habit of grace who must needs keepe their faith so long as they keepe the habit of grace because the habit of grace consisteth in faith hope and charitie Vnto this sentence of mine that faith of the Church of Rome is contrary They say all men lose their faith when they lose the habit of grace onely Peter is excepted by a peculiar priuiledge as I haue shewed no 25. Thus are we come to an end of M. Mountagu his snare and we find the snare is broken and the game is escaped and with it his whole disputation in this point of falling from grace is ended Hee tells vs of some that haue whirlegiggs in their heads Appeale pag. 81. Which is true of himselfe if it be true of any but he may bee pardoned that fault his heart was so full of anger and his pen of railing that he had no leasure to attend vpon Art and Diuinitie CHAP. XIII The point of reall presence M. Mountagu The Church of Rome The Church of England There is there need bee no difference betweene the Church of Rome and our Church in the point of Reall presence Gag 253. Appeale 289. Our Lord Iesus Christ true God man is contained truly really substantially in the Sacrament of the Eucharist conc Trent sess 13. c. 1 That is whole Christ body and blood together with the soule diuinity and not in a figure or vertue only can 1. The Supper of our Lord is a Sacramēt of our redemption by Christs death insomuch that to such as rightly with faith receiue the same the bread which wee breake is a partaking of the body of Christ and the cup is a partaking of the blood of Christ CHAP. XIV The point of Reall presence is debated THe order obserued hitherto must be obserued here also Three things are sought after 1 Whether his doctrine of reall presence bee true or not 2 Whether he consenteth in the reall presence with the Church of Rome or not 3 Whether he dissenteth in the point of Reall presence with the Church of England or not His consent with the Church of Rome is plentifully witnessed by himselfe Thus he writeth There is no difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in the point of Reall presence Gagg p. 253. The Protestant in the Sacrament is as reall and substantiall as any Papist Gagg p. 251. If the

Priests and Iesuits were not common Barretters of Christendome for priuate ends this controuersie on foot touching the reall presence might cease Gagg p. 251. They that in the point of reall presence doe make a difference betweene vs and the Papists were bred vp by the deuill in a faction and by him brought vp in a faction and by him sent abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction Gagg p. 253. and Appeale p. 291. The onely difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours is about the manner Appeale p. 289. viz. How it is made the flesh of Christ Gagg p. 256. 255. Namely whether by transubstantiation or not 252. 254. The Councell of Lateran decreed Transubstantiation which wee condemne Gagg p. 252. And in this viz. how it is made the flesh of Christ he placeth the whole difference between the Church of Rome and ours blaming them for this p. 252. and for nothing else and reprouing their proofes because they proue not that the sacrament is the flesh of Christ by transubstantiation Gagg p. 252. and 254. Out of which wee may conclude Mr Mountagu beleeueth as the Councell of Trent hath decreed touching the reall presence and the doctrine of it is his doctrine so as what the Councell saith of reseruing carying about and worshipping of the Sacrament must be accounted the faith of Mr Mountagu because the first doth necessarily inferre the second If Christ be really present then the sacrament must bee so reserued caryed worshipped And so much for the second branch If this be true then Mr Mountagu doth not dissent from the Church of England in the point of reall presence To the end hee might perswade vs that hee doth not dissent from the Church of England he telleth vs Appeale p. 289. The point of reall presence is not Popery in the diuinity of the Church of England That is the Church of England agreeth with the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence as he doth explicate himselfe a few lines after If that be so then I grant he doth not dissent from the Church of England But all the doubt will be how he will proue that the Church of England doth ioyne in faith with the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence His proofe such as it is I find set downe Appeale p. 289. c. and may be concluded in this forme Whatsoeuer is taught by the Bishops Bilson Andrewes Morton by Protestants Fortunatus Caluin Beza Sadael is the doctrine of the Church of England But the faith of the Church of Rome touching the reall presence is taught by these c. Therefore the faith of the Church of Rome in the point of reall presence is the doctrine of the Church of England This forme of disputing may not bee excepted against because all his allegations in the place quoted will be to no purpose if he doth not thus dispute for the allegations doe serue to proue this assumption or can be of no vse at this time To the proposition I answer two things First The doctrine of the Church of England is contained in bookes authorised publikely for that end and subscribed vnto as such But these mens writings are not such For no statute law or ordinance haue ratified them and commanded subscription vnto them as such Therefore your proposition is false Secondly your owne words are these Appeale p. 58. and 59. Whereas you would make the world beleeue that Ecclesia Anglicana Calvinistat as if hee were the father and founder of our faith as if our beleefe were to be pinned vnto his sleeue and absolutely to bee taught after his institutions shew me good warrant for it and I yeeld This is impossible therefore your proposition is false euen by your owne sentence his owne pen giueth Iudgement against his proposition as false that being false this reason cannot be good although his assumption were neuer so true The assumption is vtterly false and I doe admire that shame did not with-hold him from alleadging Caluin and Beza as consenters vnto the Romish faith in the point of reall presence seeing that Bellarmine in his fi●st Booke and first Chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist doth make Caluin and Beza principall opposers thereunto and in the second Chapter he doth apply the Councell of Trent in speciall sort against Caluin and forgetteth him not in no one passage of his disputations in this point The words of the Bishops euen as he hath alleadged them are not so much as like vnto the Romish faith as hee that readeth them will presently iudge I doe not attempt to apply them to his assumption Two of them are yet liuing who will I doubt not by liuely voyce disclaime the decree of the Councell of Trent and their consent thereto touching the reall presence and so fully refute his assumption as false He inferreth further from hence on this wise If this be the Doctrine that the Church of England teacheth and professeth as it is indeed I leaue you to those that must looke vnto you I answer this inference presumes too farre and comes too late I may rather inferre contrariwise If the Romish faith of reall presence bee not the Doctrine of the Church of England as indeed it is not my answer hath shewed it in part and I will shew it to the full hereafter then I leaue you as a corrupter of our faith to be punished as such according to law in that case prouided I finde in his Gagge page 250. he writeth thus Our Catechisme in the Communion Booke saith expresly the body and blood of Christ is taken and eaten in the Lords Supper And a few lines after he concludeth in these words The Protestant is as reall and substantiall as any Papist He seemeth to inferre the latter sentence vpon the former the meaning whereof is this Protestants acknowledge the reall and substantiall presence of Christ in the Sacrament no lesse then Papists What his intent was is best knowne to himselfe It was needfull for mee to propound it and let it bee knowne by my answer thereto that no reall presence is intended by our Church in the words alleadged which answer I will take from Bishop Iewell who hath already made it for mee in his reply vnto Hardings answere Artic. 5. p. 238. whose words be these Christs body and blood indeed and verily is giuen vnto vs that we verily eate it that wee verily drinke it In these words there is as much contained as Mr. Mountagu alleadgeth out of the Catechisme But marke now what he denieth and answereth further for the explication thereof Yet we say not that Christs body is let downe from heauen or made really or fleshly present in the Sacrament wee lift vp our hearts to heauen and there feed vpon the Lambe of God thus spiritually and with the mouth of our faith wee eate the body of Christ and drinke his blood euen as verily as his body was verily broken and his blood verily

shed vpon the Crosse This answer of Bishop Iewell is full to the purpose and of no lesse authority then the Catechisme alleadged which being taken in this sense we may safely conclude that our Church is no friend to the reall presence in those words of the Catechisme A third thing also is in his Appeale pag. 291. thus set downe Both wee and the Papists confesse This is my Body and that is enough and contend meerely about the manner how it is my Body that is how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ Gagge page 256. The councell of Lateran decreed transubstantiation and wee deny the same Gagge page 252. Which sentence by the course of the place where it is must be applyed to the present purpose in this forme They that agree in this sentence This is my Body there is no cause why they should be distracted in the point of reall presence But we and the Papists agree in this sentence This is my Body and contend meerely about the manner how it is made the flesh of Christ c. Therefore wee and the Papists haue no cause to bee distracted about the point of reall presence That it was his purpose thus to dispute the place it selfe where that sentence standeth will shew where hee bringeth the thing here concluded in the first place and then the words alleadged as a proofe therof and referred thereunto by this word seeing c. I will take my answer vnto this from the same Author and place page 236. from whence I had my former viz. the reuerend Bishop whose words bee these Indeed the question betweene vs this day is not of the letters or syllables of Christs words for they are knowne and confessed of either partie But onely of the sense and ●eaning of his words which is the v●ry pith and substance of the Scriptures and he committeth fraud against the lawes that s●●ing the words of the law ouerthroweth the m●●ning If it be true that the onely sense of Christs words is that his Body is really and flesh●●● the Sacrament it is great wonder that 〈◊〉 of the ancient Doctors of the Church could eu●r see it This answer is full to euery point of Mr. Mountagu his argument First he saith they agree in words touching this sentence This is my Body and so farre hee grants the assumption Secondly the question is of the sense of those words and thereby denies the assumption and proposition too as if he should say although they agree in words yet differing in the sense there is sufficient cause of distraction and dissent betweene them For the sense is the pith of the Scriptures and hee that ouerthroweth the meaning corrupteth the Law 3 He saith they vnderstand Christs words of a real and fleshly presence of Christs body Which the Bishop denyeth whereby it is euident that he putteth the difference betweene the Church of Rome and ours in this viz. that They affirme a reall presence We deny it And this doth directly oppose the latter part of Mr. Mountagu his reason that placeth the difference betweene them and vs meerly in the manner how the Sacrament is made the flesh of Christ which they say is by transubstantiation The Bishop saith we dissent about the reall presence M. Mountagu saith no for saith he our dissent is meerly about transubstantiation By which it appeareth M. Mountagu his arguments in the behalfe of the Church of Rome were answered long before he was borne It may be he will reply to this answer of the Bishop that it is not sufficient and giue the reason for it which he alleadgeth in the like case in his Appeale pag. 291. viz. The Devill bred him vp in a faction and sent him abroad to doe him seruice in maintaining a faction And thus hee must reply or blot out of both his bookes that bitter sentence which was written against all such as make any difference betweene the Romish Church and ours in the point of reall presence I reioyne to it in the Bishops words p. 237. If he be of God he knoweth well he should not thus bestow his tongue and hand Moreouer if he hath the vnderstanding of a man he knoweth it is euidence of truth not bitternesse of rayling that carieth credit in a diuinitie question let him first take away the Bishops proofes and shew wherein hee is a lyar or an ignorant man and then there may be some excuse for this railing till then it will be held a ruled case his will was good but his cause nought He must raile because hee had nothing else to say And with this I conclude all the pretences that he hath for his agreement in the point of reall presence with the Church of England I will now deliuer some reasons to proue that the Church of England doth oppose the church of Rome in the point of reall presence as followeth 1 Many of our nation haue giuen their bodies to the fire for denying it 2 It hath beene proclaimed against by our Ministers without any blame from authoritie or knowne opposition from any of ours 3 Our Church hath determined what is to bee held touching the nature and effects of this Sacrament and hath not a word of the reall presence Our Church hath determined that the Sacrament is to be eaten taken and giuen only after a spirituall manner and by faith and denyeth worship to it Arti. 28. That the wicked receiue the signe but are not partakers of Christ Arti. 29. That it ought to be administred to all men in both kinds Arti. 30. which it would not haue done if it had granted the Popish reall presence Lastly Bishop Iewell in the name and defence of the Church of England denyeth it and maintaineth that that Article of the Popish faith is erroneous first in his Apologie beginning at Chapter 12 the 2 Part and so forward and againe in his Reply to Harding Arti. 5. And this I hope is sufficient to proue that the Church of England reiecteth the popish reall presence It remaineth in the third place that wee examine whether the popish reall presence be true or not but of that I find nothing in him it was meet for him to haue proued it before he had pronounced the opposers thereof were bred by the Deuill as he doth in the words which I haue alleaged That he proued it not in his Gagge it is no meruaile for there he goes hand in hand with his Aduersary That he did it not in his Appeale was because hee could not for there hee had good cause to shew all his strength Onely I find in his Gagge pag. 250. these words Hee gaue substance and really subsisting essence who said This is my body this is my blood These words are little other then a riddle yet I will make the best of them My answer thereunto will explicate the matter and take away that which might seeme to fortifie the popish reall presence thus it may be framed If Christ gaue substance