Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	blood_n	flesh_n	meat_n	9,640	5	9.2298	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63835	A dissuasive from popery to the people of England and Ireland together with II. additional letters to persons changed in their religion ... / by Jeremy Lord Bishop of Down.	Taylor, Jeremy, 1613-1667.	1686 (1686)	Wing T323; ESTC R33895	148,299	304

question is after what manner it is so whether after the manner of the slesh or after the manner of spiritual grace and sacramental consequence We with the Holy Scriptures and the primitive Fathers affirm the latter The Church of Rome against the words of Scripture and the explication of Christ and the doctrine of the primitive Church affirm the former 2. That they be careful not to admit such Doctrines under a pretence of being Ancient since although the Roman errour hath been too long admitted and is ancient in respect of our days yet it is an innovation in Christianity and brought in by ignorance power and superstition very many Ages after Christ. 3. We exhort them that they remember the words of Christ when he explicates the doctrine of giving us his flesh for meat and his bloud for drink that he tells us The flesh profiteth nothing but the words which be speaks are spirit and they are life 4. THAT if those ancient and primitive Doctors above cited say true and that the symbols still remain the same in their natural substance and properties even after they are blessed and when they are receiv'd and that Christ's body and bloud are only present to faith and to the spirit that then whoever tempts them to give Divine honour to these symbols or elements as the Church of Rome does tempts them to give to a creature the due and incommunicable propriety of God and that then this evil passes further than an errour in the understanding for it carries them to a dangerous practice which cannot reasonably be excus'd from the crime of Idolatry To conclude THIS matter of it self is an error so prodigiously great and dangerous that we need not tell of the horrid and blasphemous questions which are sometimes handled by them concerning this Divine Mystery As if a Priest going by a Baker's shop and saying with intention Hoc est corpus meum whether all the Bakers bread be turned into the body of Christ Whether a Church mouse does eat her Maker Whether a man by eating the consecrated symbols does break his fast For if it be not bread and wine he does not and if it be Christ's body and bloud naturally and properly it is not bread and wine Whether it may be said the Priest is in some sense the Creator of God himself Whether his power be greater than the power of Angels and Archangels For that it is so is expresly affirmed by Cassenaeus Whether as a Bohemian Priest said that a Priest before he say his first Mass be the Son of God but afterward he is the Father of God and the Creator of his body But against this blasphemy a book was written by John Huss about the time of the Council of Constance But these things are too bad and therefore we love not to rake in so filthy chanels but give only a general warning to all our Charges to take heed of such persons who from the proper consequences of their Articles grow too bold and extravagant and of such doctrines from whence these and many other evil Propositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently do issue As the tree is such must be the fruit But we hope it may be sufficient * to say That what the Church of Rome teaches of Transubstantiation is absolutely impossible and implies contradictions very many to the belief of which no faith can oblige us and no reason can endure For Christ's body being in heaven glorious spiritual and impassible cannot be broken And since by the Roman doctrine nothing is broken but that which cannot be broken that is the colour the taste and other accidents of the elements yet if they could be broken since the accidents of bread and wine are not the substance of Christ's body and bloud it is certain that on the Altar Christ's body naturally and properly cannot be broken * And since they say that every consecrated Wafer is Christ's whole body and yet this Wafer is not that Wafer therefore either this or that is not Christ's body or else Christ hath two bodies for there are two Wafers * But when Christ instituted the Sacrament and said This is my body which is broken because at that time Christ's body was not broken naturally and properly the very words of Institution do force us to understand the Sacrament in a sense not natural but spiritual that is truly sacramental * And all this is besides the plain demonstrations of sense which tells us it is bread and it is wine naturally as much after as before consecration * And after all the natural sense is such as our blessed Saviour reprov'd in the men of Capernaum and called them to a spiritual understanding the natural sense being not only unreasonable and impossible but also to no purpose of the spirit or any ways perfective of the soul as hath been clearly demonstrated by many learned men against the fond hypothesis of the Church of Rome in this Article SECT VI. Half Communion tho' confessed to be otherwise in Christs institution and primitive practice required upon pain of Excommunication The Question now is not so much whether it be a new as a better practice than what Christ instituted Council of Constance Cassander Aquinas c. acknowledge the Novelty Pope Gelasius calls it sacrilege Greek Church communicates the people in the Chalice OUR next instance of the novelty of the Roman Religion in their Articles of division from us is that of the half Communion For they deprive the people of the Chalice and dismember the institution of Christ and praevaricate his 〈◊〉 law in this particular and recede from the practice of the Apostles and though they confess it was the practice of the primitive Church yet they lay it aside and cur so all them that say they do amiss in it that is they curse them who follow Christ and his Apostles and his Church while themselves deny to follow them Now for this we need no other testimony but their own words in the Council of Constance Whereas in certain parts of the word some temerariously presume to affirm that the Christian people ought to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds of bread and wine and do every where communicate the Laity not only in bread but in wine also ---- Hence it is that the Council decrees and defines against this error that although Christ instituted after supper and administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine yet this notwithstanding ---- And although in the primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds Here is the acknowledgment both of Christs institution in both kinds and Christs ministring it in both kinds and the practice of the primitive Church to give it in both kinds yet the conclusion from these premisses is We command under the pain of Excommunication that no Priest communicate the people under both kinds of bread and wine The