Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	blood_n	body_n	bread_n	35,000	5	8.1520	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74667	An answer to Monsieur de la Militiere his impertinent dedication of his imaginary triumph, to the king of Great Britain to invite him to embrace the Roman Catholick religion. / By John Bramhall D.D. and Lord Bishop of London-Derry.	Bramhall, John, 1594-1663.; La Milletière, Théophile Brachet, sieur de, ca. 1596-1665. Victory of truth for the peace of the Church.	1653 (1653)	Thomason E1542_1	53,892	235

Umbertus a Cardinall Exact Syn. Rom. sub Nich. 2. approved by Pope Nicholas and a Councill Ego Berengarius c. I Berengarius do consent to the holy Roman Apostolick See and profess with my mouth and heart to hold the same faith of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper with Pope Nicholas and this holy Synod c. And what the faith of Pope Nicholas and this Synod was follows in the next words That the Bread and Wine which are set upon the Altar after Consecration are not onely the Sacrament but the very body and blood of Christ. This seems to favour Consubstantiation rather than Transubstantiation if the Bread and Wine be the body and blood of Christ then they remain Bread and Wine still if the bread be not onely the Sacrament but also the thing of the Sacrament if it be both the Sign and the thing signified how is it now to be made nothing It follows in the Retraction That the body and blood of Christ is sensibly not onely in the Sacrament but in truth handled and broken by the hands of the Priest and bruised by the teeth of the faithfull If it be even so there needs no more but feel and be satisfied To this they made Berengarius sweat By the consubstantiall Trinity and the Holy Gospels and accurse and anathematize all those who held the contrary yet these words did so much scandalize and offend the Glosser upon Gratian that he could not forbear to admonish the Reader De Cons dist 2 cap. Ego Ber. that unless he understood those words in a sound sense he would fall into a greater heresie than that of Berengarius Not without reason for the most favourable of the Schoolmen do confess that these words are not properly and literally true but figuratively and metanimically understanding the thing conteining by the thing conteined as to say the body of Christ is broken or bruised because the quantity or Species of bread are broken or bruised they might as well say that the body and blood of Christ becomes fusty and sowr as often as the Species of Bread and Wine before their corruption become fusty and sowr But the Retractation of Berongarius can admit no such figurative sense that the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament are d●vided and bruised sensibly not onely in the Sacrament that is in the Spec●es but also in truth A most ignorant Capernaiticall assertion for the body of Christ being not in the Sacrament modo Quantitativo according to their own Tenet but indivisibly after a Spirituall manner without extrinsecall extension of parts cannot in it self or in truth be either divided or bruised Therefore others of the School-men goe more roundly and ingenuously to work Alex. Gab. Bonav c. and confess that it is an abusive and excessive expression not to be held or defended that it happened to Berengarius they should have said to Pope Nicholas and Cardinall Umbertus as it doth with those who cut of a detestation of one error encline to another Neither will it a vail them any thing at all that the Fathers have sometimes used such expressions of seeing Christ of touching Christ in the Sacrament of fastning our teeth in his flesh and making our tongues red in his blood There is a great difference between a Sermon to the people and a solemn Retractation before a Judge The Fathers do not say that such expressions are true not only Sacramentally or figuratively as they made Berengarius both say and accurse all others that held otherwise but also properly and in the things themselves The Fathers never meant by these forms of speech to determine the manner of the presence which was not dreamed of in their dayes but to raise the devotion of their hearers and readers to advertise the people of God that they should not rest in the externall symbols or signs but principa●ly be intent upon the invisible grace which was both lawfull and commendable for them to do Leave us their primitive liberty and we will not refrain from the like expressions I urge this to shew that the new doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from being an old Article of faith that it was not well digested not rightly understood in any tollerable measure by the greatest Clerks and most concerned above a thousand years after Christ The first definition or determination of this manner of the presence was yet later in the Councill of Lateran in the dayes of Innocent the third Scot. in 4. sent dist 11. q. 3. T. 3 q. 75. d. 81. c. 1. The determination of the manner of the presence opened a floodgate to a deluge of Controversies after the year 1200. Ante Lateranense Concilium Transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei And what the fruit of it was let Vasques bear witness Audito nomine Transubstantiationis c. The very name of Transubstantiation being but heard so great a Controversie d●d arise among the later School-men concerning the nature thereof that the more they endevoured to wind themselves out the more they wrapped themselves in greater difficulties whereby the mysterie of faith became more difficult both to be explained and to be understood and more exposed to the Cavils of its Adversaries He adds that the name of Conversion and Transubstantiation gave occasion to these Controversies No sooner was this Bell rung out no sooner was this fatall sentence given but as if Pandora's box had been newly set wide open whole swarms of noisome Questions and debates did fill the Schools Then it began to be disputed by what means this change comes whether by the Benediction of the Elements or by the Repetition of these words of Christ This is my body The common current of your Schools is for the later Lib. de Corr. Theol. Schol. But your judicious Arch-Bishops of Caesaria since the Councill of Trent in a Book dedicated to Sixtus the Fifth produceth great reasons to the contrary Then was the Question started what the demonstrative Pronoun Hoc signifies in these words This is my Body whether this thing or this Substance or this Bread or this Body or this Meat or these Accidents or that which is conteined under these Species Gloss de Con●… d. 2. cap. timorem or this Individuum vagum or lastly which seems stranger than all the rest this Nothing Then it began to be argued whether the Elements were annihilated whether the matter and form of them being destroyed their essence did yet remain or the essence being Converted the existence remained whether the Sacramentall existence of the body and blood of Christ do depend upon its naturall existence whether the whole Host were Transubstantiated or onely some parts of it that is such parts as should be distributed to worthy Communicants or whether in those parts of the Host which were distributed unto unworthy Communicants the matter of Bread and Wine did not return Guidmend l. 1. de ver Whether the

be a thousand times greater than the thing conteining whether a definitive being in a place do not implie a not being out of that place whether more bodies than one can be in one and the same place whether there can be a penetration of dimensions whether a body can subsist after a spirituall manner so as to take up no place at all but to be wholly in the whole and wholly in every part Moreover whether the whole body and blood of Christ be in every particle of the bread and of the Cup and if it be then whether onely after the division of the Bread and Wine or before division also And in how many parts and in which parts is the whole body and blood of Christ whether in the least parts and if in the least parts then whether in the least in kind or the least in quantity that is so long as the Species may retein the name of Bread and Wine or so long as the matter is divisible and whether the body and blood of Christ be also in the indivisible parts as points and lines and superficies Lastly whether Accidents can subsist without their subjects that is whether they can be both Accidents and no Accidents whether all the Accidents of the Elements do remain and particularly whether the Quantity doth remain whether the other Accidents do inhere in the quantity as their subject that is whether an Accident can have an Accident whether the quantity of Christs body be there and whether it be there after a quantitative manner with extension of parts either extrinsecall or intrinsecall and whether the Quantity of the body of Christ be distinct and figured or indistinct and unfigured whether the Accidents can nourish or make drunken or corrupt and a new body be generated of them And what supplies the place of the matter in such generation whether the Quantity or the body of Christ or the old matter of the Bread and wine restored by miracle or new matter created by God And how long in such corruption the Body of Christ doth continue Whosoever is but moderately versed in your great Doctors must needs know that these questions are not the private doubts or debates of single School-men but the common Garboils and generall engagements of your whole Schools Wherefore it had been a meer vanity to cite every particular Author for each question and would have made the margent swell ten times greater than the Text. From this bold determination of the manner of the presence how have flowed two other differences First the detention of the Cup from the Laity meerly upon presumption of Concomitance first decreed in the Councill of Constance after the year 1400. Let what will become of Concomitance whilst we keep our selves to the Institution of Christ and the universall practise of the Primitive Church It was not for nothing that our Saviour did distinguish his Body from his Bloud not only in the Consecration but also in the distribution of the Sacrament By the way give me leave to represent a Contradiction in Bellarmine which I am not able to reconcile Lib. 4. de Euch. c. 25. In one place he saith The providence of God is merveilous in holy Scripture for St. Luke hath put these words do you this after the Sacrament given under the form of Bread but he repeated it not after the giving of the Cup That we might understand that the Lord commanded that the Sacrament should be distributed unto all under the form of Bread but not under the form of Wine And yet in the next Chapter but one of the same Book he doth positively determine the contrary upon the Ground of Concomitance that the Bread may be taken away Cap. 27. if the Cup be given but both cannot be taken away together Can that be taken away which Christ hath expresly commanded to be given to all A second difference flowing from Transubstantiation is about the Adoration of the Sacrament One of those impediments which hinder our Communication with you in the Celebration of divine Offices We deny not a venerable respect unto the Consecrate Elements not only as love-tokens sent us by our best friend but as the Instruments ordeined by our Saviour to convey to us the merits of his Passion But for the person of Christ God forbid that we should deny him divine worship at any time and especially in the use of this holy Sacrament we beleeve with St. Austine that No man eats of that flesh but first he adores But that which offends us is this That you teach and require all men to adore the very Sacrament with divine Honour To this end you hold it out to the people To this end Corpus Christi day was instituted about 300. years since Conc. Vien Yet we know that even upon your own grounds you cannot without a particular Revelation have any infallible assurance that any Host is consecrated And consequently you have no assurance that you do not commit materiall Idolatry But that which weighs most with us is this That we dare not give divine worship unto any creature no not to the very Humanity of Christ in the Abstract much less to the Host but to the whole person of Christ God and man by reason of the Hypostaticall union between the Child of the blessed Virgin Mary and the eternall Son who is God over all blessed for ever Shew us such an union betwixt the Deity and the Elements or accidents and you say something But you pretend no such things The highest that you dare go is this Bell. l. 4 de Euch. c. 29. quodam modo As they that adored Christ when hee was upon Earth did after a certain kind of manner adore his Garments Is this all This is after a certain kind of manner indeed We have enough There is no more Adoration due to the Sacrament than to the Garments which Christ did wear upon Earth Exact no more Thus the seamless Coat of Christ is torn into pieces Thus faith is minced into shreds and spun up into nicities more subtil than the Webs of Spiders Fidem minutis diffecant ambagibus Ut quisque est lingua nequior Because curious wits cannot content themselves to touch hot coals with tongs but they must take them up with their naked fingers nor to apprehend mysteries of Religion by faith without descanting upon them and determining them by reason whilst themselves confess that they are incomprehensible by humane reason and imperceptible by mans imagination How Christ is present in the Sacrament can neither be perceived by sense Aq. p. 3. 1. 76. Art 7. nor by imagination The more inexcusable is their presumption to anatomise mysteries and to determine supernaturall not revealed truths upon their own heads which if they were revealed were not possible to be comprehended by mortall man As vain an attempt as if a Child should think to lade out all the water of the Sea with a Cockleshell