Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	blood_n	body_n	consecration_n	6,066	5	10.8852	5	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

AN ANSWER TO Monseiur 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 Derry HAGUE Printed in the Year 1653. An Answer to Monseiur de la Militiere his Epistle to the King of great Britain wherein he inviteth his Majesty to forsake the Church of England and to embrace the Roman Catholick Religion SIR YOu might long have disputed your Question of Transubstantiation with your learned Adversary and proclamed your own Triumph on a silver Trumpet to the world before any Member of the Church of England had interposed in this present Exigence of our Affairs I know no necessity that Christians must be like Cocks Plut. that when one Crows all the rest must Crow for Company Monseiur Aubertine will not want a surviving friend to teach you what it is to sound a Triumph before you have gained the victory He was no fool that desired no other Epitaph on his Tomb than this Here lyes the Author of this sentence Prurigo Disputandi scabies Ecclesiae Sir Henry Wotton the itch of disputing is the scab of the Church Having viewed all your strength with a single eye I find not one of your Arguments that comes home to Transubstantiation but only to a true reall presence which no genuine Son of the Church of England did ever deny no nor your Adversary himself Christ said This is my Body what he said we do stedfastly believe he said not after this or that manner neque con neque sub neque trans And therefore we place it among the Opinions of the Schools not among the Articles of our Faith The holy Eucharist which is the Sacrament of peace and unity rences in the Church directly about the Sacrament for the first 800. years ought not to be made the matter of strife and contention There wanted not abuses in the Administration of this Sacrament in the most pure and Primitive times as prophaness and uncharitableness among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11. The Simonians and Menandrians and some other such Imps of Sathan unworthy the name of Christians Theod. ex Ignatio did wholy forbear the use of the Eucharist but it was not for any difference about the Sacrament it self but about the naturall Body of Christ They held that his flesh and Blood and Passion were not true and reall but imaginary and phantasticall things The Maniches did forbear the Cup but it was not for any difference about the Sacrament it self They made two Gods a good God whom they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or light and an evill God whom they tearmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or darkness which evill God they said did make some creatures of the Dreg or more feculent parts of the matter which were evill and impure And among these evill creatures they esteemed Wine which they called the Gall of the Dragon for this cause not upon any other scruple they either wholy absteined from the Cup Leo. Ser. 4. de quad Epiph. haer 30. 46. or used Water in the place of wine which Epiphanius recordeth among the errors of the Ebionites Aug. li. de Haeres c. 64 and Tacians And St. Austine of the Aquarians Still we doe not find any clashing either in word or writing directly about this Sacrament in the universall Church of Christ much less about the presence of Christ in the Sacrament Bel. l. 1. de Sac. Euch. c. 1. Neque ullus veterum disputat contra hunc errorem primis sex centis Annis The first that are supposed by Bellarmine to have broached any error in the Church about the reall presence were the Iconomachi after 700. years Primi qui veritatem corporis Domini in Eucharistia in quaestionem vecarunt fuerint Iconomachi post Annum Domini 700. Bel ibid. Syn Nic. 2 Act 6. only because they called the Bread and Wine the Image of Christs body This is as great a mistake as the former Their difference was meerly about Images not at all about the Eucharist so much Vasques confesseth Disp 179. c. 1. that In his ●udgement they are not to be numbred with those who deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist We may well find different observations in those dayes Yet different observations as one Church consecrating leavened Bread another unleavened One Church making use of pure Wine another of Wine mixed with Water One Church admitting Infants to the Communion another not admitting them but without controversies or censures or animosity one against another we find no debates or disputes concerning the presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament and much less concerning the manner of his presence for the first eight hundred years And different expressions Yet all the time we find as different expressions among those Primitive Fathers as among our modern writers at this day some calling the Sacrament the sign of Christs Body the figure of his Body the Symbol of his Body the mystery of his Body the exemplar type and representation of his Body saying that the Elements do not recede from their first nature others naming it the true Body and Blood of Christ changed not in shape but in nature yea doubting not to say that in this Sacrament we see Christ we touch Christ we eat Christ that we fasten our teeth in his very flesh and make our Tongues red in his Bloud Yet notwithansting there were no questions no quarrels no contentions amongst them there needed no Councils to order them no conferences to reconcile them because they contented themselves to believe what Christ had said This is my Body without presuming upon their own heads to determine the manner how it is his Body neither weighing all their own words so exactly before any controversie was raised nor expounding the sayings of other men contrary to the analogy of Faith The first doubt about the The first difference abou● the presence of Christ in the Sacrament presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament seems to have been moved not long before the year 900. in the dayes of Bertram and Paschasius but the controversie was not well formed nor this new Article of Transubstantiation sufficiently concocted in the dayes of Berengarius after the year 1050. as appeareth by the gross mistaking and mistating of the question on both sides First Berengarius if we may trust his adversaries knew no mean between a naked figure or empty sign of Christs presence and a corporeall or Locall presence and afterwards fell into another extreme of impanation on the other side the Pope and the Councill made no difference between Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation they understood nothing of the spirituall or indivisible being of the flesh and blood of Christ in the Sacrament as appeareth by that ignorant and Capernaiticall retractation and abjuration which they imposed upon Berengarius Penned by