Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	confirm_v	new_a	testament_n	8,389	5	9.6949	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A01309	A defense of the sincere and true translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong against the manifolde cauils, friuolous quarels, and impudent slaunders of Gregorie Martin, one of the readers of popish diuinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes. By William Fvlke D. in Diuinitie, and M. of Pembroke haule in Cambridge. Wherevnto is added a briefe confutation of all such quarrels & cauils, as haue bene of late vttered by diuerse papistes in their English pamphlets, against the writings of the saide William Fvlke.	Fulke, William, 1538-1589.	1583 (1583)	STC 11430.5; ESTC S102715	542,090	704

what is that I pray you Not wine you wil say I am sure but the bloud of Christ. If you so resolue it then followeth that vaine nugation which I haue noted against Saunder This bloud in the cuppe which bloud is shed for you is the new Testament in my bloud Is that bloud in the cuppe diuerse from that bloud in which the new Testament is confirmed If it be the same how often was ●t shed If it were shed in the cuppe how holdeth your vnbloudie sacrifice Or howe can you saye that it was shed in the cup where by your rule of concomitans it is not separated from the body as it was in his passion If it were not separated as certainly his bloud was not separated from his bodye in the supper howe can that which was in the cup be his bloud that was shed for vs for the word of shedding signifieth separation Wherefore it can not be referred to that in the cup but to his bloud which was shed on the crosse for vs so that there is a manifest enallage or change of the temps The present being put for the future as it is manifest by the other Euangelists where the word of shedding can be referred to nothing els but to his bloud shedde vpon the crosse wherfore the Greeke text can here resolue you of no ambiguity as in the place you cite act 14. Neither was there euer any auncient writer that stumbled vpon this ambiguitie but al with one consent referre the word of shedding to his bloud and not to the cuppe or the content thereof so many as speake of it MART. 40. And this is one commoditie among others that we reape of the Greeke text to resolue the ambiguitie that is sometime in the Latine whereas you neyther admit the one nor the other but as you list neither doth the Greeke satisfie you be it neuer so plaine and infallible but you will deuise that it is corrupted that there is a soloecisine that the same soloecisme is an elegancie and there vpon you translate your owne deuise and not the worde of God Which whence can it proceede but of most wilfull corruption See chap. 17. nu 10 11. 12. FVLK 40. This is nothing but generall rayling impudent slaundering as in the particular sections before is proued For we neither deuise that the text is corrupted to alter any thing of the text no not where it is vndoubtedly corrupted as in the name of Ieremie Math. 27. Neyther deuise wee a Soloecisme when wee admonish that there is a Soloecophanes which of no Papist that euer I heard of was before obserued Neither make we a Soloecisme to be an elegancie when we say against them that confound a Soloecisme with Soloecophanes that Soloecophanes is a figure vsed sometimes of most eloquent writers neither is it streight way a vertue or elegancie of speache what so euer eloquent writers sometimes haue vsed wherefore we translate nothing of our owne deuise but we translate the worde of God without any wilfull corruption MART. 41. If in ambiguous Hebrue woords of doubtfull signification where the Greeke giueth one certaine sense you refuse the Greeke and take your aduantage of the other sense what is this but wilfull partialitie so you doe in Redime eleemosynis peccata tua Dan. 4. and Inclinaui cor meum ad faciendas iustificationes tuas propter retributionem and Nimis honorati sunt amici tui Deus c. and yet at an other time you folow the determination of the Greeke for an other aduantage as Psal. 98. Adore his footestoole because he is holy Whereas in the Hebrue it may be as in our Latin because it is holy See chapt 13. num 18. chapt 9. num 23 24. chapt 18. num 1. 2. So you flee from the Hebrue to the Gre●ke and from this to that againe from both to the vulgar Latine as is shewed in other places and as S. Augustine saith to Faustus the Manichee You are the r●le of truth whatsoeuer is for you is true whatsoeuer is against you is not true FVLK 41. If Hebrue wordes be ambiguous wee take that sense whiche agreeth with other places that are playne and with out all ambiguitie and this is no partialitie but wisedome and loue of the truthe not to grounde any newe doctrine vppon suche places onely where the Hebrue worde is ambiguous and may haue diuerse significations As you do the redemption of sinnes by almesse vpon that place of Daniel 4. Where you confesse that the Hebrue worde is ambiguous are not able to bring any one plain text for it where the wordes are not ambiguous But wee ground our refusal vpon a hundred plaine textes that acribe the whole glorie of our raunsome redemption frō sinnes to the onely mercy of God But as well this text as the other two that you cite in the chapters by you quoted shall be throughly diseussed to see if you can haue any aduaūtage at our translators of the same But on the cōtrarie side you say that at an other time we follow the determination of the Greeke for an other aduantage as in that texte Psalm 89. Adore his foote stoole because he is holy whereas in the Hebrue it may be as in your Latine because it is holy I answer that we follow not the determination of the Greeke as moued by the onely authoritie thereof for any aduantage but because wee learne our interpretation out of the verie Psalme it selfe For whereas the Prophet in the 5. verse hath sayed Exalt ●e the Lorde our God and worshippe at the foote stoole of his feete for he is holy in the laste verse of the same he repeateth againe the like exhortation Exalt ye the Lorde our God and worshippe him in his holy hill for the Lorde our God is holy In this verse for his foote stoole he placeth the holy hill which expresseth where his foote stoole was namely the holy A●ke and for Cadhosh hu holy is he now he sayeth Cadosh I●houa holy is the Lorde our God which putteth the other verse out of ambiguitie Wherefore if wee take testimonie of the Greeke we flie not to the Greeke from the Hebrue but shewe that the Hebrue may so bee vnderstoode hauing other more certaine arguments than the testimonie of the Greeke Againe it is vtterly false that you saie we flie from both Hebrue and Greeke to the Latine for wee neuer flie from the Hebrue but acknowledge it as the fountaine and spring from whence wee must receyue the infallible truth of Gods worde of the olde Testament following the Latine or Greeke so farre as they followe the truth of the Hebrue texte and no farther As for the saying of S. Augustine to Faust●s the Manichee You are the rule of truth doth moste aptly agree to you Papistes and to your Pope for you will not aforde vnto the Scriptures them selues any authoritie or certaintie of truth but vpon your approbation and interpretation

sayd Quod pro vobis funditur his wordes are not so but that those wordes if we looke to the construction can not be referred to the bloud but to the cuppe which in effect is as much as you say His iudgement in deede is of these wordes as they are now redde that either it is a manifest Soloecophanes or else an addition out of the margent into the text And as for the word Soloecophanes you vnderstand him that he meaneth a plaine soloecisme fault in grammar and so doth M. Whitakers Howe you vnderstand him it is not materiall but how he is to be vnderstood in deede M. Whitakers whom you call to witnesse doth not so vnderstand him but sheweth that if he had called it a plaine Soloecisme he had not charged S. Luke with a worse fault than Hieronyme chargeth S. Paule But what reason is there that you or any man should vnderstand Beza by Soloecophanes to meane a plaine soloecisme Think you he is so ignorant that he knoweth not the difference of the one from the other or so negligent of his termes that he would confound those whome he knoweth so much to differ But Maister Fulke say you saith that he meaneth no such thing but that it is an elegancie and figuratiue speech vsed of moste eloquent auctors and it is a world to see and a Grecian muste needes smyle at his deuises striuing to make Saint Lukes speeche here as he construeth the wordes an elegancye in the Greeke tongue Thus you write but if I giue not all Grecians and Latinistes iust occasion before I haue done with you to laugh at your prowde ignorance and to spit at your malitious falshood let me neuer haue credit I say not of a Grecian or learned man which I desire not but not so much as of a reasonable creature Ah sir and doth M. Fulke saye that this speech of S. Luke is an elegancie in the Greeke tongue I pray you where sayth he so you answer me quickly Against D. Saunders Rocke pag. 308. I tremble to heare what wordes you haue there to charge me withall In deede in that page I begin to speake of that matter against Saunder who chargeth Beza as you doe moreouer affirmeth that Beza should teach that S. Luke wrore false Greeke because he sayth that here is a manifest Soloecophanes But that neither you shall quarrell that I chose some peece of my saying for my purpose nor any man doubt how honestly you charge me I will here repeate whatsoeuer I haue written touching that matter in the place by you quoted But the Protestants doe not onely make them selues Iudges of the whole bookes but also ouer the very letter sayth he of Christes Gospell finding fault with the construction of the Euangelists and bring the text it selfe in doubt Example hereof he bringeth Beza in his annotatiōs vpon Luke 22. of the words This cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you In which text because the word bloud in the Greeke is the datiue case the other word that followeth is the nominatiue case Beza supposeth that S. Luke vseth a figure called Soloe●ophanes which is appearaunce of incongruitie or else that the last word which is shed for you might by error of writers being first set in the margent out of Mathew and Marke be remoued into the text Herevpon M. Sander out of all order and measure ●ayleth vpon Beza and vpon all Protestants But I pray you good sir shall the onely opinion of Beza and that but a doub●full opinion indite all the Protestants in the world of such high treason against the word of God For what gaineth Beza by this interpretation For sooth the Greeke text is contrary to his Sacramentarie heresie For thus he should translate it This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud which cuppe is shed for you Not the cuppe of gold or siluer sayth he but the liquor in that cuppe which is not wine because wine was not shed for vs but the bloud of Christ. Why then the sense is this This bloud in the cuppe which is shed for you is the new Testament in my bloud What sense in the worlde can these wordes haue By which it is manifest that the words which is shed for you cannot be referred to the cuppe but to his bloud For the cuppe was the new Testament in his bloud which was shed for vs which sense no man can deny but he that will deny the manifest word of God Neither doth the vulgar Latine translation giue any other sense although M. Sander is not ashamed to say it doth The vulgar Latine text is this Hic est calix nouum Testamentum in sanguine meo qui pro vobis fundetur What grammarian in construing would referre qui to calix and not rather to sanguine Againe Erasmus translateth it euē as Beza Hoc poculum nouum Testamentum per sanguinem meum qui pro vobis effunditur Nowe touching the coniecture of Beza that those words by errour of the scriuener might be remoued from the margent into the text is a thing that sometime hath happened as most learned men agree in the 27. of Mathew where the name of Ieremie is placed in the text for that which is in Zachary yet neither of the Prophets was named by the Euangelist as in most auncient records it is testified The like hath bene in the first of Marke where the name of Esay is set in some Greeke copies followed in your vulgar translation for that which is cited out of Malachie which name was not set downe by the Euangelist but added by some vnskilfull writer is reproued by other Greeke copies But this place you say is not otherwise found in any olde copie as Beza confesseth then remaineth the second opinion that S. Luke in this place vseth Soloecophanes which is an appearance of incongruitie yet no incongruitie Wherein I can not maruaile more at your malice M. Sander than at your ignorance which put no difference betwene Soloecisinus Soloecophanes but euen ●s spitefully as vnlearnedly you affirme that Beza should teach that S. Luke wrote false Greeke whereas Soloecophanes is a figure vsed of the most eloquent writers that euer tooke penne in hand euen Cicero Demosthenes Greeke and Latine prophane and diuine and euen of S. Luke him selfe in other places whereof for examples I referre you to Budaeus vpon the worde Soloecophanes The apparance of incongruitie is that it seemeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the nominatiue case should agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the datiue case whereas in deede 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed as a relatiue for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is often and the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wanteth is vnderstoode as it is commonly in the Greeke tongue and so the translation must be hoc poculum nouum Testamentum est in sanguine meo qui pro vobis

that if he pretended to interprete any thing out of Saint Basil it was altogither by artificiall coniecture either of the place which he knewe and had read in Latine or else by surmising of some one common worde hee gathered what the sense of the whole shoulde bee Indeede if hee hadde neuer knowne a word of Greeke althoughe hee had bene no meete man to chalenge a whole realme to disputation yet hee might haue beene an honest man and otherwise meanly learned so hee had not pretended knowledge when he was in a maner altogither ignorant For mine owne parte thoughe it please you to name mee with Maister Humfrey Maister Whitakers and others I neuer tooke vpon mee but a meane knowledge in the tongues neither desire I in comparison to be preferred before any learned manne whose trauailes haue bin profitable to the Churche althoughe he were ignorant in the tongues Yet this I muste freely say that he which shall professe to bee an absolute learned diuine without the knowledge of three tongues at the leaste may thinke wel of himselfe but hardely hee shall gette and retaine the credite hee seeketh amoung learned menne in this learned age And therefore Campion if disputation hadde beene meante rather than sedition for al his arrogance and impudence was an vnmeete Apostle to bee sente from Gregorie of Rome to chalenge all the wise and learned in England Neither do I say this as thoughe I measured all learning by knowledge of the tongues but wherein soeuer any Papist in the worlde shall bee bolde to chalenge the name of learning in anie knowledge that euer was or is accounted good learning God bee praysed there are many of Gods true Catholike Churche whereof we are members able to match them therein That I saye not to excell them And whereas you woulde make vs beholding to Papistes for suche knowledge as any of vs hathe in the Greeke Hebrewe Syriacke Chaldee Arabicke tongues c. It is well knowne the Papistes are more beholding to vs. And although I confesse that some Papistes of late dayes haue bestowed fruitefull paines in setting foorth some of the orientall tongues yet are they not the firste nor all that haue traueiled profitably that wai● But manye haue attained to competent skill in those languages many yeares beefore anye Papistes had written anye thing that mighte further them therein You were wont to beare ignoraunt menne in hande that we were a sight of English Doctors vnderstanding no languages but our mother tongue which hath enforced diuerse men to shewe their skill in the tongues which otherwise they would neuer haue openly professed But now that the worlde seeth to your shame how richly God hath blessed vs with the knowledge and interpretation of diuerse tongues you exprobrate to vs our knowledge in the tongues and traduce vs among the ignorant as though we esteemed all learning by knowledge of tongues and that we were but meare Grammarians often tell vs of that stale iest that the kingdome of Grammarians is paste as though it were but a little Grammar whereof we make a shew But for that generall muster which you threaten to driue vs vnto ere it be long if you come as learned men should do armed with bookes penne inke and paper I doubt not by the grace of God but you shall finde them that dare confront you and chase you out of the field also But if you come vnder the Popes banner with such blessing as he sente lately into Ireland I hope you shall be mette with all as those his champions were and finde that promotion for your good seruice whiche you haue long agoe deserued by your trauailes for vpholding of his kingdome MART. 9. But to returne to you M. Whitakers greater is your fault in diuinitie than in the tonges when you make your argument against the real presence out of this place as out of the Scripture and S. Peter whereas they are Bezaes wordes and not S. Peters Againe whether you take Bezaes wordes or S. Peters your argument faileth very much when you conclude that Christs natural body is not in the Sacrament because it is placed and conteined in heauen For S. Chrysostome telleth you that Christe ascending into heauen both lefte vs his flesh and yet ascending hath the same And againe O miracle saith he He that sitteth aboue with the Father in the same moment of time is handled with the handes of al. This is the faith of the auncient fathers M. Whitakers and this is the Catholike faith and this is I trow an other maner of faith and farre greater thus to beleeue the presence of Christ in both places at once because he is omnipotent and hath said● the worde than your faith whereof you boaste so much which beleeueth no further than that he is ascended and that therefore he cannot be present vpon the altar nor dispose of his body as he list FVLK 9. Maister Whitaker is not so young a diuine but he knoweth that Chrysostome speaketh of the ineffable manner of Christs presence spiritually though he be absent corporally As in the place by you cited Desacerdo●io it is most manifest where he saith that wee may see the people dyed and made redde with the pretious bloud of Christe which as it is not with the eye of the bodie but with the eye of faith so is Christe that is corporally present in heauen spiritually present vnto the faith of the worthie receyuer MART. 10. Againe it is a very famous place for the real presence of the bloud which wee haue handled at large else where but here also must be briefly touched when our Sauiour saith Luc. 22. This is the Chalice the new Testament in my bloud which Chalice is shedde for you For so which must needes be referred according to the Greeke In which speach Chalice must needes be taken for that in the chalice and that in the chalice must needes be the bloud of Christ and not wine because his bloud only was shed for v● And so ●e do plain●ly proue the real presence according a● S. Chrysostome also said Hoc quod est in calice illud est quod ●●●xit delatere That which is in the Chalice is the same that gushed out of his side All which moste necessarie deduction Beza would defeate by saying the Greeke is corrupted in all the copies that are extant in the world and by translating thus cleane otherwise than the Greeke will beare This ●●ppe is the newe Testament in my bloud which bloud is shedde for you FVLK 10. It is a famous place in deede that neuer a one of the auncient writers could cō●●der for any reall presence to be drawne out of it How Beza hath trāslated it I haue at large declared before Cap. 1. Sect. 37. 38. 39. That which Chrysostome saieth wee confesse to be most true after a spiritual heauenly manner and so he doth expound him selfe in the same place where he saith

not be true that the lambe was slaine since the beginning of the worlde seeing without violence you can not distract 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the lambe slaine whom it doth immediatly follow MART. 45. But if in points of controuersie betweene vs they will say diuers pointing is of no importance they knowe the contrarie by the example of auncient heretikes which vsed this meane also to serue their false hereticall purpose If they say our vulgar Latine sense pointeth it so let them professe before God and their conscience that they doe it of reuerence to the saide auncient latine text or because it is indifferent and not for any other cause and for this one place we wil admit their answere FVLK 45 We say that wrong pointing may greatly alter the sense but good composition and placing of wordes in a sentence is a good rule to direct pointing where it is either lacking or falsly signed Wee refuse ●ot the testimonie of the vulgar Latine where it agreeth with the truth of the Greeke or Hebrewe yea before God our consciences we reuerence it as a monument of some antiquitie from which wee neither doe nor are willing to dissent except the same dissent from the originall text Otherwise the truth of this assertion that Christ was slaine from the beginning of the world hath not only testimonie of the ancient fathers but also may bee confirmed out of the Scripture For by the obedience of Christ Saint Paule Rom. 5. teacheth that many are iustified meaning all the elect of God who except Christes death had bene effectuall to them before he suffered actually on the crosse must haue gone not into Limb● patrum but into hell Diabolorum which is the place appointed for all them that are not iustified freely by the grace of God through the redemption of Christ Iesus whom God before hath set foorth to be a propitiatorie in his bloud Rom. 3. v. 24. c. The title of this chapter threatneth a discouerie of heretical translations against Purgatorie especially but in the whole discourse thereof which is shamefull long one containing 45. sections there is not one place noted against Purgatorie Amphora coepit institui curren●e rota cur vrceus exit CHAP. VIII Hereticall translation concerning IVSTIFICATION Martin ABout the article of iustification as it hath many branches and their errours therein bee manifolde so are their English translations accordingly many wayes false and hereticall First against iustification by good workes and by keeping the commaundements they suppresse the very name of iustification in all such places where the woorde signifieth the commandements or the Lawe of God which is both in the olde and newe Testament most common and vsuall namely in the bookes of Moses in the Psalme 118. that beginneth thus Beati immaculati in the Psalme 147. ver 19. 1. Mach. 1. ver 51. and cap. 2. v. 21. Luke 1. v. 6. Rom. 2. v. 26. In all which places and the like where the Greeke signifieth iustices and iustifications most exactly according as our vulgar latine trāslateth iustitias iustificationes there the English translations say iointly with one cōsent ordinances or statuts For example Rom. 2. If the vncircumcision keepe the ORDINANCES of the lawe shall it not bee counted for circumcision And Luc. 1 6. They were both righteous before God walking in all the commaundementes and ORDINANCES of the Lord blamelesse Why translate you it ordinances and auoide the terme iustifications is it because you would followe the Greeke I beseech you is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iustifications or iustices In the old Testament you might perhappes pretend that you follow the Hebrue word and therefore there you translate statutes or ordinances But euen there also are not the seuentie Greeke interpreters sufficient to teache you the signification of the Hebrue word who alwaies interprete it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in English iustifications Fulke THese matters were driuen so thinne in the first chapter that you shall sooner presse out bloud than any more probable matter For the olde Testament which we translate out of the Hebrue you your selfe doe set foorth our aunswere that we giue the Englishe of Chukim when we say ordinaunces or statutes and not of the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of the Septuaginta is vsed in the same sense for preceptes and commaundementes as you your selfe confesse cap. 1. sect 50. that verie often in the Scripture it signifieth commaundementes But the Septuaginta you say are sufficient to teache vs the interpretation of the Hebrewe worde who alwaies interprete it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If they had alwayes interpreted it so it is not sufficient to teache vs then there needed none other translation but according to theirs then must you depart from your vulgar translation which in many things departeth from them But where you say they alwaies interprete the Hebrue word Chukim by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is false For Exod. 18. v. 20. they translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praecepta which your vulgar translation calleth Ceremonias ceremonies as it doeth also Gen. 26. v. 5. where the Septuaginta translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which you see that iustification is not alwayes the Englishe for the Greeke worde which the Septuaginta doe vse Also Num. 9. v. 3. for Chukoth they translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lawe which the vulgar Latine calleth Ceremonias ceremonies and for the Hebrewe worde Misphatim they giue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comparation the vulgar Latin iustification by which you may see how your trāslatour vseth euen the Latin word that you make so much a do about Likewise in the foureteenth verse of the same Chapter the Septuaginta translate Chukath twise togeather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that which the vulgar Latine calleth iustification of the passeouer the Greeke calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the order of the pascall Deut. 4. your vulgar Latine turneth Chukim thrise Ceremonias ceremonies And Deut. 5. twise and Deut. 6. twise Deut. 7. once and so commonly almost in euerie chapter But in the chap. 11. v. 32. the Greeke for Chukim hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where as in the beginning of the chapter he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latine in both Ceremonias ceremonies By which it is euident what the Greekes and Latines meant by those wordes chap. 20. for this Hebrue word and in an other the Greeke hath nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commaundementes So hath he 1. Reg. 2. v. 3. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cōmandements Also 1. Reg. 8. v. 58. for Chukim he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for Misphatim he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he hath it twise in the nexte verse where Salomon prayeth that God will defende his cause and the cause of his people Israell