Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	cup_n	new_a	testament_n	24,985	5	9.6469	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A16898	A letter apologeticall of George Brisse Lord of Desgrutieres wherein are set downe the reasons that moued him to turne to the reformed. / Written to Monsieur Touraine, Aduocate in the Court of Parliament of Bretany. A worke very profitable for those to reade that desire to know the grounds of their religion. Translated out of French.; Lettre apologétique de George Brisset, Sr Desgrustières. English.	Brisset, Georges.; Tauraine, Monsieur.	1616 (1616)	STC 3792; ESTC S119305	8,697	22

held as a Pagan and a Publican hee that reads the precedents and subsequents shall soone perceiue that these words serue not to proue that the Roman Church which they call Catholike that is to say Vniuersall should be iudge in deciding controuersies of Religion First because in that place the Roman Chuch is not named Secondly because that there it is not spoken of controuersies of religion but of a quarrell betweene two brethren Thirdly it is euident that the Catholike or vniuersall Church is not there meant for to take vp a quarrell betweene two brethren wee should in vaine expect the iudgement of the Church vniuersall by the Church then in this place is meant the Pastors and Conductors of some Church particular endeauouring to appease the mallice of particular men and it is according to the precept of GOD in his word that he who will not consent to what they shall decree be put in the same ranke with Pagans and Publicans The third passage is that which most offends mee for this seemes to mee to be a hard consequence I haue prayed that thy faith faile not Peter then the Roman Church cannot erre By the reading of the whole passage it does appeare most manifest that CHRIST speakes not at all to the Church nor of the Church but that hee directes his speech onely to the person of S. Peter preparing him for the temptation into which he was shortly after to fall that is to deny his Sauiour IESVS CHRIST promiseth him by these words that his faith shall not faile him in this temptation but that hee should no sooner fall but that the hand of GOD should raise him vp againe Secondly and if CHRIST should there haue meant the Church of Rome is it possible that neither that place nor any other passage of Scripture should mention it Thirdly which more is if our faith be built vpon this supposition to wit that Saint Peter is the head of the Church vniuersall and that hee hath made the Bishop of Rome his successour not onely in the Bishopricke of Rome but also in the charge of being head of the Church and that this charge hath succeeded in a direct line without variation of doctrine and without interruption of succession If all this be true I demand how the people shall be assured of it since that to know it many histories and authors ancient and moderne are to read which are written in a tongue which the people vnderstands not In this point also then I remaine vnsatisfied I must needs confesse to you also that after I had learned that the Roman Church held that consecration and Transubstantiation is not at all in the Masse vnlesse the Priest haue intention to consecrate I feared much I might at one time or other commit Idolatry knowing that oftentimes the Priest hath his mind otherwise busied or does not beleeue himselfe that which he does or is a derider and a profane man from whence it necessarily followeth those who adore that which the priest liftes vp adore bread and call it their creator and their GOD. I fell into this perplexity by reading the Gospell where I found the institution of this Sacrament no way to be considered by the Papists First for I found that in the Gospell all the assistants did communicate but in the Masse ordinarily the Priest alone eats Secondly likewise euery one receiued both the species Saint Paul 1 Cor. 11. speaking to the people commands euery one to proue himselfe and to drinke of this cup but in these daies the cup is taken from the people Thirdly IESVS CHRIST did not lift vp the Hoast as doe the Priests Fourthly the Apostles did not adore the Hoast as in these times the people doe Fiftly in the whole institution of this Sacrament there is no mension at all made of Sacrifice nor is it commanded that IESVS CHRIST be sacrificed for the liuing and for the dead Sixtly IESVS CHRIST spake in a tongue which the people vnderstood Seuenthly the Gospell saith that IESVS CHRIST tooke bread and broke it cleane contrary the Roman Church affirmes that the Priest does not breake bread but the accidents of bread to wit the colour and roundnesse of bread c. Eightly the Ghospell witnesseth that IESVS CHRIST tooke bread broke it and gaue it on the contrary the Roman Church holds that the Priest giues not bread 10. I finde also in Saint Mat. 26. vers 29. and in Saint Mar. 14. vers 25. that IESVS dranke of the fruite of the vine that is to say wine it was then wine when hee dranke it for although two cups are mentioned as appeares by Saint Luke yet Saint Matthew and Saint Marke speaking onely of the cup of the Sacrament cannot questionless vnderstand by the fruit of the vine the wine of a cup of which they speake not 11 I also finde in S. Paul Cor. 10 ve 16. cha 11. ve 26. that wee eate and breake bread but the Roman Church saies that wee neither eate nor breake bread 12. It is apparant that Saint Paul expounds these words in forme of a Paraphrase in this manner the bread saies hee which wee breake is the Communion to the body of CHRIST But the Roman Church denies all this and saies that it is not bread and that wee breake not bread but the speeies and apparences of bread from whence it followeth that these apparances of bread should be the Communion to the body of CHRIST 13. I finde also in the Acts of the Apostles that the Disciples assembled themselues to breake the bread Chap. 2. vers 46. and Chap. 20. vers 7. It would seeme a thing ridiculous to the Papists if one of their religion going to receiue the very body of CHRIST at Easter should say that hee goes to breake bread 14 I see that the Ghospell according to Saint Luke Chapter 22. and the Apostle Saint Paul 1 Corinthians Chapter 11. informes vs how these words this is my body are to be vnderstood for when they come to speake of the cup in steed of this is my bloud they thus expound this cup is the New Testament in my bloud The bread then is the body of our Sauiour in like manner as that which is in the cup is a Testament which is not in substance but in a Sacrament As also IESVS CHRIST calleth it a commemoration And as ordinarily in Scripture signes and Sacraments take the names of that which they signifie 15 If the Cup bee the Testament in the blood of CHRIST as saies Saint Luke it is not then the very bloud of CHRIST for it were absurd to say that the bloud of CHRIST is in the blood of CHRIST I will further confesse vnto you that when I was at the height of my ignorance this manner of speaking as to lift GOD to carry GOD and by the mouth to receiue the creator seemed to mee harsh and grosse Also I could not heare without griefe some of the reformed religion to vpbraid vs