Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	blood_n	call_v	cup_n	7,107	5	9.8579	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15061	An answere to a certeine booke, written by Maister William Rainolds student of diuinitie in the English colledge at Rhemes, and entituled, A refutation of sundrie reprehensions, cauils, etc. by William Whitaker ...	Whitaker, William, 1548-1595.	1585 (1585)	STC 25364A; ESTC S4474	210,264	485

the blood of the new testament and this blood is the new testament in my blood If it may be lawfull for you to alter and expound the words at your pleasure then can you help your selfes wel enough but your exposition must be squared according to the wordes not the words framed to your exposition Againe pag. 240. you say where Beza correcteth Saint Luke in the latter part of the sentence I raile at the first so that betweene Beza and me S. Luke hath neuer a word right wisely considered doubties The words are right your exposition is fond and wicked The cupp you make to be the blood of Christ whoe as yet was not crucified nor his blood shed If your doctrine be true Christes blood was shed alreadie and that reallie els it could not be in the cup reallie The papists teache that Christs blood was reallie in the cup before his passion But if Christs blood was shed sitting at the table whoe was he M.R. that shed it whoe made the wound whoe opened his side who thrust his weapon in his heart whoe pearced his hands and feete This must you tell if you maintaine that his blood was then reallie shed and powred forth into the cuppe But by the cuppe M.R. is ment the wine in the cuppe which is the newe testament that is a sacrament of the newe testament in Christs blood shed for vs on the crosse This is a true and plaine sense agreeable to all analogie of faith standing with the words themselues followed of the auncient fathers When at length will you make an end of this railing it is to vnseemelie to lothsome pag. 241. to odious Indeed M.R. it must needes appeare a great absurditie to all learned godly Christians whoe know rightlie esteeme the price of our redemption that to be shed for our sinnes which was in the cup. Christs blood was shed for our sinnes which neuer came in the cup but remained in his bodie vntil the time of his death And if Christs blood was in the cuppe when he gaue the cuppe to his Apostles then must it follow necessarilie that his bodie then was without blood it being shedde already and contained in the cup. In the cuppe was onelie wine a sacrament of his blood which he gaue in the same to his Apostles to drincke whereof he drancke him selfe and so the scriptures expressely call it wine If this were the thing that was shedde for your sinnes then was true and naturall wine the price of your redemption then are you saued by wine then haue you no part in Christs blood But the true Church beleeueth her sinnes to be washed away not by that which was really contained in the cuppe but by the true blood of Christ which issued out of his body nailed on the crosse and wounded with a speare Your absurditie therefore needeth not to be further discouered it is so openlie blasphemous against the blood of Iesus Christ which was shed once not in the cup but on the crosse for our redemption If you vrge S. Lukes words as they stand in grammaticall construction I answere that as the cup is called Christs blood Christs testament that is by a figure the sacrament of his blood and testament so is it also said to be shed for vs by a figure sacramentallie But all men of skill and iudgement maie soone see that in these wordes there is some change of grammaticall disposition vsuall in the writings of the Apostles and Euangelists Your discourse about Tautologies in the scriptures is altogether vaine and friuolous To S. Basils testimonie you aunswere much in words and nothing in matter pag. 244. For what cause haue you thus to reproch Beza for his translation of these words seing you cannot denie but S. Basil hath reported that text of S. Luke euen as Beza hath translated the same and you confesse that Saint Basil hath truelie deliuered the sense thereof so all that you haue said or can say spitefullie against Beza must appertaine to Saint Basil no lesse Basil in Ethic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whome yet you will not seeme to touch But the thing truelie and indifferentlie considered Beza is no more to be accused then S. Basil you tell vs of heretikes a long tale which is no better then waste paper Vse it your selfe or bestowe it at your pleasure Of such badde stuffe base account is to be made Whereas I spake a fewe words concerning figuratiue speaches pag. 251. which the aduersaries cannot abide to heare of in the sacrament I haue as it were opened at vnawares a flood-gate to M. Rainolds flowing vtterance Quâ data porta ruit The streame is so strong and runneth so violentlie carying all manner of baggage with it that vaine it were to resist it Let it therefore passe downe and doe what mischiefe it can great harme I trust it shall not doe Thus much you must confesse that in the sacrament figures are found and yet when we oppose against your monster of reall presence a most true and euident answere that the wordes were figuratiuelie spoken and must figuratiuelie be expounded you rage aboue all measure But quiet your selfe Master Rainolds and somewhat staie your intemperate affection neuer shall you prooue while papistrie hath a man liuing to speake in defense of it either by scripture or auncient writer that these words must figuratiuelie be vnderstoode This is my blood this cuppe is the new Testament in my blood more then these This cup is shed for you Leaue your babling Figuratiue speaches in the verie words of the supper by the Aduersaries confession and speake to purpose prooue this if you can Wherefore finding in the Euangelistes wordes such manifest figures what reason haue you to condemne vs for vsing the same being a moste common and familiar kinde of speach Because it standeth not with your reall presence Let your reall presence hardlie shift for it selfe we are not bound for cause and respect thereof to wrest the scriptures to forge monstrous interpretations to change the sacrament into a reall sacrifice of Christ which heathenish kinde of doctrine neuer anie but Antichrist and his ministers maintained The scriptures the olde fathers the auncient Church of Christ taught and beleeued otherwise as hath bene shewed and prooued inuinciblie to your faces Your pages following filled with rouing testimonies I pretermitt your contumelies being no lawfull arguments require no answere CHAP. 11. Concerning the translation of the English Bibles MAster Martins boke of Discouerie is aunswered long since from head to foote in euerie part pag. 262. you haue the answere amongst you saie to it what you can with truth and learning To bragge of your fellowes booke which being throughlie and soundlie disprooued you cannot with all your skill maintaine is a childish vanitie to acknowledge no Replie which you cannot but knowe or to make light account of it whereunto you cannot truelie reioine is wilfulnes and

is not of the same length with your conclusion that therefore he offered sacrifice in bread and wine But that you saie is a reason of his priesthood which I denie and it is the thing in controuersie should by you haue bene prooued not barely affirmed For though as you report the words of Moses it may seeme that the reason of Melchisedechs bringing forth bread and wine was for that he was the Lords priest yet Moses in in his owne language saieth not so but thus And he was a priest of the most high God as it is also translated by Pagnine and Vatablus and Arias Montanus according to the originall veritie And though sometime it may so be taken yet how can you prooue that so it must of necessitie here be taken And if it be your sacrifice for al that will not here of follow as you maie learne by Andradius your greatest Doctor Li. 4. Defen Trid. whoe maketh that a reason whie Melchisedech being a Cananean and ioined perhaps in blood or frendship with some of the Kings that Abraham slue notwithstanding was so farr of from seeking to be reuenged of Abraham that he met him frendlie and presented him with gifts because the bonds of country and kindred are not so strong as of godlines religion popish arguments confuted and reiected by papists them selues So the reason is not as you imagine He offered sacrifice in bread wine therefore he was a Priest but by Andradius iudgement he was the Lordes Priest and therefore he refreshed Abraham a true worshipper of the Lord. But what if all this were graunted without resistance that Melchisedech offered a sacrifice in bread and wine it must be cast in a strange mould before the sacrifice of your Masse can anie waies be framed hereof For first this sacrifice might be a figure of Christes bodie and blood represented and offered vnto vs in bread wine with out anie such vnholie sacrifice as is imagined in your Masse And so did the auncient fathers meane when they applied this historie of Melchisedech to the sacrament of Christes supper How the fathers applie Melchisedechs fact to the sacramēt of Christs supper Wherfore when you haue digged as depe as you wil yet shal you not finde the mine or spring of your sacrifice here Againe what resemblance is there betwene Melchisedechs bread and wine and your Masse wherein you teach is neither bread nor wine remaining at all That you bring out of Musculus and Caluin concerning referring those wordes and he was a Priest to that which followeth and he blessed him you are not hable to confute and therefore you do well and wiselie to note it but shew no reason against it and so likewise you set before your reader an other place of Caluin wherein he writeth that their opinion is confuted who seake out the cheife resemblance betweene Christ and Melchisedech in offering of bread and wine seing the Apostle who standeth vppon other points not so notable and principall as that speaketh not so much as once therof This was to hott for you to beare therfore you let it fal to the ground couering it with the naked names of Hierome Gregory Nazianzene Out of Caluins words by you repeted you will the reader to note two things Pag. 62. which being noted neuer so much make nothing for your profit The first is that Caluin and the Caluinistes as it pleaseth you to speak finde nothing wherin Melchisedech sacrificed and so by sacrificing prefigured the sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ whereunto I haue alreadie answered and further adde now that we finde in Melchisedech as much as the Apostle hath found We expound and vnderstand the fig●re of Melc in such sort as the Apostle hath taught vs the Apostle hath found as much as truly can be found vnles you wil say the holy ghost was grosly fouly ouerseene in omitting the chiefest thing wherin Melchisedech represented our sauiour Christ We thinke it no shame to finde no more then the cleare light and wisdome of Gods spirite could finde wherwith the Apostle examining searching throughlie the wholl historie of Melchisedech hath not giuen the least inkling of your surmised sacrifice He sheweth diuerse properties in which Melchisedech was a figure of Christ comparing not anie sacrifice of Melchisedech with the sacrifice made by Christ but the person of Melchisedech with the person of Christ So you haue found such a propertie betwenee them two as he neuer saw and therefore must needes account your selues wiser then he which we by your leaues cannot acknowledge and therfore refuse your inuention The second is that the auncient fathers acknowledge Melchisedech to haue sacrificed in bread and wine and so to haue foreshewed Christes sacrificing in like manner What is to be answered to the fathers comparing Melchisedeches bread and wine to the Lords supper To this an easie answere maie serue First that whatsoeuer the fathers teach without warrant of Gods word must be iudged no better then stubble and straw which hath no vse in the building vp of gods spiritual Temple but serueth onelie to be burnt Secondlie that the fathers not one of them all applie this of Melchisedech to the Popish masse which was not hatched in the daies of the ancient fathers but is a latter birde of Antichrists brood Thirdly that none of the ancient fathers do prooue by this any real sacrifice of the Church wherein Christ is to be offered continuallie as the Papists doe most wickedlie and horriblie maintaine Lastlie the fathers onely meant to commend the excellency of the Lords supper which Christ instituted in bread and wine by this fact of Melchisedech that brought forth bread and wine as it were in these signes shadowing and figuring Christ vnto vs who long after appointed the same to be sacraments of his body and blood This was the cause why they so often alledge this example of Melchisedech as you may perceiue by Cyprian who saith In sacerdote Melchisedech sacrifice Dominici sacramentum praefiguratum videmus that is Cypr. ep 63. In Melchisedech the Priest we see the sacrament of the Lords sacrifice prefigured Thus Cyprian writeth in the same epistle that you alledge here by whose wordes you maie learne to what purpose the fathers applied that of Melchisedech farre otherwise then you doe And in that Cyprian calleth bread and wine his bodie and blood therein is no difficultie meaning sacraments of his bodie and blood As for the new oblation that Irenaeus speaketh of Iren. li. 4. c. 32. it is the praiers and almes of the faithfull which they offer vnto God in the celebration of the Lords supper which is so far from your sacrifice that you maie as soone make the north and south pole meete togeather as this testimonie of Irenaeus with your idoll of the Masse In that you beare your reader in hand I haue dissented from Caluin and the Protestants that argueth

from a cloake so the difference is cleare but your argument is blinde How Christ left his flesh I haue said alreadie The second Christ left his flesh with vs yet caried the same with him into heauen Elias leauing his cloake lost it And how gather you hereof an argument for reall presence Christ caried with him into heauen his flesh in the naturall substance thereof Christ left with vs his flesh in a sacrament of his flesh If you still vrge that Christes flesh is there and Christes flesh is here let Chrysostome declare his owne meaning whose wordes you seeke moste shamefully to abuse For that Saint Chrysostome spake thus not of the carnall and naturall substance of Christs flesh but of the spirituall presence thereof S. Chrysostome in his 〈◊〉 ordes dri●e●h awaie all n●●●es of popish Reall presence we maie perceaue by his wordes a little before of Elias Afterwards saith S. Chrysostome Elias was double there was an Elias aboue and there was an Elias beneath Elias touching his naturall substance of bodie and soule was onely aboue though in some kinde of presence true also it is that Elias was beneath Euen so our sauiour Christ in carnall presence of his bodie is aboue but in an other manner namelie in spiritual presence of the same he is beneath This is Saint Chrysostomes plaine meaning which God wot maketh full meanlie for proofe of real presence The third difference Elias shed not his blood for his people but Christ shed his blood and imparted the same vnto vs. And would you haue vs thinke that because Christ imparteth vnto vs his blood therefore we drinke it reallie what should one answere such vnworthie and senseles arguments Leaue your geasses and speake to the purpose Here you talke pag. 209. as wel becommeth a man of your profession falslie vilelie blasphemouslie against the true doctrine of Christs sacrament I am vnwilling to answere such profane speaches of an opprobrious slaunderous enemie So much onely wil I speake as shall serue to stoppe the mouth of this railer Doe we thinke no otherwise of our communion then as of common breade and wine without all grace vertue and sanctification M. R. reporteth falslie of our doctr●ne touching the sacrament doe we make it a bare figure of Christ absent Haue we as good figures at our common breakefast din●ers and suppers Thus you say but all the world knoweth you say moste vntrulie Common bread common wine We denie ●hrists bo●y to be Really present in the supper Ergo we make the supper a bare figure of Christ Thus our papistes vnlearnedlie reason bare figure was neuer any part of our doctrine this is your vnlearned collection of that we deny the reall presence For had you but halfe an eye you might see how this slaunder is easilie disprooued In baptisme a sacrament of Christs owne ordinaunce there is not anie reall presence of Christs blood or body as your selues confesse Now if one had as hereticall a iudgement of this sacrament as you haue of the other he might charge you as iustlie for denying Christs reall presence in the sacrament of baptisme as you doe vs for denying his reall presence in the sacrament of the supper For if you reason with anie trueth against vs that we make it common bread common wine a bare figure without grace vertue or sanctifying power because we affirme that Christ is not present carnally grosselie therein then must it as truelie and necessarilie follow that the water of baptisme is common water The popish argument maketh the sacrament of Baptisme no better then a bare element is a bare figure is void of all spirituall effect because in baptisme there is no reall presence And surelie by this your kinde of argument it plainlie appeareth you haue no other opinion thereof then as you haue said of common water wherein is neither grace nor vertue nor sanctification and of a bare figure such as you may haue enough whensoeuer you wash your hands Certaine sentences of Zuinglius you snatch to prooue we thinke as b●sely contemptiblie of the sacrament as you report of vs. Zuinglius saieth it is nothing but a commemoration Zuinglius meaneth not that the sacrament is onelie a bare remembrance of Christs death he teacheth and protesteth the contrarie in a thousand places His meaning is no other but to shewe that Christ is not offered really in the sacrament but that therein is set forth vnto vs a remembrance of his sacrifice he opposeth commemoration not to the spirituall presence and participation of Christ but to the imagined reall and substantial presence of Christs body So when he speaketh of onely figures nothing but breade he excludeth not the spirituall but carnall presence and that with the breade is not ioyned any materiall thing besides Also that he compareth the sacrament to a Kings banner which is a token of his presence serueth onely to shew that Christ is not bodely but spirituallie present And therefore for ought you haue alledged Beza hath truelie sayd that there is no coatrarietie betweene the doctrine of these most excellent men Zuinglius OEcolampadius Caluine Bez. in epist 1. touching the sacramentes For they taught both soundly in trueth and moste consonantlie among them selues Thus all your notes following of difference betweene Saint Chrysostomes text and my answere is discharged and whatsoeuer els you bable in this place to no purpose in the world but to shew your ignorance The cloake you say was a more liuelie figure of Elias then your bread and wine is of Christ Now this toucheth neither Zuinglius nor Caluine but Christ himselfe whoe appointed these to be figures and signes of his bodie If you raile at Christ no maruell though you raile at his ministers By it Elizeus you saie receiued great grace and strength that your bread shoul● giue grace is against your wholl doctrine Indeed we say that with the bread is not mingled grace for then both godlie and wicked should be partakers of Christs grace but in the right vse of the sacrament to the faithful person is giuen moste plentifull and excellent grace The cloake you say had a vertue surmounting the habilitie of man Yet I trust you will not saie this vertue and grace was in the cloake reallie as you teach that Christ is in the sacrament That you saie our bread is nothing but a signe or banner as it were a maipole or token of a tauerne such wordes doe well be seeme your spirit Master Rainolds The time will come when the mouth of blasphemie shall be stopped The other place of Saint Chrysostome hath lesse force for proofe of Reall presence pag. 214. c. although Master Rainolds decke garnish it all he can as if he would make saie thereof The moste that Saint Chrysostome saith is that Christ sitting with his father aboue at the same moment is handled with all mens hands Chrysost de sacerdot