Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	bread_n	call_v	cup_n	7,649	5	9.8955	5	false

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

with our Priests making GOD and that they sold GOD for a little mony in priuat Masses and that if IESVS CHRIST be in the Hoast he which steales away the Hoast must necessarily steale away IESVS CHRIST They also in way of mockage told vs that our greatest Doctours held that the body of CHRIST might be carried away by Mice which would make any mans haire to stand an end that hath in a deare esteeme the honour of IESVS CHRIST our blessed Sauiour the eternall Sonne of GOD. Moreouer to affirme that CHRISTS body is in so many places and that it is in euery crum of the bread is not agreeable to the Ghospell which giues him a body like to ours that he might be our brother They who alledge that his body is now glorified doe not consider that when hee made this Sacrament his body was yet infirme and not glorified Further his glorification hath not changed his humane nature but hath onely taken away the infirmities of it There is also another inconuenience in the Roman Church which draue mee from it which is that whereas Saint Paul in the 10. Chap. to the Hebrewes saith that wee are sanctified onely by the death of IESVS CHRIST the Romish Priests say that the Masse is the same sacrifice with that of the Crosse and that they sacrifice IESVS CHRIST really and truely for our redemption Which I vtterly dislike for whereas at first the Romish Priests taught me that the death of IESVS CHRIST was the onely price of our redemption now they giue me for the price of my redemption the sacrifice of the Masse which notwithstanding is not the death of Iesus Christ It cannot be said that the Masse is the continuation of the sacrifice of the Crosse for then it should be the continuation of the death of Christ and so CHRIST should die continually To conclude they which affirme that the Masse is the sacrifice of IESVS CHRIST say withall that it is the application and commemoration of the sacrifice of CHRIST on the crosse from whence this consequence may be deriued that it is not the sacrifice of IESVS CHRIST for as the application of a plaister is not a plaister or as the application of a medicine or a rule is neither a medicine nor a rule so the application of the sacrifice of IESVS CHIST is not the sacrifice of IESVS CHRIST The same may also be said of commemoration Purgatory is another cause of my separation from the Romish Church I learned at last that the Popish Purgatory was built vpon this tenent to wit that IESVS CHRIST by his death and suffering hath satisfied for the punishment of sinnes before Baptisme but that he hath not satisfied for the punishment of sinnes committed after Baptisme I was very inquisitiue after this doctrine as iudging it to be a point most behoofull of all for a Christian to vnderstand since that it explaines vnto vs what CHRIST hath done for vs. But though with all diligence I read the Scriptures yet could I not finde there any mention at all made of Purgatory I then grew bolder and thus questioned some of the Romish religion Hath not IESVS CHRIST payed inough to deliuer vs from Purgatory And if hee haue payed inough why does not GOD accept and take this payment for as much as it is worth 2 And since that Christ makes intercession for vs in heauen why should not the soules be rather quit of Purgatory by his intercession then by the indulgences of the Pope 3 And if as the Papists hold none of the faithfull which shall liue at the day of Iudgement shall goe to Purgatory why cannot GOD as well exempt vs without violating his iustice 4 It is true that nothing defiled shall enter into Paradis but Saint Iohn in his 1 Epist chap. 1. saith that the bluod of Iesus Christ doth cleanse vs from all sinne 5 The Roman Church also holds that in Purgatory sinnes are not purged away but punished it may therefore more fitly be stiled a Tormentary then a Purgatory The ordrus and blots of our soules are not punishments or paines but sinnes of which Iesus Christ doth cleanse vs. 6 It is necessary that the satisfaction of our Sauiour be applied to vs but it is GOD that must prescribe the meanes how to apply it for to vs it is not permitted to inuent them Moreouer the ineanes applied to a thing ought to be contrary to the thing there being no medicine which is applied with poyson In like maner the way to apply vnto our selues the remission of our debts by Iesus Christ is not to make vs pay them The meanes to apply to out selues his grace and mercy is not in tormenting vs in a fire Truely the holy Scripture produceth vs examples of persons receiued into Paradise and entred into peace and glory incontinently after their death as the thiefe Luke 2.29 Saint Paul 2 Timo. 4.8 and Esay 57. vers 1. and 2 Apocal. 14. vers 13. But wee finde no example of any man sent to Purgatory 8 The onely light which hath directed vs to finde out the errour of this Purgatory is experience which shewes vs that it is a thing meerely inuented for gaine for no man sees particular Masses but for those that giue money poore men must content themselues with generall prayers in which the rich haue also a part The Mendicant Friers neuer goe to the funerall of a poore man and yet his soule hath cost as much and is no lesse precious in the eye of GOD then an Emperours The letters of Indulgence and personall dispensation which the Pope grants is not but for persons of quality Another thing also much moued mee to wit that a man cannot be assured of his saluation which made mee thus to reason with my selfe Shall I any longer remaine in a religion which after I haue made a hurde of merits and satisfactions nay haue bought the satisfactions of others cannot assure mee after all this whether I be the childe of GOD or of the Diuell what religion can this be which teacheth such distrust On the contrary through the whole Scripture GOD exhorts vs to trust in him and to come to him with a full certainty of Faith Heb. 10.22 and bids vs with boldnesse to trust in him with a liuely faith in Iesus Christ Ephe. 3.12 Consider also Sir with mee that the commandements of the Roman Church are much more honoured obserued then the commandements of GOD. 1. Because it is there taught that the Roman Church authoriseth the holy Scriptures that is to say that the ordinances of men authorise the commandements of GOD. 2 To cate flesh vpon a good Friday is a greater sinne then to commit murther or adultery yet is this the Friday on which ordinarily Christ did eate the Paschall Lambe 3 To blaspheme the name of GOD in this world is a small offence but to speake ill of the Pope especially in Italy and Spaine is an vnpardonable and a burnable