Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	blood_n	body_n	bread_n	3,259	5	8.1871	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13235	A defence of the Appendix. Or A reply to certaine authorities alleaged in answere to a catalogue of Catholike professors, called, An appendix to the Antitdote VVherein also the booke fondly intituled, The Fisher catched in his owne net, is censured. And the sleights of D. Featly, and D. VVhite in shifting off the catalogue of their owne professors, which they vndertooke to shew, are plainly discouered. By L.D. To the Rt. VVorshipfull Syr Humphry Lynde.	L. D., fl. 1624.; Sweet, John, 1570-1632, attributed name.	1624 (1624)	STC 23528; ESTC S120948	43,888	74

as the Sonne of the substance of his Father so as he himselfe hath sayd it is true Flesh which we receaue That is to say not by grace or by Fayth only but in Truth and in Substance Finally in the place which you cite for your selfe lib. 4. cap. 5. de Sacram. where there is nothing to be found in your fauour he hath these expresse words Therefore before Consecration it is Bread but after the words of Christ come to it it is the Body of Christ. And before the words of Christ it is a Cup full of Wine and Water when the words of Christ haue wrought then it is made the Bloud which redeemed the People To conclude our Lord Iesus testifieth vnto vs that we receaue his Body and Bloud Ought we to doubt of his Fayth and Testimony Heere if I had concealed the name of S. Ambrose would not the Reader thinke the man had liued in our tyme that wrore so forcibly and vehemently agaynst you Finally in the former Chapter of the same Booke he saith againe The bread is bread before the words of the Sacrament but after the words of Consecration of Bread is made the flesh of Christ And againe in the same little Chapter as if by often repeating the same thing he meant to vexe or confound euery obstinate Protestant that should reade it he saith Therefore that I may answere thee It was not the Body of Christ before Consecration but after Consecration I say vnto thee it is the Body of Christ And agayne a little after repeating the same againe as if he had now conuinced his Readers he concludeth You haue therefore learned that our Bread is made the Body of Christ and that Wine Water is put into the Chalice but is made Bloud by the Consecration of the heauenly Word But it may be thou wilt say I see not the forme of Bloud But it hath the likenesse for as thou hast receaued the likenesse of death so thou drinkest also the likenesse of Bloud and not the visible forme of Bloud that there might be noe horror of Bloud and yet the price of our Redemption which is the Bloud of Christ might worke in vs. Thou hast learned therefore that thou receauest the Body of Christ. Which you also might haue learned if you had read him your selfe and not trusted others that read him for no other purpose but only to wrest his words against his meaning Section XI S. Hierome falsly alleaged by Syr Humphry agaynst the Reall Presence NOW come we to S. Hierome who thinketh it noe blasphemy to say Epist 1. ad Heliod That Priests with their sacred Mouthes doe make the Body of Christ And Epist ad Euag. That his Body and Bloud is made at their prayer And in cap. 25. Matth. writeth as followeth After the typicall Passouer was ended c. he taketh Bread and passeth ouer to the Sacrament of the true Passouer that as Melchisedech the Priest of the most high God had done offering Bread and Wine to prefigure him he also might represent the truth of his Body and Bloud That is to say as Melchisedech offered Bread and Wine to prefigure him so he also taking Bread and wine offered the truth of his Body and Bloud to fulfill the figure According wherunto in Ps 190. speaking to our Sauiour he saith As Melchisedech offereth Bread and Wine soe thou also offerest thy Body and Bloud the true Bread and the true Wine In that sense true Bread as in Epist. ad Hedibiam quaest 2. he saith that Moyses gaue noe true Bread And as our Sauiour sayd Ioan. 6. That his Father gaue them true Bread from heauen Where also S. Hierome hath these words Let vs heare the Bread which our Lord brake to be the Body of our Lord and Sauiour And he adeth a little after He sate at the Banquet and was himselfe the Banquet he the eater and be that was eaten Finally lib. cont Vigil cap. 3. he reprehendeth Vigilantius for speaking against Reliques in this manner Therefore according to thy speach the Bishop of Rome doth ill who vpon the Bones of Peter and Paul which we call venerable but thou esteemest most vile dust doth offer Sacrifices to God and maketh their Tōbes to be the Altars of Christ According wherunto in Prouerb 11. he also saith That after this life small sinnes may be taken away by paine by prayers and almes of others and by celebrations of MASSE Lastly in his Booke against Iouinian which you cite at randome without any number I find nothing but this that may any way please you In the type of his Blood he offered not Water but Wine lib. 2. cap. 4. This testimony I find alleaged by your Doctours as S. Hieroms for their meere figuratiue or typicall Presence wherin they discouer eyther ignorance or desire to deceaue their Readers For whosoeuer shall take the paynes to peruse the place will find the aforesayd words not to be S Hieroms but Iouinians whose discourse against Abstinence from flesh and wine S. Hierome there setts downe in that Heretike his owne wordes whereof these are a part In the Type of his Bloud he offered not water but wine And S. Hierome afterward cōming to answere this obeiction against drinking of water and Abstinence from Flesh sayth that Christ neuer vsed wine nor dainties excepto mysterio quo Typum suae passionis expressit pro probanda corporis veritate Where the Saynt tearmes the holy Eucharist a Type not of the Body and Blood of Christ as the Hereticke did but of his Passion which is represented in the Mystery of the Masse which is the ordinary Catholike Doctrine and phrase Notwithstanding seeing this Heretike erred not agaynst the Catholike Doctrine of the Reall Presence his wordes haue a true sense and make agaynst you Protestants For you deny that in his last Supper he offered any thing at all and say that only vpon the Crosse he offered himselfe once for all not only sufficiently by his Bloud and Passion Heb. 2. but also effectually agaynst Mal. 2. without any other cleane oblation for the application of the merit of his Passion vnto vs. This place therefore maketh not for you neyther is it any way against them though it were S. Hieroms for they graunt he offered Wine in type or figure of his Bloud but he offered also his Bloud answering the figure in Truth and Substance As he was Priest after the order of Melchisedech in Bread and Wine he offered Bread and Wine in figure As the offering of Melchisedech was a figure of his offering he offered also his Body and Bloud which was the Truth or Substance of that figure Which to be the meaning of S. Hierome may sufficiently appeare by that which hath beene sayd and these other wordes of his Epist. ad Marcellam doe make it yet to appeare more plainely saying Melchisedech in the Type of Christ offered Bread and Wine and dedicated the Mystery of Christians in the Body

and Bloud of our Sauiour Section XII Tertullian and Gelasius falsly alleaged by Syr Humphry agaynst the Reall Presence And S. Ignatius absurdly claymed by the Protestant Doctours THere remayneth behinde of the Authors you alleage Tertullian and Gelasius Tertullian is cleare for them who in his Booke De resurrectione caruis to proue that our flesh shall ryse agayne and be saued vseth these words that follow The flesh is washed that the Soule may be clensed The flesh is annointed that the Souls may be consecrated The flesh is fed with the Body and Bloud of Christ that the Soule may be fatned Though the Soule may feed on Christ by the metaphoricall mouth of Fayth yet the flesh hath no such mouth to feede vpon him and if it had being only fed metaphorically therewith nothing would follow thereof but that it might rise and be saued only metaphorically and so Tertullian should haue proued that which he there impugned In fine as the flesh is heere sayd to be truly washed and annointed so also it must be vnderstood to be truly fed and not to be fed by fayth only or in figure Which Argument to proue the Resurrection Tertullian seemeth to haue learned of Irenaeus lib. 4. cont Haer. cap. 34. whome also he calleth Omnium Doctrinarum cariosisim●m Exploratorem lib. cont Valent. prope initium And therfore because the Doctrine of Irenaeus in that place doth serue very well to confirme both the doctrine of Tertullian and the Reall Presence heere in question I will giue you his whole discourse Quomodo constabit ijs c. sayth he of the Heretiks against whome he wrote How can they assure themselues the Bread wherein thankes are giuen to be the body of their Lord and the Cup to be the Cup of his bloud if they do not confesse him to be the Sonne of him that made the world And how againe doe they say that that flesh must go into corruption and not receaue life which is nourished by the body and bloud of our Lord Therefore eyther let them change their opinion or let them cease to offer the things aforesayd But our Dictrine agreeth with the Eucharist and the Eucharist againe confirmeth our Doctrine for we offer therin vnto him those things that are his because being the Sonne of God he maketh thē by his omnipotency his owne Body his owne Bloud and consequently we teach the communication and vnity of his Flesh and of his Spirit with vs our flesh being fed with his Body and Bloud and receauing thereby his Spirit to liue for euer For as the bread which commeth from the Earth receauing the vocation or word of God is now no more common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the one earthly comming from the earth and the other Heauenly the Body and Bloud of the Sonne of God so also our bodies receauing the Eucharist by the communication and vnitie of his flesh with ours are no more corruptible hauing now the hope of Resurrection So that according to these auncient Fathers as we belieue our Sauiour to be the Sonne of God so must we belieue the Eucharist to be his Body and Bloud And as we belieue the Resurrection of the Flesh so must we belieue that our flesh is fed with the flesh of Christ And eyther you must change your opinion or els as now you haue ceased to offer these things and to feed your flesh with the body and bloud of Christ so you are also in danger to change your beliefe as well of the Diuinity of Christ as also of the Resurrection of your owne bodyes But it may be the place which your selfe haue cited lib. 4. cont Marcionem out of the same Author is no lesse with you thē was the former agaynst you his words are these Professing therefore that with a desire he desired to eate the Pasche as his own for it was not seemly that God should desire to eate the Pasche of another hauing taken the Bread c. he made it his owne body saying This is my body that is the figure of my body But the figure had not beene vnlesse there were a true body Whereof citing imperfectly but halfe the Sentence This is my body This is the figure of my body and changing that into this to make it sound more fully for you you guilefully omit the other halfe The bread which he tooke he made his body saying This is my body which are euidently against you The words also which you cite wherein the Author seemeth to say This is my body that is to say this is the figure of my body and no more your Aduersaries do clearly shew to haue another meaning First because otherwise he should not only teach that which is directly contrary to his former Doctrine in the place before alleaged but also should contradict himselfe in this very sentence for according to our expositiō he should not haue sayd that Christ tooke bread made it his body which is false if it be only a figure of his body but that he tooke bread and made it the figure of his body saying This is my body that is to say the figure of my body and consequently in the words that follow he should haue sayd But it were not a figure vnlesse there were a true body and not as he doth but there had not beene a figure if there were not a true body For if the figure and the body were both at the same tyme why should he say of the one that it had beene and of the other that it was Secondly your Aduersaries therefore do say the meaning of those words This is my body that is the figure of my body to be This is my body that is the figure of my body in the law now by me fullfilled Or This is my body that is to say this is the bread which was a figure in the Law signifying my body and is now fullfilled by me hauing relatiō to the words of the Prophet Ieremy which a little after he citeth and expoundeth and sheweth to haue beene then fullfilled by our Sauiour As in the like sense S. Iohn Baptist for example when he saw our Sauiour might haue sayd This is the Messias that is to say The Lambe of God which was the figure of the Messias in the Law to signify that the Prophecy of the Lambe of God in Isa 16. was then fullfilled in our Sauiour Therfore that Tertullian meant to say This is my Body that is to say the figure of my Body now fullfilled c. your Aduersaries doe plainely proue First because it is euident that Tertullian in this place intended to shew how our Sauiour in his Pasche fullfilled the law against Marcion who being an Enemy of the Old Testament contended that our Sauiour came to dissolue it and Tertullian argueth against him in this māner The Bread of Christ in the law did signifie the Body of Christ which he proueth out of Ieremie 11. saying