Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	bread_n	flesh_n	life_n	9,152	5	6.7265	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A14357	M. le Hucher minister of Amyens in France compelled to fly from the pure word of holy write; strucke dumme; and made to runne away Vppon the subiect of the B. Sacrament of the altar. By F. Francis Veron of the Society of Iesus, encountring him with the Bible of Geneua only. In the presence of the Duke de Longueuille. VVith a briefe and easie meanes, by which each Catholike may, in like manner, put to flight any minister or sectarie. Sent from Sieur de la Tour one of the sayd Dukes gentlemen, to Sieur de Rotois, gentleman of the Kings game.; Adrian Hucher ministre d'Amyens, mis à l'inquisition des passages de la Bible de Genève. English	Véron, François, 1575-1649.; Catcher, Edward, 1584?-1624?	1616 (1616)	STC 24675.5; ESTC S107356	29,473	96

clause you cite two textes 1. Texte I am the liuing bread that came dovvne from heauen if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer and the bread vvhich I vvill giue is my flesh vvhich I vvill giue for the life of the vvorld Iohn 6. Vers 51. Examen First I reade not in this text signes which testify but this expressely that Christ is the liuing bread not comon bread made of flowre and baked but which is his flesh which sayth he I will giue for the life of the world As also in the geuing of it he sayd Take This is my body which shal be giuen for you Was it a signe or figure of his body which was nayled one the crosse was it not his proper body This clause then is false 2. The ministers whoe haue promised to propose nothing but the pure Scripture how doe they thrust vppon vs this clause so weighty The body of IESVS Christ is not contained and included within the bread nor the blood c. Without any written word see theyr fraude and how well they keepe theyr word in a matter of greatest moment 2. Texte IESVS tooke bread and hauing giuen thankes brake it and said take eate This is my bodie vvhich is broken for you do this in commemoration of me In like manner after supper he tooke the cuppe saying this cuppe is the nevv testament in my blood this do ye as often as you shall drinke therof in remembrance of me 1. Corinth 11. Vers 24. Examen Who can finde out in this texte Signes which testify figure signe of the body of IESVS Christ which is not in the bread nor the bloud in the chalice all which the article teacheth The text then helpes them nothing nay how could the text more cleerly reiect the aduersaries beleefe which is that the body is not vnder the bread nor the bloud within the chalice Let the Caluinistes consider if they be abused or no The Ministers haue entred bondes to shew by the pure word That the supper is a signe which tesstifieth a figure of the body of our sauiour which is not vnder the bread and of the bloud which is not within the chalice and to cancell theyr obligations they bring for paiment this texte of Scripture in which being it is written downe if you reade it not eyther you want your sight or they deceaue you Rather see you not the contrary then say they are doubled iuglers An other clause of that Article After affirming that IESVS Christ doth nourish and quicken vs with the substance of his body and of his bloud that which the Catholickes beleeue also they add in which we disagree without aledging any texte for the same wherefore put vnderneath for proofe a cypher as before 1. VVe hold notvvithstanding that this is donne spiritually Proofe o. 2. The supper is a figure of the body or In the supper is figured the bodie of IESVS Christ Proofe o. 3. Because the misterie of this supper is celestiall it cannot be taken but by faith or to vse their vulgar phrase by the mouth of faith Those vvhich bring vvith them a pure faith as a vessell receaue trulie that vvhich the signes testifie commonlie they say That in the supper is eaten the bodie of IESVS Christ by the mouth of faith and in the 53. Sunday of their Catechisme it is said to haue the veritie of the Sacrament vve must lift vp our hartes to heauen vvhere it is Proofe o. Behold many articles and of greate consequence proued by a Cypher Behold how you are abused The Ministers make you beleeue all this not being able to shew for it any texte of Scripture The consequence will be that your supper is purely their owne inuention This by your principles I shew For you haue no pure textes which say that which you affirmatiuely beleeue of the supper of which you hold those three thinges aforesayd principally It is figure c. that by the mouthe of fayth the body eateh c. you should distinctly sett downe that which of our fayth you deny in this matter from that which therein you positiuely beleeue for how be it that we did erre of which I haue shewed the contrary and that your negatiue propositions IESVS Christ is not in the Eucharist and the like were true it followeth not that that which you affirmatiuely beleeue most needes be true and that you erre not therein Because one goeth wrong one way is he which takes an other certaine to goe right may not both be out of their way Examine therfore your assertions and you finde not any shew of textes that teache that the supper is a figure of the body c. nor which speake of the mouth of faith Consequently your whole supper is a humane inuention Which being so in my opinion in the eating a good capō or a cock you may more easely remember the death of the sonne of God for that therein is made mention of the crowing of a cock then in eating a bit of bread For which cause you shall do more prudently to make of them a figure memorie then of a peece of bread which is no more holie then that you eate commonlie at your table It may be that some Caluiniste thinking himselfe better skilled in the Scriptures then the Ministers which composed the Confession of faith and cited for proofe therof those sacred textes they iudged most fauourable will vrge to prooue the supper to be a figure that which our Sauiour said Iohn 6. Vers 63. It is the spirit which quickeneth the flesh proffiteth nothing the words which I speake vnto you are spirit and life For awnswere 1. You must vnderstand that your Ministers are at variance whether in the 6. of S. Iohn anie thing be spoken of the supper Caluin in the fourth booke of his Instit cap. 17. § 33. Kemnicius and Zuinglius deny it How then will you establish this firme article of your faith vpon so weake a foundation doubted of by these of your owne faction How can you serue your selues of that passage against vs either for your figure or for your Spiritually 2. I reade not in this text figure and if anie one say that spiritt and figure is all one I may not beleeue him without his proofe and that by the pure Scripture And who perceaues not how ridiculous this deuise is the diuells are spirites are they figures the Angells and our soules are spirittes are they also figures God himself is he not a most pure spiritt is he a figure it belongs not to me to explicate this place I only shew that the pure word saith not that which the article conteineth consequently the Ministers mock vs. Yet by the way knowe that the sense of this texte is that our Sauiour would not giue vs to eate his flesh dead and in peeces as we eate of the ordinarie flesh as the Capharnaites imagined to eate of flesh in this manner proffitteth nothing

article that IESVS Christ only Aduocate Let vs come to the 20. Article These are the wordes Article 20. VVe beleeue that vve are made partakers of that iustice to witt Christian by faith alone Textes cited in the Margent of this Article Man is iustified by faith vvithout the vvorkes of the lavve Rom. 3. Vers 28. Man is not iustified by the vvorkes of the Lavve but only by the faith of IESVS Christ Galat. 2. Vers 16. Before faith came vve vvere kept vnder the lavv shut vp vnto that faith vvhich vvas to be reuealed Therfore the lavve vvas our Pedagogue in Christ that vve might be iustified by faith but vvhen that faith is come novv vve are not vnder a Pedagogue Galat. 3. Vers 23. Examen I reade not one word in all these textes of the workes of Christian faith of which alone and of no others we speake and hold necessary to iustification It is manifest that this pure word alledged speaketh of workes of the Iudaicall religion styled commonly by S. Paul by the name of the Lawe and not of the workes of Christian Religion These passages therfore say onlie that Christian faith without Circumcision and other ceremonies of the Iewes doth iustifie Who denieth this is this all one or as much as to say that Christian faith without the workes which proceed from the said faith in IESVS Christ as is penance doth iustifie Which is that the article teacheth Wherfore this pure worde seconds not that which the article sayeth I am amazed at the impudency or ignorance of the Ministers S. Paul discoursing so largely in fiue whole chapters of that epistle to the Galathians against those which would ioyne with Christian faith Circumcision and other workes of Iudaisme and the very titles of those chapters in the Geneua translation noting the same yet the aduersaries will alledge these against them who hold that Christian workes are necessarie to iustification Open but the epistle and thou wilt detest such abusers the whole epistle sheweth that which I say It shall suffise for proofe heereof to cite the words of the. 5. chapter 2. verse Behold I tell you that if you be circumcised Christ shall proffit you nothing and I testifie againe to euerie man circumciding himself that he is a debter to doe the whole law you are euacuated from Christ that are iustified in the law You are fallen from grace for we by faith exspect the hope of iustice In IESVS Christ neither circumcision auaileth ought uor prepuce but faith working by charity Do not you falsefye doth not S. Paul teach in these laste wordes the contrarie to your article The Apostle opposeth Christian Religion which is called faith in Christ vnto the Iudaicall religion which is named the lawe and teacheth that this later is not necessary to iustification but that the former suffiseth and doth not oppose Christian faith to Christian workes The last texte cited for the foresaid article hath as little energy as the precedents it is this of S. Iohn 3. Vers 15.16 As Moyses exalted the Serpent in the desert so must the sonne of man be exalted that euerie one vvhich beleeueth in him perish not but may haue life euerlasting For so God loued the vvorld that he gaue his only begotten sonne that euery one that beleeueth in him perish not but haue life euerlasting The word only of which only is our variance and which is in your article teaching that faith only iustifieth is not in this text wherefore this vnles you add thereto the word only makes nothing to your purpose and how often doth this speech to beleeue in IESVS Christ signifie to professe the Ghospell and liue according to the same for faith saith S. Iames in the 1. chapter 17. verse If it haue not workes is dead Doth not S. Paul Galat. 5. Vers 6. say that that which iustifieth is faith working by charitie Doth not our Sauiour pronounce this sentence if thou wilt enter into life keepe the commaundements But I am not bound to prooue that faith alone without Christian workes doth not iustifie it is you that are engaged to prooue by the pure worde that that alone doth iustifie alone I say for of that alone doe we dispute In the 11. article it is said that Article 11. Originall sinne after Baptisme is still sinne as it is a fault hovvbeit the condemnation thereof is taken avvay in the children of God vvho of his mercifull goodnes doth not impute it vnto them In proofe of this is alledged one only place in the margent Rom. 7. Vers 7. Texte VVhat shall vve say then is the lavve sinne God forbid but sinne I did not knovv but by the lavve for concupiscence I knevv not vnles the lavv did say thou shalt not couet Examen Here is not in the text one word contained in the article wherefore this Confession promising to say nothing but by the pure word abuseth vs in this point Go on Let vs examine the 36. and 37. articles which speake of the B. Sacrament which since it is obscurely spoken of for more perspicuity I will borrow somewhat out of your Catechisme The 1. clause of the 36. article VVe testifie that the Supper is a testimonie of the vnitie vvhich vve haue vvith IESVS Christ vvhose body you say in your Catechisme in the 53. lesson or Sunday is not included vnder the bread nor his bloud vvithin the chalice that vve must not seeke him in these corruptible elementes For proofe you alleadge this texte Text. The cuppe of benediction vvhich vve do blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ and the bread vvhich vve do breake is it not the communion of the bodie of Christ for being manie vve are one only bread and one only body for vve all partake of one only bread 1. Corinth 10. Vers 16.17 Examen I reade not in this text testimony of the vnity with IESVS Christ the text therfore agrees not with the article But I reade communion of bloud communion of body which is a different matter from testimony of vnity with IESVS Christ and sheweth that the body of IESVS Christ may be founde in these corruptible elements vnder the accidents of bread and wine which this article denieth An other clause of the same article In the supper are Signss which testify that the body and bloud of IESVS Christ serueth no lesse for the soule to eate and drinke then bread and wine doth for the body These Articles say not in expresse termes that the body of IESVS Christ is not in the Eucharist to couer with obscurity theyr errour to disperse this darknes I must borrow some light from theyr Catechisme in the 53. lesson we must not sayth it vnderstand that the body is inclosed within the bread nor the bloud within the chalice but contrariwise to haue the verity of this sacrament we must lift vp our hartes on high to heauen where IESVS Christ is and not seeke him in these corruptible elements For this