Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	blood_n	body_n	bread_n	35,000	5	8.1520	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A74986	An antidote against heresy: or a preservative for Protestants against the poyson of Papists, Anabaptists, Arrians, Arminians, &c. and their pestilent errours. Shewing the authors of those errours, their grounds and reasons, the time when and occasion how they did arise; with general answers to their arguments taken out of holy scripture and the ancient fathers. Written to stay the wandering and stablish the weak in these dangerous times of Apostasy. / By Richard Allen, M.A. sometime Fellow of Penbrooke [sic] Colledge in Oxford.	Allen, Richard, b. 1604 or 5.	1648 (1648)	Wing A1045A; Thomason E1168_2; ESTC R208803	57,457	159

therefore it ●s not a thing indifferent because it is an ordinance of Christ nor yet absolutely necessary to salvation as hath been said before Baptism is called the lavacre of regeneration Tit. 3.5 and Joh. 3.5 it is said Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God not that any part of our Regeneration is ascribed to water but only by water the office of the Holy Ghost is declared as also by fire Mat. 3.11 which some mistaking did brand their children with a hot iron Though the outward washing of water then be not the very washing away of sin yet it is so called the sign borrowing the name of the thing signified for the more forcible perswasion of our hearts and stronger confirmation of our Faith that our eyes are not fed with bare signs but presented with the thing it self and that our sins are as certainly done away by the blood of Christ as our bodies are cleansed by the washing of water To let pass those ridiculous toies of salt spittle and other stuff used by the Papists the main difference at this day among us is concerning circumstance of time The Pelagians and Anabaptists deny Infant-baptism and both upon the same ground With this Errour of the Anabaptists many godly people are entangled that are free enough from the rest of that pestilent Sect. Their Reasons are 1. Because there is neither precept nor example for it 2. Infants do not beleeve but it is sayed Acts 8.37 If thou beleevest thou mayst be baptized Answ It is answered To the first That there is both precept and example for Infant-baptism the precept is Mat. 28.19 the examples are Acts 16.15 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 where Infants are included as part of the nations and housholds and although there be no express command for baptizing Infants yet seeing also there is no express exception they must be baptized or else those general precepts and examples including all both Infants as well as men are not followed and observed And if it be sufficient Reason against Infant-baptism that there is no express precept or example for it then let the Anabaptists themselves for shame leave off that shameful stripping and dipping their proselytes or else shew me where they have any express command or example for it Object Secondly They that do not beleeve must not be baptized but Infants do not beleeve Ergo. Whosoever doth not labor shall not eat 2 Thes 3.10 But Infants cannot labour Ergo. Answ Both these Arguments are somewhat alike and neither good because that is drawn to Infants which belongs only to men of years And indeed this latter is the better of the two because it hath an express text for confirmation which the other hath not But to remove that rub of the Anabaptists out of the way concerning the Faith of Infants We say 1. That they have reasonable souls faculties of understanding and will which are the seat of Faith and the weakness of the Organs cannot hinder the power of the Holy Ghost to work Faith in them if he please 2. Without Faith there is no salvation if Infants then have not Faith the Anabaptists must shew some other way of salvation besides Faith in Christ or else conclude that all Infants dying are damned but yet I hope they will not pass this cruel sentence upon them unless they provide a Limbus or place of ease for them as the Papists do 3. Circumcision is the seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4.11 And yet it was administred to Infants Infants therefore ought to be baptized and as good reason there is to baptise as there was to circumcise them 4. We have many presidents of children that were regenerate and sanctified as of Jeremiah John Baptist c. who were filled with the Holy Ghost from the womb and if children have the Holy Ghost then they may be baptized Act. 10.47 Can any man forbid water that these should be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we 5. Our Saviour himself testifieth in express words That Infants beleeve in him Mat. 18.6 And that babes and sucklings confess him and bear witness unto his name Mat. 21.16 And did grace them with many favours own them for the children of God taking them in his arms laying his hands upon them and blessing them saying That to them belongs the Kingdom of God Who then shall be so bold or impious to refuse and reject those that our Saviour himself received and embraced so lovingly giving such gracious testimoneis of them with whom God entered into Covenant as well as with their parents Gen. 17.7 And unto whom the promises of God were made as well as unto them Acts 2.39 But say the Anabaptists how shal we know that children believe And saith one If I had a certificate from God that a child believes I would not stick at his Baptisme Let them tell us what infallible certificate they have for men of riper years And whether they do not plunge more hypocrites and unbelievers in their flouds then we sprinkle at our fonts is a question to be made But the Anabaptists contradict themselves crossing one Argument with another overthrowing their own grounds and destroying the foundation that themselves have layd As for their stripping it is against common honesty and modesty and that dipping is not necessary to be used is clear by their own Argument because they have no where one express word of command or warrant for it And also the blood of Christ is called the blood of sprinkling Heb. 12.24 And as it was typified under the Law by divers sprinklings so it is exprest under the Gospel by sprinkling as well as dipping CHAP. XXVI Of the Lords Supper Truth THE Lords Supper is the Sacrament of Preservation in the Church wherein by the signs of bread and wine are signified sealed and exhibited to every faithful receiver the body and blood of Christ for his spiritual nourishment and continual growth in him unto life everlasting Adversaries of old were many that did either despise and refuse this holy Sacrament or abuse or prophane it either mingling adding or altering and changeing the Elements and substituting others in their places But to let them pass at this day the principal Errours Errours are these three Antidote The first is of Transubstantiation and that holdeth that after the words of Consecration and by vertue of the same there is a conversion or turning of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ so that the very true and natural body of Christ is corporally present and carnally eaten in the Sacrament the substance of bread and wine being vanisht away nothing remaining thereof but only the outward accidents to serve the senses The first occasion of this heresie seems to be given by the Capernaites John 6.52 but was confirmed under this title by the Councel of Lateran called against Berengarius in

the yeare 1215 and this is now the opinion of the Papists followed with many Blasphemies Idolatries and ridiculous Mummeries The second is of Consubstantiation invented by some who to shun the absurdities of the former opinion fell into worse affirming That the substance of bread and wine and of the body and blood of Christ are joyntly or both together bodily present and eaten in the Sacrament the body of Christ being in with and under the bread The first Author of this opinion and the time when it began is uncertainly reported and although it were long before Luther yet it was taken up in haste by him about the year 1525. is still maintained by his followers and gave occasion to continue that bowing and cringing that was lately used to the Communion Table The third is of bare figure and only signification affirming That in the Sacrament there is nothing but bread and wine bare signs and no other presence of Christs body but only in figure and signification so that the faithful receive nothing but naked and bare signs The foundation of this Errour was layd about four hundred years after Christ by some Hereticks that came as short of this mystery as the Capernaites went too far making no account of this Sacrament saying that it did neither good nor hurt This Errour was set on foot again by Carolostadius a rash-brained man about the year 1524. and is now followed by the Anabaptists Antidote The doctrin of our Church Art 28. is the same that the Apostle delivers 1 Cor. 10.16 To all the three Adversaries together we say If there be nothing in the Sacrament but bare signs why doth our Saviour say of the elements This is my body and this is my blood And S. Paul The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ If his body and blood be not there at all And if his body and blood be there corporally and carnally present even whole Christ why then doth our Saviour say Do this in remembrance of me And St. Paul Ye shew forth the Lords death till he come 1 Cor. 10. And St. Peter That the heavens shall receive him to the end of the world Acts 3.21 Refusing then and denying both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation as more then our Saviour intended in these words This is my body c. And also bare signification as a great deal less we admit and acknowledg Transmutation or a change and that great and marvellous in the use of the Elements not in substance but in vertue power and operation The sanctified signs are in substance creatures in signification mysteries in operation the things themselves whose names they bear the change is in their operation and use and therefore also in their names For Christ hath honoured the Symboles with the names or appellation of his body and blood not changeing their nature but adding grace unto nature Theodoret in Dial. In the Sacrament then there must needs be more then bare signs or naked Elements for how should earthly bread be an Instrument of heavenly grace and life to quicken and strengthen the soul but by some great and marvellous change which change is not in the substance of the creatures but in their vertue power and operation and such vertue power and operation could not be unless the very body and blood of Christ were truly present truly given and truly received in the Sacrament And yet the body and blood of Christ is not present given or received corporally and carnally the bread and wine being turned into the body and blood of Christ as the Papists affirm For 1. It is contrary to the Scripture 1 Cor. 11.28 Where after consecration they are called bread and wine 2. It overthrows the nature of a Sacrament for where is no Element there can be no Sacrament 3. It is contrary to nature it self that an accident should be without its subject 4. Experience dayly shews that the Elements by continuance corrupt by eating nourish the body go down into the belly c. which cannot be said of accidents or of the body and blood of Christ 5. A carnal eating is unavailable to salvation by the Papists own confession unless it be done by Faith but receiving by Faith without carnal eating is available Concil Trident. Sess 13. c. 8. et Cat. Rom. Why then is it contended for Lastly It is contrary to their own Canon taken out of St. Augustine Can. Vt Quid. Object But Christ himself said This is my body the night before he dyed no time to utter dark Parables but plain words Sol. He took the cup also and said This is my blood Mark 14.23.24 If you understand it litterally then the cup and not the wine must be turned into blood but if here be a plain figure their subtilest Doctours cannot tell how to avoyd it then why not a time to speak in figures Why not This is my body a figure too But when our Saviour says This is my body he doth not intend to shew what the bread is but what his body is not that the bread is turned into his flesh but that his body is food for our souls even as bread is for our bodies It shews not any conversion of one substance into another but only the relation that is between them He which before called his body bread John 6. doth now call the bread his body that by this cha●ge of names we might understand and beleeve the change that is made by grace and not so much heed the things we see as mind the the things we see not Theod. Dialog 1. Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly This is no meat for the belly but for the mind beleeve and thou hast eaten Augustine in Joan. Tract 25. ad cap. 6. 2. Consubstantiation is farther from the truth then Transubstantiation neither so possible nor probable It is not so likely or agreeable to our Saviours words who says This is my body and not my body is in with or under the bread And yet they are both gross Errours and the occasions of gross Idolatry They are both far from our blessed Saviours meaning when he spake the words This is my body from the Apostles sense 1 Cor. 11. From the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers who call the elements signs figures types c. of the body and blood of Christ and particularly St. Augustine says the words this is my body are to be understood in a figurative not a litteral sense l. 3. de Doct. Christ And besides they are impossible in nature But setting aside that barren opinion of bare sign and figure the question between us and the rest is not about the substance of the thing for we confess That the very body and blood of Christ is given and received all the question is about the manner they say it is corporally and carnally we grant indeed it is really if by really you understand truly and indeed but yet that it