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	jesus_n	12,126	5	6.1739	4	false

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

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

not his power it is Gods grace that makes us his servants not our own will More testimonies might be brought but whom these few will not suffice thousands more will never satisfie Cui pauca non sufficiunt plura non proderunt Concil Arausic cap. 25. Object But if it be so God may seem unjust to require that of us in his Law that we are not able to perform Sol. Not at all for in our first Creation God gave us sufficient abilities which we lost by our own voluntary fault according to that Eccles 7. God made man upright but they have found out many inventions It is not unreasonable then or unjust with God to require his own of us again though we have prodigally lost or mispent it Object If man hath no power in himself to do good to what end then are exhortations admonitions precepts promises or any preaching Sol. They are not in vain but the means ordained of God to soften our hearts and bend our wills to his Will St Paul saith God worketh in us both the will and the deed and yet ceaseth not to exhort us unto both Our Saviour invites us often to come unto him and yet faith No man can come unto me except the Father draw him Ioh. 6.44 CHAP. VII Of Christ his Person Truth IN this miserable and forlorn plight the merciful God left us not to our selves hopeless and helpless but sent his Son to take our nature upon him that being perfect God and perfect man he might fully satisfie for our sins and redeem our souls from death and hell Errours The enemies of Christ are of two sorts 1. The enemies of his person 2. The enemies of his office Of the first sort were Simon Magus Cerinthus Marcion Samosatenus Arius Nestorius and such Monsters whereof some denyed his Divinity others his Humanity Some the purity of his conception others the truth of it some confounded the two Natures denying their distinction others denying their union divided the person of one making two some said he took tne body but not the soul of man others that he took an aetherial or spiritual not a true body and such like They are seconded at this day by the unbeleeving Jews Turks and all Mahometans Antitrinitarians New-Arians Anabaptists Familists Socinians particularly by Mr Paul Best and others who deny the Divinity of Christ affirming That he was but a meer man some fear not to say He was a sinful man some That he was God but not from everlasting the Son of God but not before his incarnation God by merit office or excellency of gifts not by nature and generation The Anabaptists say he brought his flesh with him from heaven and took it not of the Virgin The Familists turn the Incarnation of Christ into an Allegory holding That every one of their family is Christ and the taking in of their belief is the Incarnation Having discourse once with one of them he would not say Christ came or was come but is now come in the flesh Christ is now come in my flesh said he and now I speak Christ speaks to you So also Mr Erbury By flesh saith he is not meant the humane nut are but the coming of Christ is the manifestation of the Godhead in the flesh of Saints Antidote Against these hellish Blasphemies we oppose these heavenly Truths First That our Lord Jesus Christ is very God Isai 9.6 Vnto us a child is born c the Mighty God Rom. 9.5 of whom Christ came who is God over all blessed for ever 1 Tim. 3.16 God manifest in the flesh Rom. 1.4 Declared mightily to be the Son of God c. Secondly Christ is very man and had a true body taking flesh of the Virgin Mary therefore often called the son of man And 1 Tim. 2.5 The man Christ Jesus Isa 7.14 A Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son Mat. 1.20 She was found with child by the Holy Ghost Gal. 4.4 He was made of a woman 1 John 1.1 The Word of Life which we have heard which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have handled He had a true body then his humanity was obvious enough to all the senses If Christ be not God why do you adore him It is plain Idolatry to worship Christ if he be not God Cyril Alexand Cont. Eunom The second Nicene Councel Charged Nestorius with Idolatry because he affirmed Christ was a meer man yet adored him S. Paul condemns serving the creature Rom. 1.25 and yet professeth himself Servant of Jesus Christ Rom. 1.1 Therefore Christ is no meer creature or man Ambros lib. 1. de fide ad Gratian August c. 7. Arrians then Socinians Mr. Best and the rest that deny Christ to be God and yet grant that he ought to be adored what do they differ from Turks and Pagans that worship the creature Rom. 1.22.25 Professing themselves to be wise they become fools and change the Truth of God into a lye This then is Argument enough against the Arrians Socinians c. to prove the diety of Christ because according to their own divinity he ought to be served worshipped and adored The Heathen that knew God and yet glorified him not as God Rom. 1.21 And the Arrians Socinians c. that glorifie Christ as God and yet acknowledg him not for God are a like vain in their imagination and their foolish heart is darkned CHAP. VIII Of Christ his Office Truth THe Office of Christ being God and man is to mediate between God and man and reconcile them together again God who is angry for sin and man who is guilty of sin This Office is three-fold For 1. as a Prophet he doth instruct his Church 2. As a Priest he makes satisfaction and intercession for it 3. As a King he gathers and governs it Adversaries are those that affirm 1. Errours That Christ is Mediator only in respect of his divine nature So Osiander 2. That he is Mediator in respect of his humane nature only So Stancarus And of this opinion are the Papists who most wickedly set up other Mediators also besides Christ even Saints and Angels whom they pray unto to intercede for them But the Papists are enemies to every part of his Office 1. To his Kingly Office in that they make the Pope head of the Church 2. To his Priestly Office in that they set up other Mediatours and Intercessours besides Christ and other satisfaction for sin besides that which he hath made 3. To his Prophetical Office in subjecting his holy Word to the Authority of the Church Judgment of the Pope a sinful man and equalizing traditions and humane inventions with the same Against these Errours we teach Antidote and are taught 1. That there is but one God and one Mediator between God and man the man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2.5 He maketh intercession for us Rom. 8.34 Heb. 7.25 The Saints do not hear us or know our wants Isai 63.16

we have in Christ carnally thinking that now we are freed from all care of good works and may follow what course we please Antidote That we ought to follow good works for the Reasons before named is evident by those places of Scripture Ephes 2.10 We are created unto good works that God hath prepared for us that we should walk in them Tit. 2.14 Who gave himself for us that he might purifie unto himself a people zealous of good works 2 Cor. 5.10 Rev. 20.12 We shall be judged at the last day according to our works therefore look to your works So 1 Pet. 2.12 2 Pet. 1.10 2 Cor. 13.5 Heb. 10.24 2 Cor. 9.2.3 And our best works have not that worthiness in them to deserve at Gods hand 1. Because they are imperfect Isai 64.6 They are a debt that we owe unto God Luke 17.10 When you have done all you can or are commanded to do say you are unprofitable servants for we do but our duty we must do them to serve not deserve 3. If they were perfect yet they are Gods not ours Phil. 2.13 He worketh in us both the will and the deed Joh. 15. Without me ye can do nothing 4. If we ascribe merit to our works we make the death and merits of Christ either unnecessary or insufficient Object But eternal life is called a reward Rom. 2.6 Rev. 20.12 et 22.12 Sol. There is a reward of debt and a reward of grace it is the Apostles own distinction Rom. 4.4 Heaven and eternal life is a reward of grace not of debt God hath made himself a debter to us not by receiving any thing from us but by promising all things to us August in Psalm 132.2 It is said we shall be rewarded not for but according to our works the merit of works is plainly set aside and when God doth crown our works he doth but crown his own gifts August Enarr in Psalm 102.3 The Apostle calls the reward of sin wages because it is of due debt but eternal life he calls a gift because it is not of debt but grace Rom. 6.23 4. The Kingdom of Heaven is called not the wages of servants but the inheritance of Saints or those whom God hath chosen for his children 5. The good man of the house i. Christ Mat. 20. payed at night all his labourers equal wages to shew that they received a gift of grace not a reward of works CHAP. XVII Of Death and Burial Truth THere is no man living that shal not see death for our life is but a race that will come to an end and when we have finisht our course here our body shall turn to dust in the earth and our soul return to God that gave it Errours Enemies to this truth were 1. The old Hereticks called Nazarens affirming That the soul of man and the soul of a beast were both of a like nature and substance from whence sprang up those Hereticks in Arabia the stony called therefore Arabici who affirmed That the soul of man dyes with the body even as the soul of a bruit beast doth 2. Others affirmed That the soul did not dye but sleep in the grave untill the day of Judgment Both these Errours are revived at this day by those that affirm The whole man is mortal And books are written of the mortality of the soul Pope John the 23. was of this opinion That the soul should not see God till the day of Judgment 3. Familists say They ought not to bury the dead because it is said let the dead bury the dead 4. And those are greatly to be blamed that despise Christian buriall and though not guilty of Heresie yet of inhumanity that expose their dead friends undecently or irreverently 5. The Papists account burial of the dead a meritorious work borrowing their authority from the book of Tobit The Reason why the Arabians were so easily taken with this Errour of the souls mortality was because they were Antidote and are at this day a very lewd dissolute and theevish people and this doctrine doth fit such peoples turn very well and the same may be the Reason it is received by many at this day happy were it for them if the soul dye or if it but sleep till the day of Judgment it cannot but be a little refreshing to the thoughts of wicked men that seeing their life so uncertain yet they shall not go presently into torment But Eccles 3.19 20. is to be understood of the state of the body after death for of the soul it is said v. 21. That the soul of man goes upward and the soul of a beast goes downward towards the earth Eccl. 12.7 The dust shall return to the earth as it was and the Spirit shall return to God that gave it Acts 7.59 Lord Jesus receive my Spirit Luk. 23.43 This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise That answer of our Saviour to the Sadducees Mat 22.32 puts the Adversary to silence for God is not the God of the dead but of the living Lastly The exceeding joys and hopes of good men and the fears and terrours of wicked men at their departures are sufficient Arguments that the soul sleeps not but goes presently to a place of joy or sorrow whereof the soul hath some secret inklings instinct or divine assurance and whereunto those hopes and fears seem to invite or usher it Secondly After the departure of the soul the body ought to be carryed to the grave and layed up in decent burial if not out of any regard to the party deceased yet out of reverence to the common nature of mankind or of pure shame of that frailty weakness and deformity that our selves are subject to The holy Patriarks and all Gods people of old were very careful of their Sepulchers or burying places as you may read and the Jews used many Ceremonies of comliness at their burials not out of any superstition but in a godly consideration of the Resurrection in the hope whereof those Ceremonies did seem to confirm them and as that doctrine grew clearer so these Ceremonies grew fewer as Tabitha her body was only washed Acts 9.37 And therefore we condemn those numerous superstitious and impious Ceremonies used by the Papists at their burials but yet still we should consider that the dead bodies of our godly and Christian friends are precious things and were the Members of Christ Temples of the Holy Ghost and shall at the last day be raised again and made like unto Christs glorious body in hope whereof in mean space we should lay them up with decency and reverence It is no matter to the dead but 1. It is an honor done to the common nature of mankind 2. A comfort to surviving friends 3. Many ways useful to all that are present CHAP. XVIII Of the Resurrection Truth ALthough our bodies when we are dead shall be turned to dust and ashes yet at the last day they shall be raised again

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