Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	blood_n	new_a	testament_n	2,270	5	9.7867	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A11443	The rocke of the Churche wherein the primacy of S. Peter and of his successours the Bishops of Rome is proued out of Gods worde. By Nicholas Sander D. of diuinity.	Sander, Nicholas, 1530?-1581.	1567 (1567)	STC 21692; ESTC S102389	211,885	679

sense This cuppe that is to say the liquor and drinck conteined in this cuppe is the new Testament in my blood the which liquor conteined in the cup being so the new testamēt in my blood is shed for you Marke vvel But no liquor conteined in the cup is shead for vs beside the substantial and real blood of Christ therefore the liquor conteined in the cup after the woordes of Christ once spoken is none other liquour beside the substantial and real blood of Christ. To auoide this argument Beza who was at a point neuer to yeld in his heresie would nedes signifie that S. Luke doth not wel reherse Christes woords and therefore he himself hath rehersed them better yf yet he shall be credited more then the Euangelist But lette vs also see the wordes of Beza in his Comment vpon this place Qui pro vobis effunditur In Oliua Rob Stephani 1556. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quum haec verba si constructionem spectemus necessariò non ad sanguinem sed ad po culum pertinent neque tamen de vino nedum de poculo intelligi possint aut manifestum est Solaecophanes quū dicendū fuerit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut potius cū haec essent ad marginem annotata ex Matthaeo Marco postea in contextum irrepserunt Whereas these words which is shed for you if we looke to the constructiō doe necessarily appertaine not to the blood Mark his cōfession but to the cuppe and yet they can not be vnderstand of the wine and much lesse of the cuppe either it is an euident apparence of incōgrue speach where that is readē in the nominatiue case He correcteth S. Luke which should haue ben readen in the datiue or rather whereas these woordes were noted out of Mathew and Marke in the margent they crept afterward into the text See for Gods loue this mans owne confession First the participle shed in Greeke can not agree with nowne blood because in Greeke the participle is the nominatiue case and blood is the datiue case Doth Beza cōfesse this much and yet doth he the contrarie O vnspeakeable malice Againe the participle may and must agree with the nown cup with whome it is of the same case gender ād number why then doth Beza refer the participle to an other noune Thirdly the participle can not be vnderstanded of the wine for wine was not shed for vs and that Beza cōfesseth Fourthly it can not be vnderstanded of the material cup literally for it can not be shed for vs as being no liquour but gold or syluer or some like massy stuffe All these things Beza cōfesseth Wel what followeth then in truth it only followeth that the cup is neither meant the matter and stuff of the cup nor the wine which now is no more in the cup but it is meant the blood in the cup made of the wine For so the word cup standeth to signifie that which is in the cup Math. 26. Marc. 14. as all men know that haue common sense and that is in the cup which Christ pronounced saying this is my blood cat Therefore Beza should haue confessed the fifth point The true sense of S. Luke to wit that the blood of Christ conteined substātially in the cup and made there present by changing the wine into it is the new testament in Christes blood that is to say it doth testifie vnto vs that Christ by his bloodshedding vpon the crosse is our sacrifice recōciling vs to God The which blood so mysticallie conteined in the cup is shed for vs because the substance of that in the cuppe and of that which is shed on the crosse is all one substance the difference being onlie in the outward foorme and not in the inward truthe So that whereas Christes blood was really shed for vs on the crosse in his owne foorme that which is mystically conteined in the cup vnder the foorme of wine is the self same blood made also present after the sort of a mystical sacrifice to represent in the truthe of Christes own substāce made inuisibly present the great visible sacrifice openly made vppon the Crosse This only was the whole meaning of S. Luke the which thing if Beza would not haue lerned of the catholik church he should haue learned it of S. Luke at the least for his woordes geue that sense But he would not learn it of S. Luke because he had hated it in the Catholike Churche perhaps before he knew what S. Luke wrote For these men profitte more by spite then by reading They first chose to forsake the Church and then if any thing make for the same Church be it epistle be it gospel it shall soner be false Greeke and false Latin to then they wil come into the Church againe I pray you what a shamelesse point is this to teach that S. Luke wrote false Greeke and did put the nominatiue case in stede of the datiue case well therein Beza would not stand ouer longe But he rather thīketh that the words which is shed for you are not at all of the Gospel but crept in or were put in O God! All their auncient Greek copies haue it by his own confession al our Greek and Latin copies haue it also Yea our masse booke hath it to And yet now we must thinck that it is an errour crept in If this glose may be admitted euery thing which in holy scripture maketh against the furiouse opinion of any mēber of Antichrist shal be a thīg that out of the margent crept into the text O Satanical pride of our ꝓrestāts where is the obedience you pretend to Gods word where is the reuerence which ye ought to geue and we doe in dede geue to the blessed gospel of Christ which reuerēce is so great amōg the Catoliks that we dare not chāge a letter nor a point neither in the Greeke nor Latī copies except we finde it so in many auncient and well corrected bookes and those well knowen to many witnesses and that by the iudgemēt of a Synod But albeit al you know not so much yet now learn that your heads and your false preachers are so maliciously sette that if the gospel be not conformable to their cōmodite and preiudicate opiniō be he Luke be he Iames be he Iohn he shal be made as light of as euer was any Pope of Rome Looke vp at the last for Christes sake and consyder that you are held captiues of rauening wolues who spoile your soules of all their spirituall treasures ād feede you with mere dreames and phantasies the which yf you amend not before at the hower of death will bring you to desperation and to euerlasting fire of hel Other places I could bring where the Protestants haue thus abused Gods own woorde but it would carie me to far away from my principal purpose Only this I assure you of The Pope hath no such custom to say S. Luke

ouer euery man and euery thing without conforming them selues to any superiour authority Yea what shall we say if the Protestants will not only be supreame iudges ouer the meaning of Gods woorde but also ouer the bookes themselues and ouer the reading thereof For beside that they reiect the bookes of Tobie of Wisedō and of the Machabees with certaine other parts of holy scripture from the Canon of Gods woorde thei also reiect the epistle of S. Iames and that was done not onely by Martin Luther who called it stramineā of no more force then a straw is An. Dom. 1●66 Confessio edita Tiguri but euen this last yere of our Lord there came forth a Confession of the faith printed at Zurich whereunto all the Sacramentaries of Zuicherland yea also the preachers of Geneua gaue their assent and consent as the title of the booke doth witnesse In which booke it is saied that S. Iames is to be reiected if he be cōtrarie to S. Paule The which heathenish saying doth presuppose that S. Iames may be contrary to S. Paule and in that case he is to be reiected say they Their wordes are Iacobus ille dixit opera iustificare non contradicens Apostolo renciēdus alioqui Cap. ● that fellow Iames said that works doe iustifie not speaking against S. Paule otherwise he were to be reiected No man could say this much of S. Iames but he who thought it possible for S. Iames epistle to be no holy scripture Euseb li. 1. cap. 23. For if it be clerely admitted as it hath ben alwaies amōg true Catholiks for holy scripture then if it could be contrary to S. Paule it were no more true that S. Iames should be deceaued then S. Saule For of that which is confessed to be the woord of God there is noe difference at all But one Holie ghost speaketh with like authority in al his instruments Psal 44. whatsoeuer they be Therefore this pestilent opinion is priuily fostered among the Protestantes that S. Iames epistle is not the vndoubted word of God and thereof can they geue none other reason but because he is contrary to their deuilish doctrine of only faith A false opinion For whereas they say that S. Iames meaneth that workes declare our iustification before men and doe not in deede iustifie before God it is stark false which thei say For he saith What good shal it do Iacob 2. if a man say himself to haue faith and haue not woorkes shall his faith saue him Behold he speaketh of works necessary to that iustification whereby we are saued before God and not to that onlie whereby we are declared iust before men For saluation dependeth of God only and not of men at all The which thing may be proued out of S. Iames by diuers other arguments For he speaking of Abraham whom no man saw offering vp his sonne beside God alone saith Iacob 2 that faith was made perfit of woorkes and concludeth generallie a man is iustified of woorkes and not of faith onlie And againe faith without works is dead Therefore if the Protestāts wil haue faith without works to iustifie they wil haue a dead faith to iustifie Whensoeuer S. Paul said that faith did iustifie he meant of faith Rom. 3. S. Paules meaning Galath 5. which worketh by loue as himself hath declared And when he saith that faith iustifieth without works he meaneth without works which goe before iustification and not without charity or loue of God Rom. 5. which is spread in our harts by the holy ghost at the tyme when God louing vs first 1. Ioan. 4. maketh vs beleue and also to loue him and so doth iustifie ād rectifie vs which were his ennemies before The which loue being infused to vs with a right faith doth cause vs to bring foorth such good works Ephes 2. as God hath prepared for vs to walk in and by those works our former iustification is increased and fortified according as we read Apoc. 22. qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc he that is iust let him be iustified as yet Thus doe all the Catholike Fathers expound the one Apostle both by himself and by the other In lib. de 〈◊〉 operi c. 14. in so much that S. Augustine confesseth an olde errour to haue sprung vppon S. Paules words to the Romans not well vnderstanded for which cause he testifieth that S. Iames S. Peter S. Iohn and S. Iude wrote their epistles all in commendation of charity and of such good woorkes as be ioyned with faith And S. Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians doth also wel declare what faith he would haue to iustifie for asmuch as he saith all faith to doe no good 1. Cor. 13. yf a man haue not charity Now when the Protestants perceaued that of all other S. Iames was most plaine against their onely faith they first did cast a smoke before mens eyes as though his woordes might be defended And yet when they considered that solution woulde not serue they gaue an other that S. Iames is to be reiected if he be contrary to S. Paule Neither onely doe the Protestants make themselues iudges ouer whole bookes and epistles of the Apostles but also ouer the very letter of Christes Gospell For beside their wicked interpretations thereof they finde fault with the construction of the Euangelists and bring the text it self in dout For whereas S. Luke witnesseth Luc. 22. that Christ said in his last supper this cup is the new testamēt in my blood which that is to say which cuppe is shed for you whereas the participle shed is manifestly referred in the Greeke text of S. Luke vnto the cup and not vnto the name blood yet Beza translating the Greeke woordes into Latin In his notes vpō that place of s. Luke readeth thus Hoc poculū est nouum illud testamentum per sanguinem meum qui pro vobis effunditur He shoud haue said quod and not qui. This cup is that new testament by mie blood which that is to say which blood is shed for you S. Luke then readeth which cuppe but Beza readeth Os impudens which blood is shed for you Was there euer any like impudency heard of as to correct the verie text of the holy Gospel But perhaps Beza did finde it so in some copies No surely For he himself confesseth in his annotations printed at Geneua vppon that place in this wise Omnes tamen vetusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant Yet all our old bookes had it so writen that is to say so as the Greeke copies euery where extant doe read In al which the participle shed can not be referred to the blood but vnto the cup. What is then the matter why Beza would nedes translate it otherwise forsooth S. Luke in this kind of reading is directly against his sacrementary heresie For S. Luke geueth vs the words of Christ in this