Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	blood_n	body_n	consecrate_v	3,119	5	9.9831	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A08329	The pseudo-scripturist. Or A treatise wherein is proued, that the wrytten Word of God (though most sacred, reuerend, and diuine) is not the sole iudge of controuersies, in fayth and religion Agaynst the prime sectaries of these tymes, who contend to maintayne the contrary. Written by N.S. Priest, and Doctour of Diuinity. Deuided into two parts. And dedicated to the right honorable, and reuerned iudges of England, and the other graue sages of the law.	S. N. (Sylvester Norris), 1572-1630.	1623 (1623)	STC 18660; ESTC S120360	119,132	166

persecuting the Church of Christ In this sort this place is expounded by Tertullian (f) l. cōtra Iudaeos l. 3. contra Marcionē and Ierome (g) Epist 17. ad Marcellā But others of them to wit S. Austin h and S. Bede (i) In cap. 17. Apoc. doe vnderstand by the Whoore in the Apocalips sitting vpon the seauen hils the generall all and vniuersall Citty of the diuell which in the Scripture is often called Babylon by the seauen hils is vnderstood the number of the proud and chiefly of the earthly kings So thus we find that according to either of the constructions deliuered by the aunciēt Fathers this former obiected text doth nothing at all touch Antichrist 4. In like manner our Aduersaries do vrge those words in the second to the (k) cap 2. Thessalonians Ita vt in templo Dei sedeat c. So as he is to sit in the temple of God Where the Apostle speaking of Antichrist the Protestantes wil needs haue him to meane that Antichrist shall sit in the Church of vs Christians forsooth because the Pope sits therin as head therof whereas the Fathers do interprete the former wordes of the temple of the Iewes which once was the temple of God and where according to the iudgments both of the Fathers and vs Catholiks Antichrist is to sit thus is this place expounded by Chrysostome (l) In hunc locum Ambrose (m) In c. 21. Luc. Hilary (n) Can 25. in Math. Cyril (o) Catech. 15. Hierosolym Hippolitus (p) Orat. de mundi consūmat Ireneus (q) lib. 5. and others 5. Against the Reall Presence they vrge the words of our Sauiour recorded by S. Iohn as is afore touched vz. The flesh profiteth nothing it is the spirit which quickneth Now that this place is vnderstood only of the carnall apprehension of the Iewes of eating grosly and carnally Christs body appeareth out of Chrysostome (r) In hunc lo●um Theophilact (s) ibidem Cyprian (t) In ser de coena Domini and Origen (u) l. 3. in epist. ad Rom. To the same end they produce those words Non y bibam ex hoc sanguine vitis c I will not drinke henceforth of the fruit of this wyne vntill that day as I shall drinke it new with you in my Fathers kingdome Drawing from these words which do tearme the cup wyne as if our Sauiour had spoken of the Cup consecrated that there was no reall change of bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ wheras we find that S. Luke (y) cap. 22. doth x Math. 26. make mention of two cups the one at supper wherof the former words were spoken the other after supper which our Sauiour consecrated and to which the former words had no reference And thus we find this place explicated answerably to S. Lukes relation by Ierome (z) in c. 26. Math. Bede (a) In c. 22. Luc. Theophilact (b) In cap. 22. Luc. 6. In denyall of auricular Confession and of Priests their authority for remitting of sinnes therby they produce the wordes of Christ recorded by S. Iohn (c) cap. 20. vz. Sicut misit me pater c. Euen as my Father sent me so I doe send you But Christ say they when he remitted and forgaue sin exacted not any particular enumeration of them as appeareth out of S. Luke (d) cap. 7. S. Matthew (e) cap. 9. Therfore we are not bound to any secret confession of our sinnes To which argument we answere that the former place of S. Iohn is not so to be vnderstood that the Apostles their successours were precisely bound to do all things after the same manner as they were done by Christ since by that rule then the Apostles ought not to baptize in (f) Act. 2. remission of sinnes because Christ without Baptisme did remit the sinnes of Mary Magdalen neither to giue the holy Ghost by imposition of handes since Christ gaue it by breathing (g) Ioan. 20. vpon the Apostles Therfore the former text alledged according to the expositiō of S. Chrysostome (h) In hunc locum doth import that our Sauiour said that he did send the Apostles as himselfe was sent because he gaue to thē the power of remitting or retaining of sinnes as himselfe had receaued of his Father or according to the interpretation of S. Gregory (i) Hom. 2● in Euang because he did send the Apostles to suffer persecution and death as himself was sent to vndergoe Lastly because according to (k) In hūc locum Cyril he did sēd them to performe the sayd office which himselfe was sēt to accomplish to wit to reclayme men from sinne to propagate the Church to preach the Ghospell And thus we see that though the Fathers do sometymes differ in literall exposition of certaine texts yet they all agree in this in which point we heere chiefly insist that they do not affoard any such sense wherin the Protestantes doe vrge them against the Catholike fayth 7. To take away auricular Confession they alledge those words of Ezechiel (l) c. 33. Quotiescunque ingemuerit peccator c. As often as a sinner shall grieue and lament I will not remēber his iniquities Out of which words they labour to proue that God only exacteth this repentance griefe of a sinner for the remission of his sinnes and not any auricular confession of them or absolution of the Priest To which we answere that neither of them is excluded by the sayd words since no man can grieue and lament for his sinnes in any auaileable manner but that he must desire al those meanes as confession therof and absolution which God hath instituted in his Church And in this sort we fynd that S. (m) Epist 91. ad Theodorū Leo doth obiect this very place against himselfe in this poynt and then thus answereth it Which exposition of his must needs be true since the former text if it should exclude confession and absolution by the same reason it should also exclude Baptisme yea fayth charity as necessary for the remission of our sinnes since a man may grieue for his sinnes only by reason of the temporall losse comming therby 8. Wheras against Freewill they vsually obiect that text of Isay (n) c. 22. vz. Omnia opera nostra c. O Lord thou hast wrought all our workes in vs yet we find that Ierome (o) In comment eiusdem loci doth p In hūc locum vnderstand those words of Gods chastisements of that people and Cyril (p) In hūc locum of Gods miracles and benefits shewed to thē So as neither of thē nor any other do vnderstand them in our Aduersaries sense 9. For proofe of Iustification by fayth only they vrge that saying of the (q) Rom. c. 3. Apostle Arbitramur hominem iustificari c.

eight verses alledged out of the psalmes (e) Psal 11. by S. Paul (f) Rom. 3. Sepulchrum patens est guttur eorum Linguis suis dolosè agebant c. and translated by the Protestāts and yet all the sayd verses are not to be found in any Hebrew text now extant as now they lye in S. Paul And thus much passing ouer diuers other places to shew that the present Hebrew is not euen in the opinion of our Aduersaries that same pure fountaine of which they at other tymes so much boast of and consequently not of that absolute truth in it selfe as to become the iudge of Controuersies but that the cristaline streame therof is troubled with some mud of corruption rysing eyther frō the negligence of the Printers in regard of the great likenes and resēblance of many Hebrew letters which might easily occasion a mistaking of one another or partly through the ignorance of the Rabbins who haue added pricks since the Hebrew first wanting pricks might be read seuerall wayes or lastly partly from the malice of the Iewes as being desirous to read the Hebrew in that sēse which might seeme least to fauour Christian religion That the Protestantes allow no Originall of the new Testament now extant as vncorrupted CAAP. III. IN the next place heere cōmeth to be examined the Greeke Original of the new Tement of which eyther all or the chiefest part was first wrytten in Greeke by the Apostles and Euangelistes This hath bene since in diuers places so corrupted euen by the acknowledgment of the Protestantes as that we cannot appeale securely therunto as to account it such as now it is the pure and vncorrupted word of God All such places to note is not needfull therfore some few shall suffice 2. And first we will exemplify that place of the Apostle (a) Rom. 12. for in the Greeke it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is tēpore sernientes where we read Be feruent in the spirit seruing the Lord for so do the Catholikes and Protestantes euen in their later editions translate and yet in all Greeke copies it is Be feruent in spirit seruing the tyme Which first manner of reading that it is the more true appeareth out of Origen Chrysostome Theophilact and other Greeke Fathers who euer read and explicated this place in their wrytings and Commentaries as the Catholikes and Protestantes do at this present 3. Againe the Greeke text readeth in the first to the Corinthians (b) 1. Cor. cap. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Secundus homo Dominus de caelo The first man is of the earth earthly the second man is the Lord from heauen But the Latin tanslation hath Secundus homo de caelo caelestis which translation euen Caluin (c) C. 7. Instit §. 21. acknowledgeth condemneth the other since it is cleare that the first reading proceeded from the corruption of Marcion as Tertullian (d) l. 5. in Marcionē witnesseth 4. I passe ouer the words adioyned in all Greeke copies to the end of our Lords prayer since they are acknowledged by our Aduersaries as part of the true Greeke the words be these For thine is the kingdome the power and glory c. though it is manifest that this sentence was added by the Grecians to the text both because the Crecians in their Liturgies do recyte the sayd words but not as continuing them with the Lords prayer as also in that Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose Ierome and Austin all who vnderstood the Greeke tongue do not make any mention at all of the former sentence which doubtlesly they would not haue omitted if they had found it ioyned with the sayd prayer in any authenticall Greeke copy 5. And thus much concerning our Aduersaries reiecting of the Greeke Originall in such places where it is certaine that it is erroneous Now we will adde a place or two wherein our Aduersaries do disclayme from the Greeke though most pure and vncorrupted In the genealogy of our Sauiour Beza leaueth out one descent in his translation which we find in S. Luke (e) cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui fuit Cainan in all Greeke copies speaking therof after this accustomed Lordly māner Non dubitamus expungere that is we make no scruple to put it out In like sort where S. Matthew giueth a prerogatiue to S. Peter in saying (f) Cap. 10. it being in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first Peter though it be thus in al Greeke copies yet Beza (g) In his Annotations vpon the new Testament set forth anno 1556. affirmeth that the Greeke text is here corrupted by some one who taught that Peter was the chiefe of the Apostles and the corruption sayth he consisteth in adding the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the text Lastly to auoyde prolixity I will end with that vnswerable place of S. Luke (h) c. 22. It being in all Greeke copies without exception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hic calix nouum testamentum in sanguine meo qui vz. calix pro vobis funditur that is This Cup being the new Testament in my bloud which vz. Cup is shed for you This is the true translation in that the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must of necessity agree in all Greeke cōstruction with the Greeke substantiue signifying the (i) vbi supra Cup and not with the Greeke substantiue the bloud it being of a different case from it Now Beza seing that by the construction of the Greeke it followeth that the Cup was shed for vs meaning therby the thing contained in the Cup but wine was not shed for vs but the bloud of our Sauiour Therfore his bloud was in the Cup when he sayd these words of consecration Beza (i) vbi supra I say foreseing this ineuitable illation pronounceth plainly that the Greeke text is corrupted meaning therby all Greeke Editions that euer were in his tyme and the Greeke word forcing this construction crept out of the margent into the text so making these words meere surreptitious And this now may suffice to shew that the Greeke Originall is neyther so absolutely authenticall in it selfe nor at least so acknowledged by our Aduersaries as that all other translations or doubts rysing in points of fayth may infallibly be tryed therby 7. Now to reflect somewhat vpon our argument drawne from the acknowledged corruptions of the Originalls of both the Testaments How can our Aduersaries with any shew of common vnderstanding pretend the Scriptures to be the only iudge with them when by their owne confessions they haue no true and authenticall Originall of such bookes only as themselues ioyntly acknowledge for Scripture What can our Aduersaries reply hereto Will they answere that such corruptions wherwith the Originalls are stained do happen only in such places as are not controuersiall and therfore the lesse materiall but that al those passages texts

(h) Ibidem c. 11. all which seuerall descriptions thereof being taken literally as they expound them do precisely make vp three yeares and a halfe and consequently cannot be applyed to the Pope And therfore our Aduersaries in answere to the sayd places are glad to say that in all those textes an vncertaine tyme is figuratiuely to be vnderstood though it be expressed diuersly by one and the same continuance of tyme. To proue that the Pope is Antichrist they commonly vrge that of the Apocalyps (i) cap. 17. where it is sayd that the whore of Babylon doth sit vpon that Citty which hath seauen hils meaning Rome Which wordes do not directly touch Antichrist but only by their supposed inference that by the whore of Babylon is meant Antichrist which they are neuer able to proue since therby is vnderstood Rome in the tyme of the heathen Emperours who then worshiped Idols and was drunke with the bloud of Gods Saintes In confirmation of the Reall Presence we vrge the sentence of our Sauiour recorded by all the Euangelistes to wit This is my body c. Which text being literally taken doth containe expresly the very conclusion maintayned by vs not by circuitions or ambages but directly plainly immediatly So as it cannot be conceaued how our Sauiour could speake more perspicuously in this poynt 6. Now against the Reall presence our Sacramentaries do chiefly obiect that saying of Christ (k) Ioan. 6. It is the spirit which quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing Which wordes do not fall directly vpon the question of Christ his Reall Presence in the Sacrament Neyther is so much as Christ his flesh vnderstood hereby as they would seeme to inferre since then it would follow that his Incarnation and death auayled vs nothing but only the carnall conceite of the Iewes is cheked hereby who thought that Christ would deliuer his body to be eaten fleshly corporally and carnally as other common meates are eaten 7. To the same end they o●●●ct those words of Christ Do this in remembrance of me which place by no necessary or probable illation can include the true absence of himselfe which is the poynt in question since they haue a referēce only to a circumstance of himselfe to wit of his death passion which as being past is absent in remembrance wherof he commandeth vs in the former wordes to receaue his sacred body and bloud in the Sacrament of the Eucharist conformably to that speach of S. Paul (l) 1. Cor. 11. mortem Domini annunciabitis do nec veniat You shall shew the death of our Lord vntill he come the Apostle so interpreting Christs former words 8. To proue that Priests in the Sacrament of Pennance where by putting God in remembrance of our sinnes he soonest forgetteth them and in acknowledging our selues to be sinners we cease to be sinners haue power to remit or retaine sinnes we alledge the playne wordes of our Sauiour to them (m) Math. 18. whatsoeuer you shall loose vpon earth shal be loosed in heauen as also those words recorded by S. Iohn (n) 20. Whose sins you forgine they are forgiuen them and whose sinnes you retaine they are retained Both which places in plaine direct immediate construction containe in themselues the very touch and poynt of this controuersy without any inference or circuition at all since they giue a direct and streight proofe of the conclusion it selfe to wit that Priestes haue power to remit or retaine sinnes For denyall of Priests authority in remitting or retayning of sinnes our Sectaties are accustomed to produce that text of the Psalmist (2) Psalm 50. Tibi soli peccauimus we haue sinned only against thee inferring herby that because we sinne only against God therfore only God can remit sinne which inference if it were true then should it by the same reason take away the vertue of Baptisme for remitting of Originall sin They likewise obiect certaine places of (3) Psalm 18. 37. Scripture which shew that we are not able to number all our sinnes and consequently not able to confesse them to the Priest which illatiō is most weake since it maketh as must against the Confession of ous sins to God as to the Priest 9. For confirming the Doctrine of Freewil the Catholikes do alledge among other authorities these following In arbitrio (p) Num. 30. viri erit siue faciat siue non faciat that is It is in the choice or will of a man whether he will do or not doe As also Optio (q) Iosue 24. vobis datur eligite hodie quod vobis places Choice is giuen to you chuse that to day which pleaseth you And againe Quoties (r) Math. 23. volui congregare c. How often would I gather togeather thy children as the hen gathereth her chickens and thou wouldst not All which places directly and flatly teach that we haue frewill to do and not to do Now our Aduersaries for denyall of this Doctrine are accustomed to alledge chiefly such places where it is sayd that all things are done according to the will and counsell of God As for example that of Christ as if the eternall Word of the Father came downe to destroy that former wrytten word of God Vnus passer (s) Math. 9. c. Not one sparrow shall fall vpon the ground without your Fathers will And againe Qui (t) Ephes 8. operatur omnia c. Who worketh all thinges according to the Counsell of his will Both which texts besides diuers others of the same nature conclude nothing except first they be able to proue that the Will Counsell and Foreknowledge of God cannot stand with mans freewill The contrary wherof is most cleare as appeareth by the example of Adam who by our Aduersaries (u) Caluin 1. l. Instit c. 15. §. 8. Luther in comment in Gen. acknowledgment had freewill to stand or fall and yet his fall was neyther meerely contrary to Gods will since he permitted the same nor to his foreknowledge and prouidence since he foreseeth all things 10. Concerning Iustification by works the Catholikes Conclusion and Position is found literally and euē in those words wherin they vsually expresse this theyr Doctrine since we read in S. (x) c. 2. Iames That ex operibus iustificatur homo c. A man is iustifyed by workes and not by fayth only In like sort where our Aduersaries doe obiect any place against vs the very distinction sometymes such is their scarsity and dearth of pertinent texts which the Catholikes do vse to auoyde their argument is literally expresly set downe in the words of those texts Thus we fynd that they vrge to this end those words of the Apostle Arbitramur (y) Rom. 3. hominem c. we account a man to be iustified by fayth without the workes of the law as also that other vz. Scientes (z) Galat. 2. c. Knowing that man is not iustifyed