Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	body_n	break_v	shed_v	10,209	5	9.8212	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70111	An excellent discourse proving the divine original and authority of the five books of Moses written originally in French by Monsieur Du Bois de la Cour, and approved by six doctors of the Sorbon ; to which is added a second part, or an examination of a considerable part of Pere Simon's critical history of the Old Testament ... by W.L.	Filleau de la Chaise, Jean, 1631-1688.; Lorimer, William, d. 1721.	1682 (1682)	Wing F904; ESTC R28418	86,453	212

for many This is my Body which is given or broken for you because his Blood was not shed nor his Body broken till the Day after and yet it is most certain that he did speak those words when he instituted the Holy Sacrament the Night before his Death But then you will ask why did our Lord speak so why did he say This is my Blood which is shed this is my Body which is broken when neither was the one shed nor the other broken I Answer He did so because it was an ordinary way of speaking amongst the Jews to express themselves in the Preterit or Present Tense when they were talking or writing of a thing that was shortly and certainly to come to pass and therefore the Vulgar Interpeter attending more to the sense than to the bare words of our Lord renders them Hic est sanguis meus qui pro multis effundetur hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis tradetur this is my Blood which shall be shed and my Body which shall be given after the same manner may we understand the words of Moses as Israel did i. e. as Israel shall shortly and certainly do to the Land of his Possession besides there was this good reason why Moses should use the Preterit Tense because the thing he was writing of was partly past already Israel had already destroyed the Inhabitants of Two Kingdoms and taken actual possession of the Land and it was partly to be within a short time Israel was shortly to do so by all the other Inhabitants of the Land of his possession which God had given him Moses then having reason to write as he did Spinosa had no reason to cavil at the manner of his expression Fifteenthly He Objects Deut. 3. 14. and from these words Jair called them after his own name Bashan-havoth-jair unto this Day infers that this must have been written long after Moses Answer Some think that these words VNTO THIS DAY have been after Moses put in the Margin and in process of time have crept into the Text or else that Ezdras hath inserted them into the Text. But there is no necessity of Answering thus for First Moses wrote the Book of Deuteronomy some Months after Jair had taken the Countrey of Argob and called it after his own name Bashan-havoth-jair therefore Moses himself might very well say that the Countrey of Argob was called after the name of Jair unto this Day that is from the time of Jair his taking of it and calling it Bashan-havoth-jair unto the Day of Moses writing that part of the Book of Deuteronomy for there was nothing but truth in his so saying Secondly Moses wrote the Book of Deuteronomy not only for the present Generation but also for the Generations to come according to that of the Psalmist Psal 102. 18. This shall be written for the Generations to come and consequently knew that these words unto this Day would be further verified in after Ages Therefore he might purposely use these words unto this Day as intending thereby to signifie unto the Israelites in their several Generations that the Countrey of Argob was called after the name of Jair Bashan-havoth-jair from Jairs first taking of it unto their time there being then no falsity nor absurdity in the words unto this Day as here used Moses himself might very well be the Author of them nay they are so significant with respect to future Generations as I have shewed that Moses his Wisdom appears in choosing to express himself in such words as were actually true when he first spoke and wrote them and yet were to be further verified in all succeeding Generations so long as the Hebrew-Commonwealth stood so much for Answer unto Spinosa his Two Objections I have now gone through all that P. Simon hath written to prove that Moses could not be the Author of the Pentateuch I have examined all his Arguments and Answered every one of them there is not one good Argument amongst them all not one that can prove his position That Moses cannot be the Author of the Books attributed to him and verily many of them are I think such pitiful trifling things that a reasonable Man and Christian should be ashamed of them The reason why I meddle with no more of his Critical History than what concerns the Pentateuch is First Because this was defigned to accompany the precedent Discourse concerning the proofs of the Books of Moses and therefore I thought fit to deal with P. Simon only upon that point wherein he seemed to contradict what the Author of the excellent Discourse affirms and proves that so his Objections being all Answered that Discourse may remain firm and unshaken and in its full strength and that Infidels may not pretend that P. Simon has confuted it which is so far from being true that the vain succesless attempt of so great a Man as P. Simon is accounted to prove that Moses could not be the Author of the Pentateuch is an Argument that the thing is not practicable it cannot be done for if it could P. Simon is counted as able and to me seems to have been as willing to have done it as any other Man Secondly Because if the Divine Truth and Authority of Moses and his Law and of Christ and his Gospel be well secured our Christian Religion is secured in its main strength and fundamental grounds against Atheists and Infidels As for the rest of P. Simon 's Book I doubt not but some Men of greater Abilities for such a work than I will in due time thoroughly examine it and separate the Chaff from the Wheat allowing him his due praise where he hath done well and chastising him where he hath done evil you may guess by this that it will not be so difficult to do it as some may apprehend In the mean time if his vain Cavils at several expressions here and there in the Holy Scriptures should be a tentation unto any to think meanly of the Scriptures themselves I desire such if they can to read some part of Origens Philocalia Chap. 1. Pag. 4 5. in Spencers Edition at Cambridge 1658. and to consider that as Origen says Every one of the Works of God do not equally but some more and some less declare and shew forth the Glory of God in his Beeing and Providence after the same manner all the parts of God's written Word do not equally but some more clearly and some more obscurely evidence themselves to be of God And as there are some dark occurrences in Providence that tempt weak and sinful Men to doubt of God's Beeing and Providence just so there are some dark and difficult passages in Holy Scripture that tempt Men to doubt of the Divine Verity and Authority of of the Scriptures and yet as none but Fools Psal 14. 1. will disbelieve the Beeing and Providence of God because there are some things in his Nature and Providence which they cannot comprehend so no Wise Man will disbelieve the Holy Scriptures because there are here and there some passages in them which he cannot understand Lo they have rejected the word of the Lord and what Wisdom is in them says the Prophet Jeremiah Jer. 8. 9. Indeed there can be no true Wisdom in them who reject the Word of the Lord for his Word believed and practised is our Wisdom and our Understanding and makes us a wise and understanding People Deut. 4. 5 6 The Testimony of the Lord is sure making Wise the Simple Psal 19. 7. If ever then we would be truly Wise let us against all Tentations to the contrary esteem highly of and adhere stedfastly unto the Holy Scriptures of Truth for it is they that are able to make us wise unto Salvation through Faith which is in Christ Jesus 2 Tim. 3. 15. If what I have here written do contribute any thing towards the helping of Christian Readers to keep up in their Souls a due esteem of and reverend regard unto the Holy Scriptures and towards the strengthning of them against Tentations to unbelief I have obtained my end and desire them to let me have the help and benefit of their Prayers but let him have all the Praise who is the Father of Lights and the God of all Grace unto whom be Glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all Ages World without End Amen FINIS a Exod. 5. 1 2 3. 7. 1 2 3 4 5. 3. 14 15 16 17 18. 4. from 1 to 9. 6. from 1 to 8. Deut. 4. 9 to 24. b Exod. 20. 3 4 5 6 7 c. ibid. v. 20 22 23. 23. 13. Deut. 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10. 7. 1 2 3 4 5 6. 12. 29 30 31 32. 18. 9 10 11 12 13 14. Deut. 4. 32 to 41. Exod. 20. 24 latter part of the Verse Deut. 4. 7. c Exod. 20. 17. Lev. 19. 17 18. d Exod. 21. 13. Deut. 19. e Levit. 25. 23 c. f Exod. 21. 1 2 c. Deut. 15. 12 to 19. 24. 14 15. g Deut. 15. 6 to 12. Exod. 22 25 26 27. h Exod. 22. 21. Levit. 19. 33. 34. i Exod. 22. 22 23 24. k Exod. 20. 12. 22. 28. Deut. 17. 11. l Deut. 1. 16 17. 17. 16 17 18 19 20. 25. 1.

Heb. 7. 9. Thus all the 70 Souls came into Aegypt but the Text of Moses doth not at all say that all the 70 came into Aegypt at the same time and in the same way and manner Eighthly He Objects Gen. 35. 26. where Benjamin is counted amongst the Children that Jacob had in Mesopotamia and nevertheless Benjamin was not Born there but in the Land of Canaan I Answer I do not understand by what Rules of Reasoning P. Simon puts this passage amongst the disorderly Transpositions which he pretends to be in the Pentateuch for surely this seems rather to be a contradiction it being said in the same Chapter Vers 16 17 18. that Benjamin was Born at Ephrath And yet here is no real but only a seeming contradiction for to make a real contradiction it must have been said Benjamin was Born at Ephrath All these are the Sons of Jacob which were Born to him in Padan-Aram but now it is not said all these are the Sons of Jacob which were Born to him in Padam-aram but only These are the Sons of Jacob which were Born to him in Padan-Aram and this is most true without including Benjamin in the number of Jacob's Sons Born to him in Padan-Aram for the other Eleven were Born in Padan-Aram and there was no need here to except Benjamin by name because it was so clearly said but a little before in the same Chapter That Benjamin was Born at Ephrath in the Land of Canaan that no Reader could mistake so grosly as to think he was Born with the rest of Jacob's Children in Padan-Aram or Mesopotamia I pray mark the expression it is not said in v. 26. All these are c. but These are c. P. Simon pretends that there are Transpositions not only in the History but likewise in the Laws of Moses and therefore Ninthly and Lastly He Objects Exod. 22. 1 3 4. where says he to make a reasonable construction what is said of the Thief in the Third Verse must be joined with the First because there is a Transposition and then one ought to join the Fourth Verse with the First and moreover the words of the Fourth Verse if the Theft be certainly found in his hand alive ought only to relate to the Ox and Sheep which this Verse makes mention of and not to the Ass although that is spoke of in the same place with the Two other Animals I Answer All this is gratis dictum without one word of proof The words of the Law may be reasonably enough construed and well enough understood without the help of Pere Simons imaginary Transposition In the First Verse the Lord God determins in what proportion a Thief should make restitution for an Ox or a Sheep in case he have killed or sold them In Vers 2. The Lord God declares that if the Thief be found in the Act of breaking up and be killed the killing of him shall not be accounted Murther nor shall the killers Blood be shed for him provided it were in the Night and before Sun-Rising But in the Third Verse the Lord declares That the killing of a Thief in the Day time after Sun-Rising should be accounted Murther and that the Blood of the slayer should be shed for the Blood of the slain Thief and that for this reason given in the same Third Verse because he should not have been killed for the Theft but compelled to make full Restitution if he was able but if he was not able he should be sold for his Theft And in Vers 4. the Lord shews in what proportion he should be obliged to make Restitution in case the Theft were found alive in his hand not in a Five-fold nor Four-fold but in a double proportion for Ox or Ass or Sheep and thus all is clear enough in the Order wherein the Wisdom of God has placed things and there is no need to have recourse unto a Transposition as to what he Objects concerning the Ass in the Fourth Verse that though it be joined with the Ox and Sheep yet what is said of the Theft its being found alive in the hand of the Thief and of his making double Restitution in that Case ought not to relate unto the Ass but only to the Ox and Sheep I Answer This is a bold Assertion without any proof at all and there is reason to conclude the contrary that because the Ass is joined with the Ox and Sheep therefore what here relates to the Ox and Sheep ought also to be referred unto the Ass the Ass was a very useful Creature in those Eastern Countries and that may be the reason why it is joined with the Ox both here and elsewhere as in the Tenth Commandment I know not what use P. Simon may have for this Ass but it seems by what he writes that he would play the Thief and steal it out of this Fourth Verse of Exod. 22. which if he should do he would be guilty not only of Theft but of Sacrilege for this Ass stands upon Holy Ground Thus I have Answered all his Arguments that fall under the Second Head of Disorderly Transpositions I pass to the Third and last head of Arguments taken from several passages of the Pentateuch where he pretends there are such expressions as seem to intimate that Moses could not be the Author of them First He Objects Numb 21. 14. A Book says he of the Wars of the Lord of which mention is made Numb 21. 14. is an evident proof that the Histories which are related in the Five Books of Moses have been taken out of several Collections which have been lost I Answer It is denyed that the citing of the Book of the Wars of the Lord in Numb 21. 14. is an evident proof or indeed any proof at all of any such thing For First It is not so evident that it was a Book at all some think it was but a Song the Hebrew word Sepher does not always signifie a Book but Secondly Granting that it was a Book and not meerly a Triumphal Song it is not evident that it was a Book then already written it might be a Book to be afterwards written which Moses foreseeing by the Spirit of Prophecy refers unto this agrees with the Original words in the Text which are Al-ken Jeamar wherefore it shall be said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord c. yet Thirdly Granting it to have been a Book already written Moses his once citing a Testimony out of it doth no more prove that he collected his History out of such Books then Paul's citing a Testimony out of Heathen Poets Acts 17. 28. Tit. 1. 12. doth prove that he Transcribed his Sermons and Epistles out of the writings of Heathen Poets Secondly He Objects That the names of Hebron and Dan which are in the Pentateuch were not in beeing in the time of Moses Answer It is said but not proved that the names of Hebron and Dan were not in beeing in Moses his

be called by that name among the Hebrews for we see that God called it by that name and the signification of the name agreeing so admirably well with what followed thereupon it is not likely that ever it was wholly forgotten amongst the Posterity of Abraham If any should say that it may seem the name Moriah was given to that Land rather after than before the Lord had manifested himself to Abraham on the Mount I Answer First That can never be proved why might not the Lord God give it that name before-hand which should signifie what he was there to do on the behalf of Abraham The Text says That God bid Abraham get him into the Land of Moriah and their offer c. I Answer Secondly Granting that it was given to that Land after the Lord had manifested himself to Abraham on the Mount yet it does not follow that therefore it must be after Moses also and in Solomon's time when the Temple was Built upon Mount Moriah 2 Chron. 3. 1. Certainly it might have that name long before Moses and yet not have it till after Abraham had done offering the Ram instead of his Son for as Abraham immediately after called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh the Lord will provide with respect to the Answer which he had given his Son Vers 8. My Son God will provide himself a Lamb for a Burnt-Offering So he might at the same time call that part of the Countrey the Land of Moriah or the Land of Vision as the Vulgar Interpreter and Symmachus render it because there he had seen God in a most signal manner there God had given him a sensible and most convincing demonstration of his special Providence and of his peculiar discriminating Grace and Love to him and his Seed Thirteenthly and Lastly P. Simon Objects Deut. 3. 11. and thereupon says If we diligently read what is writ concerning the Bed of Og King of Bashan we shall find that those who have collected these Books have added some words to illustrate the words of the Text by conforming them to the practice and custome of their own times Answer I have diligently read what is there written concerning the Bed-stead of Og King of Bashan both in the Original and in several Translations and yet I do not find by what I read there either that any Body besides Moses collected those Books or that he who collected them hath added some words to illustrate the words of the Text by conforming them to the practice and custome of his own time I suppose P. Simon would have us believe that the last words Beammath Ish after the Cubit of a Man have been added to the Text after the time of Moses but he must first prove that there was no such distinction of Cubits known in the World in the time of Moses and so that Moses could not write these words which express one Member of the distinction methinks it is very easily conceivable that Moses himself might be moved to add this explication of his own words if we consider that there might be diverse sorts of Cubits than in use of which some might be longer than others now if it had been only said that Nine Cubits was the length and Four Cubits the breadth of the Giants Bed-stead the Reader would not have known what Cubits he meant and consequently would have still remained ignorant of the exact measure of the Bed-stead therefore Moses to take away all ambiguity adds for explication of his own words that it was the Cubit of a Man i. e. the common ordinary Cubit which was then so well known amongst the Israelites that there remained no more ground of doubting of what measure the Giants Bed-stead was and if any were so incredulous as not to believe Moses relation of the length and breadth of the Giant Bed-stead they might go themselves to Rabbath and there see it and measure it by the Cubit of a Man But some may say How came King Og's Bed-stead to be at that time in Rabbath amongst the Ammonites I Answer it might come to be there any of these Three ways 1. In time of War the Ammonites might have plundered the Countrey of Og King of Bashan and might have carried his Iron Bed-stead with other spoil into their own Countrey or 2. King Og being to fight with Moses and the Israelites at Edrei and fearing the event of the Battel as he had good reason might send his own Iron Bead-stead with many other necessary things to Rabbath to be secured for him amongst the Ammonites whither he might intend to flee in case he should be vanquished in the Battel at Edrei and be able to make his escape or 3. the Israelites having Conquered the whole Kingdom of Bashan and utterly destroyed all the Inhabitants King Og and all his Subjects taken all his Cities to the number of Sixty and possessed themselves of all that belonged to him or his People if this Bed-stead was in the whole Kingdom at that time it must of necessity fall into the hands of the Israelites and Israel being at Peace with the Ammonites they might come and Trade with the Israelites and especially at such a time they might come to buy part of the Spoil and amongst other things their curiosity might prompt them to buy the Iron Bed-stead of the Giant Og and to carry it into their own Countrey which in former times had been a Land of Giants as appears from Deut. 2. 19 20 21. and no doubt they might have ancient Monuments of those Giants whom they called Zamzummims remaining amongst them and those that wanted might be desirous to have by them some such Monuments of Giants to show as well as their Neighbours and this might be done before Moses either spoke or wrote the words of that Verse Objected by P. Simon Thus you see that any of these Three ways the Iron Bed-stead of Og might come to be in Rabbath of the Children of Ammon when Moses wrote the Book of Deuteronomy There are yet Two Objections against Moses his being the Author of the Pentateuch which I remember I have read in Spinosa his Tractatus Theologico Politicus and because I would omit nothing of any Moment that the Adversaries have written against the Truth which the Church of God believes and I defend I shall here set them down and Answer them as I have done with P. Simon 's Fourteenthly Then Spinosa Objects Deut. 2. 12. where it is said That the Children of Esau destroyed the Horims and dwelt in their stead as Israel did unto the Land of his Possession which the Lord gave unto them now he pretends that this could not be written by Moses because Israel did not destroy the Canaanites and take possession of Canaan till after his Death I Answer At this rate of arguing a Man might prove that our Lord Christ when he instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist did not speak these words This is my Blood which is shed