Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	confirm_v	new_a	testament_n	8,389	5	9.6949	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33078	The Church of Rome unmask'd, or her false principles briefly detected with some reasons of so many retaining or returning to communion with her, and the great danger of everlasting destruction, that such persons, especially after separations from her, return to her communion, do run themselves on / written by a learned divine, by way of letter to a friend in the country.	Learned divine.	1679 (1679)	Wing C4196; ESTC R18501	78,331	77

Omnipotency will make the one as possible as the other Or that the same thing that is shut and hung up in the Pix being a Consecrated Host is the same numerical body that is glorified and gloriously appears in Heaven also what was eaten by the people in their receiving eating what of it was given them But we may see how these men straining the words of Christ where they please as they do also some expressions of the Ancient Fathers make the word of God subject to their wills and pleasures and where they please they will grant a Figure and where they please they shall be properly and literally understood yea and strained beyond their litteral expression for Christ said no such thing as this is transubstantiated into or is the substance of my very body as they say though the like absurdities following upon the litteral sence of or collection from it as would from taking the other expressions litterally makes it necessary to understand them figuratively and sacramentally in the one place as well as in the other It 's true that in this Supper Christ would have us and it 's necessary for us to abstract or withdraw our minds from the consideration of the bread and wine in their own proper substances and to fix them only upon the body and blood of Christ whereof they are a communion or communication 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so to have no more to do with those Elements in our thoughts in a manner than as if there were no such matters only as they may occasion us to meditate and consider that his flesh is meat indeed the true bread and everlasting nourishment of our Souls and his blood or the New Testament confirmed by it Drink indeed a most comfortable matter of refreshing for the Soul to take into it's believing consideration and so spiritually and sacramentally to feed upon his flesh and blood But to impose upon peoples Faith that the things which they see with their eyes to be very bread and wine are very Christ his very flesh and blood yea God-man their Saviour and to cause them to worship them is a very gross departure from and abuse of Christ's institution and of his command for our observation of it And why may they not as well impose upon mens faith that St. Peter after he Confessed Christ was transubstantiated into a hard stone and his flesh blood and bones yea his Soul and body and all was metamorphiz'd into a Rock For our Saviour said unto him Tues Petrus in the Syriac Cephas which in our English Language signifies a stone Mat. 16.18 with Jo. 1.42 here is Christs assertion as plainly of Peter as there of the bread And if the word Est is imply the substantial change of the bread in the one why may not the word Es thou art imply the substantial change of Simon Bar-Jonah in the other And why may it not be as rationally believed that his flesh and bones yea Soul and body were immediately and substantially turned into stone living stone as that the bread was changed into the body of Christ substantially seeing the Omnipotency of God was as well able to do the one as the other And that is pleaded as sufficient for our Faith to believe this And so St. Peter was a living walking Stone that had not the substance of either flesh or blood or bones in him though the appearance of them all to the sences Yea and why may it not be as well imposed upon mens Faith that Christ himself is so changed in his substance into stone too For he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the living stone 1 Pet. 2.4 and that the Altar that Jacob built at Shechem was transubstantiated into the Essence of God because Jacob Consecrating it called it El Elohe Israel God the God of Israel Gen. 33.20 Surely they are strangely infatuated or obstinately wilful that cannot or will not see the absurdity of this Doctrine of theirs so contrary both to sence and reason and so void of any solid ground for it in the Holy Scriptures Object Oh but they will say they are the Church and their judgment is to be taken as the infallible truth and therefore if they did assert the like changes and transubstantiations in other things then they were to be believed too For our Faith is to be resolved into their sayings as our Saviour tells us that they that hear not the Church are to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans Ans But to that it 's said and shewed before that they are not the Church Catholique but only a part of the Church and a very corrupt part too To which I add that I find it injoyned to us that we should hear Christ the great Prophet of God in all things which he shall say unto us but I find it no where injoyned us that we should hear the Church in all that she shall say unto us And that the Scripture here quoted by them to serve their design is perverted by them from it's true and genuine intent rnd scope For our Saviour did not there intend nor speak any thing as signifying an intent to teach us to build our Faith or belief of the Scripture-sayings or the Exposition of the Scripture upon the Authority of the Church or it's sayings much less of any uppermost party that unduely challenge to themselves the title and appellation of the whole Church much less the Church of Rome But his discourse is evidently about offences given by any sinning Brother which being evident in themselves might by any particular person against whom they were committed be reprehended and faulted and in case the party offending would not hear a private admonition then it should be reproved by the same person again taking one or two persons as witnesses with him who might also join in reproving or admonishing him And if still he harden his heart and retain his offensive or evil way or practice then they should declare it to the Church who might all testifie their dislike or give him a joint admonition of the same fault And if he hear not them in such joint admonition given them by the Church then the offended Brother might disclaim communion with him and leave him as no more to be owned by him than an Heathen man or a Publican Here is nothing of the Church's giving the object of faith to be believed or of her being to be heard in whatsoever she shall say though never so contrary to sence or reason or to the Scripture sayings or to the commands of God and Christ but of the Chuch's admonishing an offending Brother who being admonished by her ought to hear the Church therein But that 's in no other thing than in what he ought to have heard first the offended Brother in upon his own private admonition or the offended Brother with one or two joining with him upon his slighting the admonition given by the offended Brother alone But

in English I some time since a Block of Figtree was But now I for a God do firmly pass And do not the Papists after the same sort while that which was as to it's matter Corn growing in the field and after that was reaped threshed ground in the Mill kneaded in the Trough and baked in the Oven some parts of the same dough or mass being taken and eaten another part of it is taken and consecrated by the Priest with some words said over it and then thenceforth it is called taken for and worshipped as God The very Person of Immanuel God with us though it be equally in the hand and power of men to dispose of it as they please to cast it away or burn it in the fire as to the power of possibility as the Trunk or stock of the Consecrated Tree was for it 's some time shut up in a Box while it may mould Nay Fryar Aegan in his Recantation Sermon preached in London April the sixth 1673. having been Confessor General in the Kingdom of Ireland and Guardian of the Friory of Monasterioris in the Province of Lemster tells us pa. 6th That coming to a publick house to refresh himself he found that a Lewd Priest had pawned the Consecrated Host to the woman of the house for five thirty shillings possibly enough as the price of his drunkenness or of some worse prankwith the Hostess that he the said Fryar Aegan redeemed it with this remark as he saith that Christ was made by him not an Offering for sin but a Sacrifice for his Lust See here if those latter persons are not worse than the former the Heathen Idolaters For they did not either teare their Block in pieces when they had made him a God these teare him with their teeth as the Lateran Councel exprest it nor did they use to pawn them as this Priest pawned what he called his Saviour so as had not the Fryar redeemed him which they worship as their Redeemer might have laine in captivity and bondage till he had been utterly lost or spoiled Oh sottish error and ignorance Oh but our Saviours words together with the Omnipotency of God must be made to bear the burthen of all these absurdities But why must these words this is my body be prest to so undue and absurd a service when many others of like import are lest at liberty therefrom Did our Saviour call the bread or that thing he gave his Disciples God-man or did he require them to kneel down and worship it as these men do That would have been to the purpose indeed but in that he said take eat not take worship this is your God it may be well apprehended that they go herein besides his Warrant in what they do and that his words afford no ground for it Oh but he said this is my body and he is true and his words are to be believed Do these men think then that where ever our Saviour or the Holy Ghost calls one thing by the name of another to which it hath some reference or relation as is usual in Sacramental matters the thing is transubstantiated into the being and substance of that thing which it is named I suppose not For then the cup must be transubstantiated into the New Testament For our Saviours words are as express in the other part of the Sacrament for that as they are for this they so grosly understand and impose upon the understanding of all others for so St. Luke and the Apostle Paul expresly render and relate his words likewise after supper the Cup saying this Cup is the New Testament in my blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic Calix Not this wine or this that is in this Cup but this CUP is the New Testament Would the word Is and the Omnipotency of God do such a Miracle in the bread as to transubstantiate it into the very body of Christ and will not the same do a Miracle here to transubstantiate the Cup into the New Testament No but here they are forced to grant a Figure Though the Omnipotency of God is able to make as great a change upon the golden or silver Chalice as upon the bread And I suppose the change is somewhat less For the New Testament is somewhat less than God himself a Covenant or Will made by him with us And may not a Divine Writing be as easily hid under the form of a silver Chalice as the Christ God man under the form of bread And yet here they notwithstanding Gods Omnipotency and Christs express saying allow a figure in the expressions and leave us the substance of the Cup entire and command not men to worship that thinking that by the Cup is meant that in the Cup though they think or would have others so simple as to think that what is in the Cup is transubstantiated into the blood of Christ that was shed for us and not into the New Testament and so that the Disciples drunk the blood of Christ really and verily out of that Cup though it was all as then in his veins But there is no more ground for their imposing the one than the other the wine more than the Cup except that it 's their pleasure so to do for both St. Luke and St. Paul render it so this Cup is the New Testament in my blood and they spake certainly the words and mind of Christ as truly as St. Mathew and St. Mark who render them thi● is the Blood of ●he New Testament and God is as able to effect the one as the other and the one is no less absurd than the other For if the wine in the cup or what was so be now really and substantially blood even that blood that was shed out of Christs ●●de for us Must not then the blood of ●●rist while his body is in Heaven be really and substantially separated from his body and so his body in Heaven is a bloodless body as oft as the Priest Consecrates the Cup and drinks what is in it or do they say that the body is in and with the blood as they say the blood is in the bread or body and therefore that alone is enough to be given to the people If so then flesh and blood and bones and all are in the Chalice too And no marvel then that they give not the Cup to the people if they believe verily that the flesh and bones of Christ are in it even the same that was born of the Virgin Mary and hung upon the Cross Nay it 's rather to be marvelled how the Priest dare venture upon them all to swallow them down They might as easily believe that the matter of the Cup be it silver or gold is turned into the New Testament and become a real Hand-writing of God though it appear still to our sences to be a cup as that the Priest swallows down his throat or the people eat very flesh bones and the same Miracle and