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
A50002	O basanos tes aletheias, or, The touch-stone of truth wherein verity by scripture and antiquity is plainly confirmed, and errour confuted / delivered in certain sermons, preached in English by James Le Franc ...	Le Franc, James.	1663 (1663)	Wing L942; ESTC R11511	73,260	166

the accidents that is what you see of the consecrated bread so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this demonstrates the body of Christ sub speciebus vel accidentibus panis under the accidents of the bread for say they this Proposition this is my body is the Will and Testament of our blessed Lord where sigures are not admitted as being something obscure But first I have shewed you that this Proposition this is my body is not a proper saying but a figurative one by the nature of all the Sacraments which are the same in signification and use in the New as they were in the Old Testament as S. Paul evidently teacheth us 1 Cor. 10.23 for saith he they were all baptized in the cloud and did all eat not onely among them but also with us the same spiritual meat and so S. Austin lib. de utilit poenit saith that whosoever apprehended ● Christ in the Manna cundem quem nos cibum spiritualem comederunt did eat the same spiritual meat which we do eat which saying of Austin made such an impression on the Jesuit Maldonat that he said if S. Austin had lived in his time he had changed his opinion seeing that the interpretation of the Protestants which he calls Calvinists is almost the same Maldonat on S. Job 6.50 num 80 81. As for what they say that it is a Testament we confess it with them but we say that the expression of our blessed Saviours Will is figurative and tropical as it doth appear by what we have said and by S. Luk. 22.20 where you read after Christ had said this is my body this cup is the New Testament in my bloud which is confirmed by S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.25 for it is evident that the cup was not the testament and it will not much serve them to say that this passage hath two expressions where the first must be rendred so this is the cup the new testament in mybloud the second this cup is the new testament in my bloud because the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is is exprest in 1 Cor. 11. and omitted in S. Luk. 22. for although in the first expression the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is is taken by them properly because it was a cup that Christ presented to his disciples nevertheless they confess a sigure is in the 2d expression for they say that in that expression the cup is taken for what was in it and that the testament is that by which we have right to the Covenant but it is certain that that which they will have distinct is but the same thing and the same Proposition in that passage of S. Luke of the Corinthians to signifie that the cup or the wine in the cup is the signe of the New Testament confirmed by the bloud of Jesus Christ Concerning tropical locutions which are not admitted as they say in testaments as being something obscure I say that it is not always so seeing that they themselves use them for illustration and it is clear enough that sigures have places in testaments let them consider the testament of Jacob Gen. 49. that of Moses Deut. 33. and that of David 2 Sam. 23. and they shall with us observe them to be allegorical moreover besides the Civilians observe that in mens Testaments there are oftentimes sigurative expressions for which they have some restrictions which cause them to say that in Testaments they must not come to a proper or strict signification of words Cum plerumque abusivè loquuntur testatores seeing that the Testators oftentimes speak improperly I say if the humane Testaments should be so plain that there should be no figures it would not follow that there should be none in divine and spiritual Testaments for in a humane Testament there are nothing but Legacies and express commands which ought to be plainly understood but in a divine and spiritual Testament there are mysteries to exercise our understandings our faith hope and patience as the Learned men most judiciously observe there are some things for this life and some things for the life to come some things are clearly seen and some things darkly perceived Moreover in humane Wills men ought to speak plainly because they can speak no more when they are dead but in the spiritual Testament which is here mentioned the Testator can speak after his death as you know that he did and doth truly know it for Christ after his ascension into the glorious Palace of his Father sp●ke unto S. Paul who was the grand Persecutour of his sacred members Act. 9.4 5. as now by his holy Spirit he speaks unto us and makes the Church understand as much as he pleaseth and as much as is necessary for the glory of his Father and her eternal salvation By this you may see that our Proposition this is my body importeth nothing else but this bread signifies or is the signe of my body and indeed if the body of Christ were corporally in the Sacrament under the accidents it should there be passible that is subject to alteration and sufferings or impassible that is not subject to any alterations or sufferings but the body of Christ cannot be there passible or subject to any alteration for if it were so he should be there with all his dimensions in order to a certain place otherwise he could not suffer as they will confess with us and so the body of Christ could be divided which they will not grant in the Sacrament saying that it is totum in tota hostia totum in qualibet parte hostiae wholly in the host and wholly in every part of it and although Pope Nicholas forced Berengarius to recant in those words I Berengarius assirm that Christs slesh is sensually handled and broken by the Priests hands in the Sacrament and grinded by the teeth of the saithfull nevertheless they will not admit of that expression and confess it is not so insomuch that the gloss on the Canon de Consecr distinct 2. cap. Ego Berengarius affirms it to be a worse heresie then that of Berengarius unless it be soberly understood for generally they hold that Christs body is in the Sacrament sub speciebus panis impassibly which yet cannot be for if it were so his body had been a glorious body before his resurrection impassibility being one of the chief qualities of a glorious body as they confess with us for you know that Christ did celebrate the holy Sacrament before his death moreover if the body of Christ were impassible under the accidents in the Sacrament I would ask them the Apostles having consecrated at his death whether Christs body had been alive or no in the Sacrament I suppose they will not say that it had been alive for in the same time it had been alive in the Sacrament under the accidents and dead in the grave which is a manifest contradiction nor dead I hope for that should be contrary to their assertion of Christ

agrees not with the Scripture which shews us the ascension of Christ into heaven to be after his death nor can I conceive that it was every where in the state of his exaltation from the very instant of his resurrection or that of his session at the right hand of his Father for if it were so such an alteration in humane nature could not have been without a wonderfull signe as being so prodigious that it cannot be conceived without the destruction of Christs body indeed it is impossible to apprehend a thing circumscribed in a place when it is not in a certain place fully contained but every where in all the places of the superiour and inferiour world which is the manner of being in a place that is attributed unto God privatively to all others for in all the School-Divinity in the old Philosophy and in nature there are but three natural proper waies of being in a place circumscriptivè desinitivè repletivè where you must observe that all corporal substances are circumscriptively in a place all the spiritual but finite substances as angels and souls of men separated from their bodies definitively and God alone is repletively in many places for it is that manner of being in a place by which God is distinguished from his creatures because God not his creatures nec loco includitur nec loco excluditur nec loco circumscribitur nec loco definitur is neither included in a place nor excluded from any Indeed I cannot imagine how it came to pass that the body of Christ which was before in order to a certain place circumscriptively should be now every where and made ex finito non finitum from finite not sinite besides you must know that Christs body is not every where because it is a glorified body for if it were so all glorified bodies would be every where nor because the humane nature is united with the divine to the person of the Son of God for it was so from the very instant of his conception which teacheth us that the body of Christ is not in the bread with the bread and under the bread but if you instance and say then follows the separation of the two natures of Christ I answer that such a thing doth not follow for although the humane nature of Christ be not every where yet the divine nature is and therefore it cannot be separate from the humane nature then it remains that this is my body is nothing else but this bread is the signe and sacrament of my body Now it may be that you will say by all what you have said we cannot well gather how Christ is present in the Sacrament but rather it seems that you deny the presence of our Lord in it To which I answer and say that Christ is present in the Sacrament but you must observe that by the Sacrament I understand the Sacramental action in concreto comprehending the signe and the thing signified according to which sense our Learned Doctours use to say that Christ is not present in the bread but in the Sacrament because in the Sacramental action the thing signified Christ our blessed Saviour is given together with the signe to the beleever but observe that Christ is present in the holy Sacrament not locally but sacramentally significativè spiritualiter virtualiter signisicatively spiritually and virtually for you must know that besides the local presence of a thing of which we have spoken and which we have said was threefold there are also presences of 3. several sorts which are of another nature for there is a symbolical and significative presence which is when a thing is present unto us by some mark or signe as our brother and sister is present unto us by their picture the second presence is a spiritual presence which is when by faith things that are not present locally are made present spiritually as the day of Christ was present to Abraham although it came to pass long after him above 2000 years after as we reade S. Joh. 8.36 where Christ saith unto the Jews Abraham rejoyced to see my day whether it was his birth or his death upon the Cross it matters not he saw it by saith and was glad as now we see and touch Christ for as S. Ambrose de Sacrament lib. 5. c. 4. saith fide lang●ur side videtur non langitur corpore non oculis comprehenditur Christ the bread of life is toucht by saith and seen by faith and that spiritually not corporally which is consirmed by Christ himself S. Joh. 6. where you may observe against Bellarmin and others of the Church of Rome that Christ speaks de re Sacramenti of the thing signified in the Sacrament the slesh and bloud of Christ which we receive by saith not de ipsis signis of the external signes of it which we corporally and materially receive the third presence is a presence of vertue which is when a thing which is far from a place is nevertheless present by its vertue as you may see in the Sun which being far distant from the Earth yet is present unto it by its vertue Now you must know that all these presences are to be found in the holy Sacrament for Christ with his body and bloud is there present first symbolically and significatively for he is represented unto us by the external signes of bread and wine secondly spiritually because in the spiritual reception of the Sacrament we apply unto our selves the body and bloud of Jesus Christ by faith and so we are united unto him and spiritually nourished with his body and bloud thirdly Christ is present in the Sacrament with his body and bloud virtually for in the worthy participation of the Sacrament we receive the fruit and vertue of his death and passion but observe that the first presence of Christ which is symbolical is given to the wicked but the spiritual and virtual presence to the faithfull although then the body of Jesus Christ is as far from us as heaven is from the earth yet the real Sacramental presence remains for you may know that presentia alicujus rei non opponitur distantiaesed absentiae the presence of a thing is not opposed to distance but absence and so you may see that these presences do not contradict our assertion but do rather confirm it and oblige us to say that this is my body signifies nothing else but this bread is the signe and Sacrament of my body Now let us conclude with Application and learn from thence the great and exceeding affection of our Lord towards us who would not expire upon the Cross before he had given us the precious token of our redemption was it not enough for our blessed Saviour to assume our humane nature to manifest in it his Father unto the corrupted world and propose by it his sacred counsel to sinners Was it not enough for our blessed Saviour to be made flesh with the weaknesses and infirmities