Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	life_n	power_n	soul_n	8,115	5	4.8720	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36764	A treatise, written by an author of the communion of the Church of Rome, touching transubstantiation wherein is made appear, that according to the principles of that church, this doctrine cannot be an article of faith.; Traitté d'un autheur de la communion romaine touchant la transsubstantiation. English	Dufour de Longuerue, Louis, 1652-1733.; Wake, William, 1657-1737.	1688 (1688)	Wing D2456; ESTC R229806	68,872	84

301. Jesus Christ saith Drutmar took Bread because Bread strengthens the heart of man and doth better fortifie our Body than any other food He therein establishes the Sacrament of his Love but this propriety ought much rather to be attributed to the spiritual bread which perfectly strengthens all men and all creatures because 't is by him we live move and have our being He blessed it He blessed it first Christianus Druemanes because as in his Person he blessed all Mankind then afterwards he shewed that the blessing and power of the Divine and Immortal Nature was truly in that Nature which he had taken from the Virgin Mary He broke it He broke the Bread which was Himself because exposing himself willingly to death he broke and shattered the habitation of his Soul to the end that he might satisfie us according to what himself saith I have power to lay down my life or to save it And he gave it to his Disciples saying to them Take and eat this is my Body He gave to his Disciples the Sacrament of his Body for the remission of sins and for the keeping of charity to the end that not forgetting this action they should always perform this in figure and that they should not be unmindful of what he was about to do for them This is my Body that is to say Sacramentally and having taken the Cup he blessed it and gave it to his Disciples As amongst all things which are necessary to preserve life Bread and Wine are those that do most of all repair and strengthen the weakness of nature It is with great reason that our Saviour was pleas'd in these two things to establish the Mystery of his Sacrament for Wine rejoyces the heart and increases blood therefore it is very fit to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ because whatsoever comes from him rejoyces with true joy and encreaseth whatsoever there is of good in us To conclude as a person that is going a long journey leaves to those whom he loves some particularpledg of his kindness on condition that they should look daily upon it to the end that they may retain him always in remembrance so in like manner God by spiritually changing the Bread into his Body and the Wine into his Blood has commanded us to celebrate this Mystery that these two things should make us never forget what he hath done for us with his Body and Blood and keep us from being unthankful and ungrateful for his so tender love Now because water is wont to be mingled with the Sacrament of his Blood this water represents the people for whom Jesus Christ was pleas'd to suffer and the Water is not without the Wine nor the Wine without the Water because as he died for us so also we should be ready to die for Him and for our Brethren that is to say for the Church therefore there came out of his side Water and Blood. This passage is taken out of the Commentary where the Author expounds these words of the Institution This is my Body by these other words That is to say in Sacrament which are words quite contrary to those of Paschasius for Paschasius said in his Letter to Frudegard Christianus Drutmanes fearing it should be thought that Jesus spake in Sacrament he said demonstratively This is my Body Ne putares quia in Sacramento loquebatur Dominus c. demonstrative dixit hoc est Corpus meum So Drutman makes a difference 'twixt the Body and the Sacrament which he establishes in the Bread and Wine which he blessed brake and gave to his Disciples he ascribes to the Wine only the dignity of representing the Blood of Christ and that to conclude the Bread and Wine are pledges of his Love. Therefore the same Author chap. 56. on these words I will drink no more of this fruit of the Vine until I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom from that very hour of Supper saith he he drank no wine until he became immortal and incorruptible after his Resurrection The Deacon Florus wrote about the same time Florus Diaconus an exposition of the Mass which is mention'd in the Bibliotheca Patrum Tom. 6. pag. 170. he there saith This Body and this Blood is not gather'd in Ears of Corn or in clusters of Grapes nature doth not give it us but it is consecration that makes it mystical to us Jesus Christ is eaten when the Creatures of Bread and Wine do pass to the Sacrament of the Body and Blood by the ineffable Sanctification of the Holy Ghost He is eaten by parcels in the Sacrament and remains whole and intire in Heaven and whole and intire in our Hearts Again All that is done in this oblation of the Body and Blood of our Saviour is a Mystery we there see one thing and we understand another what we see hath a corporal substance what we understand hath a spiritual fruit He saith Jesus Christ saith to them take eat ye all of this and speaking of the Cup The Wine saith he was the Mystery of our Redemption and he proves it by these words I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine To conclude Explaining these last words of the Canon By which O Lord thou daily makest these good things for us which contain a kind of Thanksgiving which in the Latin Liturgy does follow the Consecration he sufficiently intimates to us that he did not believe the Bread and Wine were changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ seeing he speaks of them as things God had created from the beginning of the world which he creates every year by propagation and reparation which he sanctifies which he fills with Grace and Heavenly Benediction the which himself expounds to be Bread and Wine See here Nine or Ten Authors contemporaries with Paschasius which are formally contrary to his Doctrine besides those which Paschasius himself speaks of in general in his own Writings To conclude the Ninth Century there might be added the manner that Charles the Bald and the Count of Barcelona signed the Peace which was done with the Blood of the Eucharist as is reported by Monsieur Baluze in his Notes on Agabard out of Odo Aribert in the year 844. It was in the same manner that Pope Theodore in the Seventh Century signed the condemnation of Pirrhus the Monotholite as appears by Baronius on the year 648. § 15. That the Fathers of the TENTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation ALferick Archbishop of Canterbury about the year 940. AGE x. in one of his Sermons to be seen in the Fourth Book of Bedes Ecclesiastical History cap. 24. Alferic A. B. Cant. which we have Copied in the Library of St. Victor saith The Expurgat Index Orders these words to be blotted out The Eucharist is not the Body of Jesus Christ corporally but spiritually not the Body in which he suffered but the Body of which he

under the old Testament did and we now do eat a corporal food and that we drink a corporal liquor Now by this corporal meat and drink we must understand either the accidents of Bread and Wine or the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or the Bread and Wine it self It cannot be spoken of the first because the accidents of Bread and Wine are only qualities or dimensions now qualities and dimensions are not corporal The quality is something which is incorporeal saith Nemesius of the Soul as concerning dimensions S. Austin de genesi ad literam saith We call that a Body which taketh up some space by its length by its breadth and by its depth Nemesius gives the reason of it because saith he nothing that is immaterial is a Body for all Bodies are material There being nothing material then in the Eucharist as is suppos'd there being nothing that takes up place that is large or long or deep There is nothing corporeal in the Sacrament and by consequence nothing that can be termed corporal meat or drink Moreover when Jesus Christ speaks of corporal nourishment and drink in the Eucharist as the Fathers under the old Testament had done he speaks of bodily meat and drink S. Austin did not understand the corporal meat and drink spoke of by the Fathers of the old Testament to be only the accidents of one and the other so that S. Austin speaking in the same terms of bodily meat and drink in relation to that of the Antients he did not mean meer accidents or qualities The Body of Jesus Christ nor his Blood cannot be this corporal nourishment which S. Austin compares to that of the Fathers under the Law for by bodily meat and drink which he saith we receive in the Eucharist he means a visible subject aliud illi aliud nos sed specie visibili sispeciem visibilem intendas aliud est It remains then that in S. Austin's sense we understand by the corporal nature of the Eucharist the visible Bread the visible Wine and not their qualities and accidents The same Father in the third Book of the Trin. cap. 10. speaking of things that are taken to signify saith a thing is taken to signify either after such a manner as that the thing should subsist and remain some time as did the Brazen Serpent lift up in the Wilderness or as do the letters of the Alphabet or in such a manner as the thing taken to signify is not to subsist any long time but is to pass away and be destroy'd when the thing 't is to represent is passed away as the Bread of the Sacrament which being taken to signify passeth away and is consumed in receiving the Sacrament S. Austin there saith That the Bread of the Sacrament which is taken to signify passeth and is consumed in receiving the Sacrament Now if the Bread be destroyed and Transubstantiated by these words This is my Body then it passeth not away and is not consumed in the act of receiving The same Doctor in the seventeenth Of the City of God saith To eat Bread is in the New Testament the sacrifice of Christians and against the Enemy of the Law. l. 7. c. 20. Those saith he which read know what Melchisedeck offered where he blessed Abraham and those which are partakers see that the like sacrifice is now offer'd through all the World. How is it that the Sacrifice of Christians is to eat Bread if the Bread do not remain How is it that communicating one is partaker of what Melchisedeck offer'd if in communicating one do not receive neither Bread nor Wine The same Father in the third Book against Parmenian reproving the Donatists for forsaking the Church tells them S. Cyprian and the other Bishops did not separate themselves because they would not communicate with covetous persons and Usurers but that on the contrary they did eat with them the Bread of the Lord and drank his Cup. This passage sheweth that when S. Austin said to the new Baptised as hath been shewn that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it could not be understood but figuratively for here the Bread is said to be of the Lord now saith S. Athanasius that which is another's is not that other himself to whom it belongs Id quod alicujus est non idipsum est cujus est And S. Austin elsewhere distinguisheth betwixt the Bread which belongs to the Lord and the Bread which is the Lord. In Joan. Tract 59. Speaking of Judas and the other Apostles he saith of the Apostles they ate the Bread which was the Lord and of Judas He did eat the Bread of the Lord against the Lord they ate life he Death for 't is said by S. Paul That he which eateth unworthily eateth his own judgment and condemnation Seeing then that the Eucharist is distinguish'd from the Lord it necessarily follows That Bread remains in the Sacrament after Consecration The same Father in his 33 Sermon of the Words of our Lord saith The Lord gave to his Disciples the Blessed Sacrament with his own hands but we were not at the Banquet nevertheless by faith we daily eat the same Supper and do not think that it had been any great advantage to have been present at that Supper that he gave with his own hands to his Disciples without Faith Faith afterwards was of greater advantage than treachery was then St. Paul who believed was not there present and Judas who betray'd his Master was present How many be there now that come to the Communien that although they did not see that Table and though they never saw with their Eyes nor tasted with their Palate the Bread which the Lord held in his hands nevertheless because the same Supper is still prepared do there eat and drink their own damnation It plainly appears That the Bread which St. Austin saith our Saviour had in his hands during the Sacrament was true Bread because St. Austin saith that those who at present participate of the Sacrament do not Tast nor Eat the Bread which our Saviour held in his hands and which he distributed and of which the Disciples did formerly eat The same Father teaching that the Good might participate of the Divine Sacraments with the Wicked saith Lib. Con. Donat c. 6. de ipso quippe Pane de ipsa Dominica Manu c. Judas and Peter had each of them a part of the same Bread which they received at the same hand of the Lord and nevertheless what society or likeness was there betwixt Peter and Judas In the 7th chap. the wicked and the good hear the same Word of God do partake of the same Sacraments and eat the same holy nourishment Now what is this holy Food What is this Bread whereof one receives one Portion and another another Part Are they Accidents But Accidents are neither Bread nor Food It is not the real Body of Jesus Christ for it cannot be received by Parcels it must then