Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	blood_n	flesh_n	meat_n	9,640	5	9.2298	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A84086	The eating of the body of Christ, considered in its principles. By John Despagne minister of the gospel. Translated out of French into English, by John Rivers of Chaford in Sussex, Esquire.	Espagne, Jean d', 1591-1659.; Rivers, John, of Chaford in Sussex.; Beau, Wil.	1652 (1652)	Wing E3257; Thomason E1309_2; ESTC R209023	55,931	203

They who Analise such passages simply according to their Logick give them a constrained and often a ridiculous sense This stile hath transcendant prerogatives which we ought to understand that we may know the method of the Son of God which otherwise will seem irregular There you finde also similitudes which at the first sight seem rude and monstrous as when the coming of the Lord is compared to that of a thief in the night 1 Thes 5. and in other places In such comparisons we are wont to say that a comparison should never be pressed to the utmost For to things alike in one regard are unlike in another But this caution alone will not content the minde For there hath been alwaies whereat to wonder that two subjects should be compared and put together and the one invested with the name of the other between which indeed there is some conformity yet on the other part there should be so great and so visible a repugnance of qualities that it renders the comparison enormous In this then there is a secret which is not alwaies perceivable In the language of God the more a phrase is estranged from our rules the more it is mysterious That whereof the question is here is one of the most strange in all the Scripture But if instead of be holding onely the superficies we put it in the ballance its weight will make it known for gold of Ophir CHAP. XII The clearing of the fourth Consideration VVHEN mention is made of Eating the Body of Christ that speech is not simply drawn from the resemblance which there may be between Eating and Communicating and ought not to be put into the rank of simple similitudes This phrase is of a higher derivation The intention of our Saviour was to revoke a clause of the Old Testament which was this that a man should not eat the flesh and blood offered for the remission of his sins We have seen the sense and importance of it Jesus Christ would shew that he gives us that which the Law refused us It was therefore necessary that he should express it in the same termes that is to say that he should speak to us of eating the flesh offered for our sins And that he hath done not onely in words retaining the proper termes of the Testament but also by the exhibition of a nourishment whose sensible eating is an expression of this other We ought then to know that this word of Eating denoting the communion of the sacrifice is not simply used because there is a resemblance between the two acts but forasmuch as in the Law this communion is called Eating So Jesus Christ hath not introduced this word for a simple Metaphor or comparison but hath pronounced it as a terme of a Testamentary clause whose repetition was here necessary for the cause abovesaid For this terme being already in the first Testament to express this Communion must be retained in the second It Bootes not to say that the name of Eating which denotes an act of the mouth and of the teeth upon the flesh of Legal offerings is not convenient to the Communion of a humane body as is that of Christs and that the comparison of it is rude For to understand this terme we must take the entire sense which extends it self a great deal farther then a simple comparison In the institution of the Supper this Communion is not simply qualifed Eating of a Body given for Food but of a body given for the attonement of our sins Now this speech means that the Communion of the Body of Christ which we know to be spiritual is in effect what the eating of expiatory Sacrifice was in figure Moreover that the body of Christ having succeeded Sacrifices the Communion of this Body hath taken the place of eating of Sacrifices This title then belongs to it not by simple resemblance but if I may so say both by succession and in the same sort that Jesus Christ is called Passover and Lamb the truth taking the name of the Figure As for the words of Jesus Christ in the sixth Capter of Saint John although they have reference to those of the Holy Supper nevertheless their interpretation requires particular considerations which I omit forasmuch as I treat of nothing here but what our Saviour said in the Eucharist Nevertheless we may observe as we goe that the Communion of the body of Christ is there called Eating not by a simple similitude but is as much as to say that this Communion is in effect and in substance that which the eating of the Manna was in shadow and similitude For the Jews had objected this eating of the Manna Finally for to measure this phrase in all its dimensions it is not enough there to consider the analogy between the eating with the mouth and the Communicating in spirit For this resemblance is not the onely cause of this expression nor the onely point we ought to draw to in conclusion Moreover our Lord would shew that a spiritual life hath principles much different from a life animal Both have this common to them that their subsistance depends on the union of man with some other subject which we call aliment But in the life natural man hath no proper aliments which are not of a kinde inferiour to his own such are plants and their fruits such is the flesh of bruit beasts which we lodg in our intrales mingling their blood with ours and uniting th●m to our own substance Man is constrained to incorporate into himself these vile things and which are much below him On the contrary in a spiritual life he unites himself to a subject infinitely more excellent then himself to wit to the Eternal Spirit for it is the Spirit which quickens Now this Spirit Communicates himself unto us in the Flesh of Christ So that his Flesh is unto us Meat indeed In which is seen this diversity That in the Life Natural man and his food ought to be of different kindes But in the Life Spiritual man and his food ought to be of one and the same kinde Therefore it is that our Saviour expresseth the Communion of his Body by the name of this act contrary to Nature which is to eat the flesh of man for to signifie that a Spiritual Life is maintained by a means quite contrary to that which Nature employs in an Animal Life For to Eat the flesh of the Son of man signifies not onely to have Communicated with him but signifies also that this Communion is not according to the Laws of Nature And the words of the Son of God bear not onely a similitude of qualities but also note an opposition of kinde between the food of the Body and the nourishment of the Spirit All this abovesaid being duely considered we shall finde that this phrase which seemed so strange could not be more pregnant more compleat nor more convenicent for the subject CHAP. XIII The fift Consideration upon the words of

every one of them So that if one of my sins hath been Expiated in this Blood all my other sins have there their Expiation also for it is generall and entire So then the termes of the Institution if wee know how to weigh them cause us to know that Jesus Christ hath sounded all the profundities of the Old Testament and drawes from thence those points which shew the excellency and advantages of the New by comparing them together CHAP. XVI The eighth Consideration upon the words of the holy Supper I Intend not to reiterate that which hath been so much written how the Bread is the Body of Christ but onely to observe something upon a question which is common enough viz. Why our Lord did not ordain Flesh rather than Bread for to represent his Body For it seems that this Symbole should be more analogick and significative According to the saying of many it is forasmuch as Flesh hath served in old time in the Sacrifices and in the Passeover and that it behoves that the Sacraments of the Christian Church should be of other Elements than those that have served under the Law But this answer is ill grounded for 1. The Bread and Wine were also used in Sacrifices There was by name an Oblation of Bread and Wine Numb 15. not to speak of the Shew-bread and of the Offerings of Cakes 2. The Element of Water served for Legall purifications Under the Law there was nothing so ordinary as the washing with Water to signifie the clensing of the Soul Yet neverthelesse God would that Baptism should be with Water 3. The contrary is rather true and this is that also which some ancient Fathers say of it That in this action Jesus Christ useth Bread and Wine because that these Elements had already been used under the Law to represent his Body and his Blood And this to the end we should know that it is the same Christ represented by the same signes But why then hath not the Flesh of living Creatures as well place in the Sacrament of the Eucharist sith it hath represented Christ in that of the Passeover and in so many kinds of Sacrifices We say indeed that Christ hath rather chosen Bread because it is the most common and the most nourishing food and so most proper to represent his Body But this excludes not other reasons which we may give thereof Moreover the Eucharist represents not the Body of Jesus Christ simply as nourishment but also as dead Now some may say which neverthelesse is not without contradiction that the Death of Christ was in Old time more ocularly represented by the killing of a Lamb than at this day by the breaking of Bread So it is this is the point I am to handle that Jesus Christ instituting signs of his Dead Body and of his Blood shed did choose things without life and Elements wherein there was no Blood Whereby he would shew that after him no creature should any more lose his life for the sins of man and that no other Blood should be shed in Expiation For the Sacraments of the Old Testament were Bloody to denote the Blood which was to be shed by the death of Christ But this effusion being made the Sacraments which represent it as done and accomplished are without effusion of Blood to shew that there shall be no more Blood shed for sins Hence it is wee have no more a Sacrament which requires the killing of any creature but Signes wherein death doth not intervene as being of themselves without life and of another substance than of Flesh and Blood CHAP. XVII The ninth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ MEn principally the common people do naturally love Similitudes because they are drawn from things perceptible to the senses or otherwise common and easie to be conceived But similitudes represent not the essence of a subject and doe not say what a thing is but what it resembles So our Lord would not tell us simply that his Body had resemblance unto Bread nor onely that the Bread is a Seal unto us of the Communion of his Body but also hath shewed us the causes and qualities of this Communion These words To eat the Body of Jesus Christ signifie not onely to take it for the Sustenance of our Souls as we take food for the nourishment of our Bodyes This Similitude if we specifie no more teacheth us but very generally the nature of this Communion and doth not set forth the entire sense of the words of Jesus Christ For in the Eucharist our Lord doth not propound himself as Flesh in generall but as Flesh sacrifised for our sins which is a point of great consequence in this matter I have already said that the word Eating is attributed to the Cōmunion of the body of Christ which is as much as to say that this Communion is in substance that which was in Figure the eating of Sacrifices of the Manna of the Passeover c. And namely that in this Communion we have that which the Law forbad us to wit the eating of the Flesh offred for our sins They who content themselves with the generall similitudes between the Food of the Body and the nourishment of the Soul attain not unto the specifick difference of the subject of the Eucharist But I have yet somewhat to say of an abuse which is committed in the deduction of this Similitude For as many omit that which is contained in the words of the holy Supper so there are some I speak even of Orthodox Divines who adde thereto something of their own CHAP. XVIII The tenth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper WEe know that wee ought not to carry a Similitude beyond its end For when two divers things are compared to one another it is never in all and through all but onely in some regard When for example our Lord in St. Matth. 13. v. 46. compares the kingdome of Heaven to a Pearl of great price his intention is but to express the greatness of the value and richness of the Gospell Now he that would under pretence of this word Pearl dispute philosophically of all the kinds and proprieties of Pearls search of what matter they are made and how they are formed and subtilly fit all this to the kingdome of Heaven would surpasse the bounds wherein Jesus Christ hath confined the similitude For he doth not in all qualities compare the kingdome of Heaven to a Pearl but onely in the price or esteem which men have of it Notwithstanding there are few found among those who expound the Scriptures who keep themselves within these limits There are even of those who regard no measure when they handle a comparison If our Saviour say that he is a Vine they will name all sorts of Vines and their differences and tell you what territory is proper to them when they are to bee planted how they are to be pruned and kept Also what are the parts of

Application of Jesus Christ in these two divers regards should still represent it This Application was truly figured also by the Circumcision whereto Baptism succeeded But we have seen that our Sacraments ought not to have any more any thing bloody Moreover as I said Our Saviour seems to have regard to this point that all holy things those which the Law made communicable to every one of the people were applied personally unto him in the one or in the other of these two actions onely viz. either in their Washings or in their Sacred Banquets To these two sorts of actions wherein consists all the participation of holy things answer Baptism and the Eucharist If we contemplate there but a resemblance between the Water the Bread and the Wine of the one part and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of the other this consideration is too wandring and generall and doth not observe distinctly enough the intention of our Saviour Wee know that the Communion of Jesus Christ is represented in Scripture under the Similitude of divers ●onjunctions as of the Head with the Members of the Vine with the Branches of the Husband with the Wife of the foundation with the edifice of the Clothing with the Body of Washing and of Nourishment But it is a question to know why among so many similitudes our Saviour would choose these two viz. that of Washing and that of Nourishment rather than any other whereof to make the Sacraments of the New Testament I believe therefore we must seek the reason in the correspondence which they have with these two actions of the Old Testament wherein only lyes the personall application of holy things which the Law distributed to the people To Conclude I shall adde touching the Water of Baptism that which I said touching the Bread and the Wine of the Eucharist Many Divines dispute Philosophically of the proprieties of Water by reason whereof our Saviour would it should serve for Baptism For say they as Water or watery matter is the principall of all naturall production so the Holy Ghost represented by Water is the principall of our regeneration Also as Water doth fructifie the Earth and make it fit to bear fruit so the Holy Spirit bedewing our Souls makes us capable to bring forth the fruit of good works Moreover as Water doth quench the thirst so the Holy Ghost doth quench the thirst of earthly things To which is referd that which our Saviour saith in St. John 7. If any one Thirst Let him come unto mee and drink But certainly they who thrust 〈◊〉 Similitudes into Baptism are extravagant in divers kinds Water is used in Baptism inasmuch as it washeth and cleanseth not as it refresheth nor as it allayes the thirst being drank Otherwise wee ought to consider it as drink and confound the Baptism and the Eucharist Water is not considered in Baptism but as Washing The other proprieties which it may have are our of the Sacramentall analogy If this Element should have yet more qualities proper to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit they are not of the Sacrament and it is not for us to place them there FINIS AN Epitome of this Treatise comprised in these Aphorismes following I. MAny are learned in the Controversie of the Eucharist who nevertheless have not Knowledge enough of the grounds and mysteries of this Sacrament II. Many Treatises of Devotion which have the vogue among the people namely touching the holy Supper serve rather to foment ignorance than to augment instruction III. They are ridiculous who endeavouring to specifie all the particular Causes of the Circumstances of the Passion give us Allegories for Reasons and Metaphors for Mysteries IV. This ordinary Phrase the Altar of the Crosse is improper and subject to evill Consequences V. The Historicall representation whereby we call to mind a Man nayled to the Crosse is not this Act whereby Jesus Christ is made present to ours Souls VI. The Reason why Jesus Christ invites us to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood is understood of very few viz. why wee ought to drink his Blood forasmuch as it is the Blood of the New Testament why from the Oblation of his Body we conclude the eating of it VII The Reason consists of Maxims opposite to those of the Old Testament For the Law contained certain Ordinances which prohibited that which Jesus Christ commands us in the Eucharist VIII Jesus Christ invites us to drink his Blood for the same reason which forbids us to eat blood For the Law saith Ye shall eat no blood because it is shed for the remission of sins Jesus Christ saith Drink ye this Blood because it is shed for the remission of sins IX It is a Maxim of the Old Testament that none can eat of that which hath bin offered for him for remission of sins But Jesus Christ commands us to eat his Body given for our sin X. In the Old Testament the Priests were to eat the Sacrifice which they offered for the sins of other men But Jesus Christ hath transferr'd this Rite to sinners themselves XI The Communion to which Jesus Christ invites us is marked with the names of two acts whereof one is repugnant to the Ceremoniall Law viz. to eat that which hath bin sacrifised for our sins the other contrary to the Law of Nature viz. to eat the flesh of man XII God had ordained that we should not eat of any Blood untill the Blood of Christ should be shed XIII The Law forbidding Sinners to eat the Sacrifice of their Expiation shewed that the true Sacrifice was not yet exhibited nor their Expiation accomplished XIV In the Old Testament the Eating of the Expiatory Sacrifice was a Sacerdotall Act required for Expiation But at this day this Eating is an effect of Expiation already made XV. In the Scripture the more a phrase is remote from the ordinary Rules of the Language of men the more mysterious it is XVI The Communion of the Body of Christ is represented by the act of Eating not simply by similitude but to retain the Term of this Testamentary Clause which Jesus Christ hath revoked in this Sacrament which forbad man to eat the Sacrifice of his Expiation And this speech means That the Communion of the Body of Christ is in effect that which the eating of Sacrifices was in Figure XVII In the Life Naturall man and his meat are different Kinds but in the Life Spirituall man and his nourishment ought to be of the same kind XVIII The Old Testament had no force in comparison of the New because the Testator was not yet dead XIX Whereas death permits not any man to be Executor of his own Will Jesus Christ is risen again to execute his XX. He who dyed first of all men dyed of a bloody death The death of Jesus Christ was signed with blood XXI The first Blood which was shed on Earth and the Blood of Jesus Christ are opposite one to the