Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	bread_n	eat_v	manna_n	4,436	5	12.4770	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42578	Veteres vindicati, in an expostulatory letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney, upon his Consensus veterum, &c. wherein the absurdity of his method, the weakness of his reasons are shewn, his false aspersions upon the Church of England are wiped off, and her faith concerning the Eucharist proved	Gee, Edward, 1657-1730.	1687 (1687)	Wing G462; ESTC R22037	94,746	111

impertinent and how unjust your railing at our Church about these Books was and to expose your gross ignorance to your new Superiours that they also may see which perhaps they did not know before how unfit a man you were to meddle with this sort of learning and how wretchedly you have come off CHAP. XIX The Authorities from Ignatius Justin Martyr and Irenaeus for Transubstantiation answered I come now to examine as they come to hand your several Authorities for Transubstantiation the Liturgies as spurious are already dispatched The first of your Authorities from Ignatius which you needed not if you really did go to Theodoret for since it is now common in Ignatius himself from the Florentine Copy that the Hereticks that denyed Christ had a true Body abstained from the Eucharist because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ P. 30. c. does you no service because We of the Church of England who do not believe any Transubstantiation say with St. Ignatius that the Sacrament is the Body and Blood of Christ However as we say that it is figuratively such so there is nothing here to determine that St. Ignatius meant otherwise than we do since his Argument is as strong not to say stronger in a figurative sense against the Hereticks it invincibly proving as a Contr. Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Tertullian does upon the very same account that our Saviour had a true Body since none but such could have a figurative Body or Figure a Figure of a Figure or Phantome being perfect nonsense so that St. Ignatius is no help to prove a Transubstantiation and your reasoning upon it ridiculous since if the Hereticks had owned the Eucharist with Calvin or Zuinglius to have been the sign or Figure of Christs Body P. 30. they had quite ruined their own doctrine and had allowed Christ to have had a true Body since none but such could have a Sign or Figure but some Men are so fond of saying something that so it be but said they matter not whether it be for or against themselves which this your reasoning really is Your next Authority from St. Denys as spurious is to no purpose P. 30. nor your next upon the same account from your Andreas who methinks as an Apostle should have had the place of St. Denys and both of them before St. Ignatius but you I suppose either found them in this order or thought Ignatius fittest to be put first because he looked a little more to your purpose than either of them Tho' as to the latter of them your Andreas had you but shewn any ingenuity in what you cite from him he would have proved full as little to your purpose but you cunningly slip over in this short passage that which would have told you that the Sacrifice here spoken of could be no other than a figurative and representative Sacrifice since it is said to be offered in altari crucis upon the Altar of the Cross which you wisely tho' not over honestly leave out to make your Author speak something towards the purpose we meet him here for Your Note upon this Passage that truly eaten excludes eating in sign onely or Spirit does as much discover your Ignorance of the Sense of the Genuine Fathers as your Phrase in sign onely does your malice who cannot but know that the Church you have forsaken never said so to say that he which eats both in Sign and Spirit does not eat truely is to give the lye to a whole Tract of S. (b) Tractatus 26 in Joann Austins where among twenty other Confutations you may find that such Persons as Moses Aaron and Phineas who pleased God visibilem cibum spiritaliter intellexerunt spiritaliter esurierunt spiritaliter gustaverunt ut spiritaliter satiarentur did spiritually understand the visible Food the Manna did spiritually hunger after and tast of it that they might be spiritually filled and satisfied and that the true eating the Bread of Life so as not to dye does belong (c) Pertinent ad virtusem Sacramenti non ad visibile Sacramentum Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premit dente August Tract 26. in Joan to the virtue of the Sacrament and not to the visible Sacrament and that the true receiver is he who eateth inwardly not outwardly who eateth with the heart and not he who presseth it with his teeth Justin Martyr you next cite saying P. 31. 'T is not common Bread or common Drink we take how then Why as the Word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour was made Flesh so we are taught that our Nourishment by Prayer proceeding from him being made the Eucharist to be the Flesh and Blood of the same incarnate Jesus c. This Translation I accuse not onely of falshood and of perverting the plain sense of St. Justin but of direct Nonsense for first whereas St. Justin sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Just M. Apol 2. p. 98. Edit Morel Paris 1636. We do not receive these things the consecrated Bread and the consecrated Wine mingled with Water A S common Bread or common Drink you make him say that ' iis not common Bread or common Drink we take which is directly contrary to the true sense of his Words which are so far from denying that they evidently suppose and prove them to be still Bread and Wine after Consecration or else they could not be received in a different manner from that at common Meals Again whereas our Author goes on but as by the Word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation you nonsensically translate him as the Word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour was made Flesh where you not only lame his sense and obscure it but quite pervert it you making the Word of God to be our Saviour himself the second Person in the Trinity whereas Justin means by it the Power of the Holy Ghost which over-shadowed the Blessed Virgin. I will give you but another touch of your nonsense and that is when you translate so we are taught that our nourishment by prayer to be the flesh instead of is the flesh I hate so mean an employment as to be thus taken up in ripping up your pitiful dealing or else I could expose you further from this very passage out of Justin but I think this enough to let you and your new Superiors see what wretched stuff we are like to be put off with and how vastly unfit you are to meddle about such things To leave then this miserable murthering of Justin I come now to see what you would have thence suppose you had known which you did not what the Author meant here You argue our Saviour was made Flesh therefore the Eucharist is Flesh or Justin could not say they were so taught I answer That as our Saviour was not Transubstantiated when