Selected quad for the lemma: saint_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
saint_n	blood_n	drink_v	shed_v	1,634	5	9.9643	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

the eating of it What is the consequence of the one to the other Here we have many excellent mysteries contained in these words of Iesus Christ to discover The Second Sect. CHAP. I. The first Consideration on the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper DIvines affirm that Iesus Christ knowing the Law which forbids eating of blood hath expresly mentioned a new Covenant which obligeth us to drink his blood In which he maketh the two Testaments to oppose one the other The one which forbids the eating of blood the other which commands the drinking of blood But I observe one point which is not so common although very notable touching the reason by which Iesus Christ invites us to drink his blood There is a Law in the 17 of Leviticus verse 11 and 12 which we must compare with the Ordinance of Iesus Christ in the 26 of Saint Matthew The Law saith Jesus Christ saith I have given you the blood to offer upon the Altar to make an atonement for your souls for it is the blood which shall make an atonement for the soul It is shed for the remission of sins and therefore I said to the children of Israel none among you shall eat blood Drink ye all of it For this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins This Comparison shewes that Iesus Christ commanding to drink his blood imploys the same reason for which it was forbidden to eat any blood at all The Law saith eat no blood for it is shed for the remission of your sins Jesus Christ saith drink blood for it is shed for the remession of your sins It is then expedient for us to drink his blood for the same reason which seems to forbid it us From whence comes it that the prohibition of the Law and the Commandement of Christ are found to be built on the same foundation Why doth the same cause which obligeth men to abstain from blood oblige us to participate of it How can one and the same reason serve to two contraries that it should be forbidden to eat blood because it is expiatory and commanded to drink the blood becaus it is expiatory Some will tell us that we must distinguish between blood and blood between that of Christ and that of living creatures between the spirituall perception of the one and the corporal eating of the other between the typical expiations and the reall expiations That Moses spake of a blood which was but a Seal and Symbole of expiaation and on the contrary Iesus Christ proposes unto us a blood by which expiation hath been made That the one speaks of an eating which was done by the mouth the other of a reception which is in the soul And that thus they are two different reasons But all this takes not away the difficulty the question remains still For behold what I have to say thereupon The Law forbids to partake of blood because it is the seal of the remission of sins And Jesus Christ commands to partake of the cup because it is the seal of the remission of sins Why do two so contrary consequences result from the same quality The precedent distinction hath no place here Moreover we must know that the Law speaking of the blood of living creatures which it says to be expiatory considers this blood in the union or correspondence it hath with that of Christ which alone is truely expiatory So that forbidding the corporall eating of the signe that hath relation to the blood of Christ the same forbidding touches the spiritual Communion of the blood of Christ represented by the signe Truely the tearms by which they expresse the cause of the Commandment are equivalent to those by which the Law expresseth the reason of the prohibition And 't is not without some great reason that the Son of God commanding to drink his blood would speak as the Law doth when it prohibits the eating of blood We shall therefore see from whence is derived this injunction on us to drink the blood of the new Covenant by the same reason which forbids us to eat that of the old But for as much as this question is linked with many other points we ought to propose them conjoyntly before we dissolve the difficulties Behold then another which ought carefully to be considered as being the center of this matter and the last of the words of Iesus Christ in the Supper CHAP. II. The Second Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ VVE speak of eating the Body which was given for our sins Many Orthodox Divines have these terms in their mouths who know not their importance nor to what Iesus Christ had regard in uttering them It is a RULE in the old Testament That a man cannot eat of that which is offered for him for the remission of his sins It is I say a point of Divine Right and a fundamentall clause of the first Testament That none can eat of that which is offered for the remission of his sins The same flesh cannot be our attonement and our nourishment These are terms which the Law declares incompatible And nevertheless against this Maxime Iesus Christ commands us to eat his Body Sacrificed for our sins his body I say represented by expiatory oblations whose eating was forbidden This here is one of the highest mysteries of Religion and the foundation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Every one knowes that the old Testament had two sorts of Sacrifices distinguished by the ends to which they were offered The one the Eucharistick the other the Expiatory The one for the Benefits of God the other for the Evil deeds of man Now concerning the Eucharistick Sacrifice all those for whom it was by name offered had a right also to eat of it This meat sanctified by the Altar and distinguished from common nourishments was a most favoury Mess unto them as being sent from Gods Table for an earnest of that Communion which they had with him And we even there meet with an admirable correspondence with the subject of the holy Supper For by the Rule of the Law the flesh of such Sacrifices ought to be eaten either the same day it was sacrificed or the day after But on the third day it was not permitted to eat of it It is an axiome of the old Testament That no Sacrifice should be eaten on the third day Levit. 7. verse 16 17 18. This Law seems to have an eye upon the eating of the flesh of Christ which is meat to us in as much as dead for us For he exhibits unto us his body but in as much as broken So that the object of this eating is Jesus Christ in as much as dead Now for as much as the third day which is that of his Resurrection represents him unto us living the Sacrifices by which he was represented dead might not be eaten the third day But the Sacrifice which was offered for the expiation of sins was