Selected quad for the lemma: woman_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
woman_n	conceive_v	seed_n	womb_n	1,446	5	10.0770	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12482	An answer to Thomas Bels late challeng named by him The dovvnfal of popery wherin al his arguments are answered, his manifold vntruths, slaunders, ignorance, contradictions, and corruption of Scripture, & Fathers discouered and disproued: with one table of the articles and chapter, and an other of the more markable things conteyned in this booke. VVhat controuersies be here handled is declared in the next page. By S.R.	Smith, Richard, 1566-1655.	1605 (1605)	STC 22809; ESTC S110779	275,199	548

such as deny the real presence VVith philosophical reasons they so make voyd the testament of God that the body and blood of Christ concerning the presence and communication therof according to Christs owne most clere most euidēt most povverful words they wholie remoue with maruelous perplexity of words doe coulorably deceiue 11. But to come to Bels reason How proueth he it to be cōtradiction for a greater S. Aug. l. 14. cont Faust c. 9. S. Ambros l. de initiatis c. 9. tom 4. Ioan. 6. v. 52. Omnes haereticorum Gentiliū quaestiones eaedem sunt quia non Scripturarum auctoritatem sed humanae rationis sensum sequūtur Hieron in Oseae 7. S. Chrisost hom 60. ad populum 83. in Matth. S. Ephren lib. de natura Dei minime scrutanda Chrisosto sup body to be conteyned in ales Surely not at al but as Pithagoras autos epha or as Faustus the Manichist who as S. Austin writeth sayd it and avvay Should not he want al reason who for such a reason proposed without al proofe should forsake Christs expresse words and plaine testimonies of holy Fathers Breefly I might answere with S. Ambrose VVhat seekest thou the course of nature in Christs body seing he vvas against natures order borne of a virgin and admonish Bel of the faithles Capharnaits asking Hovv can he giue his flesh to be eaten For to what other end tendeth Bels reason then to aske How can God giue vs his flesh Let him harken to S. Chrisostome S. Ephrem and others aduising him not to be curious but faithful not to trust to humain sense and reason which is oftētymes deceaued but to Christs word He hath said writeth S. Chrisostome This is my body let vs haue no doubt albeit it seeme absurd to our sense and reason which he sayth let his vvord in al matters but espetially in the Sacraments ouercome our sense and reason vvhich is oftentymes deceiued as Bels is here 12. For albeit it be contradiction for a Hovv it is contradiction for a greater body to be in a les and hovv not greater body occupying a place proportionate to it greatnes to be contayned in a les for so it should be both contayned and not conteyned in the les yet no contradiction at al it is for a greater body retayning it greatnes to be so coarcted by Gods omnipotency as it fil a place far les then is naturaly due or proportionate to it greatnes For in this case it followeth not that it shold both be contayned not contayned in the lesser body as in the former case but contayned onely And thus we say hath Christ disposed of his body in the sacramēt And that God cā thus dispose of bodies we Proofs that God can put a greater body in a lesser S. Beda in Lucam S. August de haeres c 82. tom 6. Ambr. ep 81. Leo ser 1. 2. de natiu Nissen ser de occursu Domini Damasc l. 4. de fid c. 14. doe not onely barely affirme as Bel doth the contrary but can proue by many waies 13. First because Christs body in his natiuity opened not his virgin mothers womb Ergo then it occupied not a roome naturally proportionat to the greatnes The consequence is euident The Antecedent I proue because it is a point of the Catholique faith as testify S. Bede and S. Austin and appeareth by vniuersal consent of al Fathers as S. Ambrose S. Leo S. Nissen S. Damascen and others and professed in our Creed that Christ was borne of a virgin which vndoubtedly Ideo clausa quia virgo Ambr. de instit virg c. 7. August sup l. 1. cont Iul. c. 2. to 7. Iouinian sayd Christs body shold be a phantasme if our lady had remayned a virgin in her trauail Aug. cont Iul. cit Hieron in Ezechiel 44. Ambros lib. de instit virginis c. 7. Aug. serm 18. de tempore is ment of a perfect virgin as wel in body as mind And the contrary was the heresie of Iouinian who as S. Austin writeth affirmed that our Ladies virginity was lost pariendo by child bearing which he could not otherwise vnderstand then by the Childs opening her womb because virginity can not be otherwaies lost pariendo by child bearing and sure it is she lost not virginity by conceauing 14. Moreouer holy Fathers proue this truth out of that prophecy of Ezechiel 44. v. 2. of a gate shut and not opened by vvhich the Lord alone should passe vnderstanding by this shut and vnopened gate the virginal womb of our B Ladie And Albeit some Fathers vse the word of opening the womb in their speech of our Ladies child birth yet they meane not properly but vse the name of the effect for the natural cause therof For because children naturally do open their mothers wombs both Scripture and Fathers do sometymes cal child bearing opening the womb and barennes shutting the womb Of Scripture this is euident out of Gen 20 29 30. 1. reg 1. of Fathers it is manifest by S. Hierome who though he S. Hierom. dial 2. cont Pelagian say Christ opened the gate of the virgins womb yet he addeth that it continually remayned shut wherby he explicateth how before he took the opening vz. of Child bearing without any proper opening for otherwise the womb could not remayne stil shut 15. Neuertheles Protestants because it maketh for the Catholique Doctrin of the B Sacrament deny the Antecedent and Willet proueth their denyal because as S. VVillet cont 13. p. 453. S. Luc. 2. v. 23. Luke saith Christ vvas presented in the temple according to the lavv Euery male opening the matrice shal be holy to the Lord. But by the like reason he might proue that Christ was conceiued by mans seed because S. Luke in the same chapter writeth that our Lady was purifyed according to Moises law which was as we read leu 12. of a vvoman which hauing receaued seed had borne a male child The answere to both places is the same Because naturally women conceiue by receauing seed children are borne by opening their wombs therfore the law vsed these termes But as the one law affirmed not that no woman could conceiue without receauing seed so nether the other that no child could be borne without opening his mothers womb And as willets heresy made him to open our Ladies wōb so his cōscience made him to shut it againe For why should he teach that it was shut after her deliuery if he did not thinke the opening did preiudice her virginity The like proofe might be drawne out of Christs entring to his Apostles See S. Hilarie lib. cont Constant prope finē the dores being shut saith S. Luke and of his issuing out of the sepulchar before the Angel had remoued the stone 16. Secondly God can by his omnipotency bring a Camel through a needles eye as wel as a rich man into heauen but he can bring a rich man to