Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	bread_n	eat_v	word_n	5,813	4	4.5462	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09111	A treatise tending to mitigation tovvardes Catholike-subiectes in England VVherin is declared, that it is not impossible for subiects of different religion, (especially Catholikes and Protestantes) to liue togeather in dutifull obedience and subiection, vnder the gouernment of his Maiesty of Great Britany. Against the seditions wrytings of Thomas Morton minister, & some others to the contrary. Whose two false and slaunderous groundes, pretended to be dravvne from Catholike doctrine & practice, concerning rebellion and equiuocation, are ouerthrowne, and cast vpon himselfe. Dedicated to the learned schoole-deuines, cyuill and canon lavvyers of the tvvo vniuersities of England. By P.R.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.	1607 (1607)	STC 19417; ESTC S114220	385,613	600

iudgment is true which seemeth should not be so if he should iudge according to flesh and bloud as the Pharises did 27. Wherfore these Fathers doe propose another mentall reseruation of Christ in this matter to wit in hac vita in this life meaning that albeit he hath full authority and power of iudging all yet that he came not into the world to exercise that power in this life but only to instruct comfort and saue men reseruing his exercise of iudgment vnto the last day and in the next world according to his owne speech in another place God hath not sent his Sonne into the world to iudge the world but that the world should be saued by him And yet other Greeke writers as S. Gregory Nazienzen and Elias Cretensis say the reseruation to haue byn as Christ was man only and of himself he had not power to iudge but from his Father according to that his saying All power is giuen me in heauen in earth where he acknowledgeth to haue receaued all in gift from his Father And others doe propose other interpretations and reseruations but all doe agree in one conformity as yow see that this proposition of our Sauiour cannot be verified but only by some mentall reseruation conteyning more then is vttered And therfore these Fathers doe acknowledge the vse of mixt reserued propositions euen in the Sonne of God himself and consequently also of amphibology or Equiuocation when need requireth 28. But let vs see some more examples when our Sauiour was called to raise from death the Prince or Archsinagoge his daughter as in S. Mathew S. Marke S. Lukes Ghospell is recorded and he comming to the house found the people in tumult weeping and lamenting for her death he repressed them saying Recedite non est enim mortua puella fed dormit depart for that the maid is not dead but sleepeth yet is it certaine that naturally she was dead by separation of her soule from her body which is proued both for that the people did know her to be dead and therfore scoffed at Christ for saying shee was not dead but a sleep as also for that otherwise it had byn no miracle to raise her againe So as if this proposition be taken 〈◊〉 as it lieth without any mentall reseruation by our 〈◊〉 it cannot be true neither in it self nor in the sense of the hearers no more thē in our propositiō I am no Priest For if our Sauiour had byn asked Is this maid dead and he had answered no this word no in the force of Thomas Mortons Socraticall argumentation must needes be the negatiue of that which is demaunded and so to vse his words directly to haue signified 〈◊〉 she was not dead which had byn directly false if it had not byn extended to a further reserued meaning of Christ according to our doctrine and therby the said answere made true 29. Which mentall reseruation in our Sauiour according to S. Augustines explication and of other expositours was that albeit she was dead in their sight and vnto humane power yet vnto him and vnto his diuine power and will to raise her againe shee was not dead but only in a sleep Verum dixit Dominus saith S. Augustine nō est mortua puella sed dormit sed illi à quo poterat excitari Christ said truly the maid is not dead but sleepeth to wit vnto him that was able to raise her againe So as by this reseruation S. Augustine defendeth Christes proposition from falsity consequently acknowledgeth such Equiuocatiō in our Sauiours speech as we treat of For as Christ being asked whether the maid were dead and he answering no saith no vntruth for that the negatiue no fell not vpon the wordes vttered only but vpon his whole meaning partly vttered and partly reserued to wit that she was not dead in respect of his power and will to raise her againe euen so our no to that demaund whether I be a Priest or no falleth not only vpon the wordes vttered or question of the demaunder for so it should be false but vpon the whole proposition as hath byn said and so it is true 30. I might alleadge almost innumerable places to this effect as that of Christ in S. Iohns Ghospell 〈◊〉 of the eating of his flesh If any shall at of this bread he shall liue foreuer And againe a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting and yet S. Paul saith to the contrary whosoeuer shall eat this bread or drinke the cup of our Lord vnworthily shall be guilty of the body and bloud of our Lord And further he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily doth eat and drinke his owne iudgment or condemnation for that he discerneth not the body 〈◊〉 our Lord By which wordes of S. Paul it is made manifest first that the former wordes of Christ cannot absolutly be true without some mentall reseruation or restriction in his vnderstanding for that all eaters of his flesh drinkers of his bloud haue not life euerlasting therby but some rather damnation secondly is discouered what this reseruation was to wit dignè worthily as if he had said he that shall eat worthily my flesh and drinke worthily my bloud shall haue life euerlasting therby which yet Christ vttered not but reserued the same in his mind as yow see and therby left the proposition ambiguous and equiuocall 31. And in very like manner those other speeches of our Sauiour If yow shall aske any thing of my Father in my name he will giue it to yow and yet we see by experience that many doe aske and receaue not wherfore somewhat is reserued in Christes mind and meaning which reseruation S. Iames vttereth in these wordes Petitis non accipitis eò quòd malè petatis yow aske receaue not for that yow aske not as yow should doe this mentall reseruation then was in Christs wordes when he vttered the foresaid generall proposition to wit that he which should aske as he ought to aske should receaue c. And so againe those wordes in S. Marks Ghospell He that shall belieue and be baptized shal be saued the reseruation is if he belieue according to Christs commaundementes as after both Christ himself in the end of S. Mathewes Ghospell and S. Iohn in his Epistles doe expoūd the same according to which sense also those wordes of the Prophet Ioel VVhosoeuer shall call vpon the name of our Lord shall be saued are expounded by Christ himself when he saith Not euery one that saith Lord Lord shall enter into heauen but he that doth the will of my Father that is in heauen which reseruation was not vttered but kept in mind by the Prophet And all these being mixt propositions partly of wordes vttered and partly of further hidden sense reserued making the part that is vttered doubtfull ambiguous

aud sinfull And that Catholickes only vse the first in 〈◊〉 cases and with circumstances and limitations But T. 〈◊〉 and his followes 〈◊〉 the first do vse 〈◊〉 the second which is false and lying 〈◊〉 Chap. XII pag. 483. The 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 in some Protestant 〈◊〉 Bishops § 1. pag. 490. Six argumentes of M. Iewell Superintendent of 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 in this case § 2. pag. 493. Six examples of M. 〈◊〉 particular Equiuocation § 3. pag. 504. The vse of Equiuocating in English Protestantes-Ministers § 4. pag. 517. The vse of Equiuocation in Laymen Knightes § 5. p. 529. The Conclusion of the whole 〈◊〉 with a briefe exhortation 〈◊〉 Catholickes not to vse the liberty of Equiuocation 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 cases but where some 〈◊〉 occasion induceth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Table of the particular matters 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TO ALL TRVE-HARTED ENGLISH-MEN That loue the honour safety and best good of their Nation Prince and Countrey THE PREFACE OF THE PRESENT DIVISION AND DISAGREEMENT About matters of Religion in England and of many importune exasperations vsed by diuers sortes of men to encrease the same and namely by this Minister T. M. his iniurious Libell I DOE not see deare Countreymen why I may not iustly our tymes circumstances therof considered begin these my first lynes of Preface with those wordes of Complaint and Admiration of the Poet Lucan wherby in few verses he comprehended and laid forth the rufull state of the rented Common-welth and Romane Empire by ciuill warres saying Bella per Aemathios plusquam ciuilia campos Iusque datum sceleri canimus populumque potētem In sua victrici conuersum viscera dextra 2. For if heere we change but Thessalian fieldes into English land and the Poets singing into our weeping and wailing all the rest agreeth most aptly if our diuision be not more rufull and lamentable then that of the Romanes For first our wars may truly be said to be plus quam ciuilia more then ciuill in that they are not only internall but domesticall also in such sorte as no one Prouince no one towne no one village no one howse or family is lightly to be found where some parte or other of this warre and dissention vpon difference of Religion taketh not some holde The Father somewhere accusing or suspecting his children the children flying or fearing their Father the Mother entring into 〈◊〉 with her daughter the daughter not trusting or confiding in her Mother the brother impugning his brother and wife complaining of 〈◊〉 husband the friend breaking with his friend and the neerest of kyn with those whome lawe of nature bandof bloud did most straitly combine knit togeather 3. Neither is this warre ended only in wordes or in bare debate of mindes iudgements willes and affections but it breaketh forth also into workes and hostile actions to the sight and admiration of all the worlde no aduersary Camps or armies standing more watchfull and distrustfull one of an other or vsing more stratagems of discouery spiery preuention or impugnation the one against the other then we among our selues wherof our continuall searches priuy intelligences bloudy and desperate conspiracies apprehensions imprisonments tortures arraignementes condemnations and executions are most loath some and lamentable witnesses 4 And as for Ius datum sceleri neuer could it be spoken so properly in the Romans misery as in ours when in deed though in some different sense that which was ius before is now scelus to uvitt that which was law right and equity under Catholicke Religion is now offensiue and punishable by the lawes of Protestants that which was then piety is now iniquity that which by them was vsed for deuotion is now scorned for superstition that which they reuerenced for highest Religion is now held in contempt and greatest derision such as then should haue byn hated and punished for hereticks are now esteemed for Christian and best reformed Catholicks and they vvhich in those dayes vvere called Catholicks as vvell by their enemyes as themselues and sate in iudgement vpon the rest are now brought into iudgement vnder them vvhose iudges at that tyme they vvere in the self same cause right and lawe being changed vvith the tyme and equity vvith mens affections articles of olde faith become crymes of new treason and finally all so inuerted and turned vpside downe and the differences so pursued vvith such hostile emnity of exulcerated mindes as the Poets conclusion falleth vpon vs euidently in the eye of all Christendome that vve being a potent people and dreadfull otherwise to all our neighbours haue turned our victorious hands into our owne bowels by this disunion in Religion and therby haue iust cause to feare the euent and inference threatned by our Sauiour except his holy hand protect vs that Euery Kingdome deuided in it selfe shall come to desolation 5. And that vvhich most encreaseth the feeling of this misery is that no man endeauoreth to mollify matters but all to exasperate no man applieth lenitiues but all corrosiues no man powreth in vvyne or oyle into the wound but all salte and vinegar no man byndeth vp or fomenteth but euery one seeketh to crush bruze and breake more all cry and clap their hands to exulceration saying with the children of Edom in the day of Hierusalems affliction Exinanite exinanite vsque ad fundamentum in ea Pull her downc pull her downe euen vnto the foundation 6. And to this effect haue vve heard and seene many speeches and sermons made sundry Bookes and pamphlets cast abroad or set forth in print some before the late cruell and hatefull conspiracy which might perhaps be some incitation to the designemēt or hastening therof and some presently therupon not only to exaggerate that fact whose atrocity by it self is such as scarsely it leaueth any place to exaggeration but also to extend and draw out the hatred and participation therof to others of the same Religion most innocent therin yea vnto the whole multitude so far as in them lieth a matter of exorbitant iniustice and intemperate malice 7. Of the former sorte of bookes and pamphlets we haue seene one set forth the yeare past by Thomas Hamond intituled The late Commotion of certeine Papists in Hereford Shire about the buriall of one Alice VVellington Recusant after the Popish manner in the tovvne of Alens-moore tvvo miles frō Hereford c. VVhich thing though it were but the fact of a few poore countrey people Catholickly affected as most are knowne to be in those partes to bury the said Alice and that in a sorte they were forced therunto least the dead corps should rot aboue ground the Minister of the place most obstinatly refusing to bury the same and that some other false companion in like manner is thought to haue byn set a worke to induce them into that trap as since hath byn vnderstood yet was the matter so exaggerated euery where

meane to make a seuerall Chapter afterward of his wise argumentes that he alledgeth to proue his purpose yet will I not pretermit in this place to touch one solemne foolery of his vsed to cōuince as he saith the former answere I am no Priest with the referuation to tell yow of a manifest ly And to performe this he will needes leaue for a time the Schoole of Aristotle and his forme of disputing and fall to Socraticall demaundes and interrogations Suffer me saith he Socratically to debate this point with yow and answere me friendly to these demaundes Quest. when being asked whether yow are a Priest yow 〈◊〉 no what signification hath this word no Answ. It doth signify directly I am no Priest Quest. And yet yow thinke yow are a Priest Answ. Yea I know it Quest. Wherwith doe yow know it Answ. By my inward mind and vnderstanding my conscience testifying this vnto me Quest. Can conscience beare witnes then can it also speake Answ. It speaketh as verily to my inward soule as my tongue speaketh sensibly to your eares c. Quest. Then will this be as true that when your cōscience affirmeth that which your tongue denieth that your tongue speaketh against your conscience and this is that which we haue proued to be flat lying a Conclusion that no art of Equiuocation can possibly auoid Lo heere the victory of Thomas Morton which he might take against S. Iohn Baptist for denying himself to be a Prophet asmuch as against an English Priest for answering in such a case I am no Priest 23. For let vs suppose it had byn as punishable in Iury to haue byn a Prophet in S. Iohns time as it is now to be a Priest in England and that he had byn demaunded as he was by those Priestes and Scribes whether he were a Prophet or no he answering no I would argue by interrogations as Morton doth what signification hath this word no And then S. Iohn must answere as Thomas Morton answereth for him I am no Prophet which had byn a direct ly in Mortons doctrine for that his tongue denieth the thing which his cōscience testifieth knowing that he is a Prophet and will Morton stand to this his impious processe against S. Iohn or wil he haue me to tell him his errour to deliuer S. Iohn and our Priest also from his calumniation Let him know then that this negatiue no when he saith I am no Priest doth not fall only vpon the wordes vttered according to the sense of the hearer but vpon the whole proposition as it is in the speakers mind and meaning so as whē being asked whether I be a Priest I answere no the word no serueth to my signification that I am no such Priest as I am bound to vtter And so in S. Iohns answere he being demaunded whether he were a Prophet and answering no his meaning was that he was no such or such Prophet so as this negatiue did not signify directly he was no Prophet as Morton would haue it wherby is fallen to the ground all his Socratical sciēce in arguing by interrogatories It may be he desired to giue a tast therby of his fitnes to haue some office of an Examiner against Catholickes for his sharpe manner of concluding which now men will see that he little deserueth but in defect of a better 24. I might 〈◊〉 heere to this effect and purpose that ambiguous and equiuocall answere of the said S. Iohn about Elias Elias es tu said the Pharises he answered Non sum Are 〈◊〉 Elias he answered I am not and yet Christ our Sauiour that is truth it self saith of the same S. Iohn Si vultis illum recipere ipse est Elias qui venturus est If yow will receaue him he is Elias that is to come and the later wordes make the sense more hard for that it seemeth that he describeth the true Elias in deed that was to come But all the fore alledged Fathers and others doe agree that S. Iohns negation was true in his reserued sense to wit that he was not Elias in person as the demaunders tooke him to be and Christes wordes also were true in his reserued sense to wit that he was Elias in spirit though not in person without which two reseruations neither of their speeches can be verified with them they are made doubtfull ambiguous and equiuocall to the hearer but not false So as now in one and the self same thing we haue both Christ and S. Iohn Baptist for manifest witnesses of amphibology and Equiuocation consequently it is likely that the thing is not so hellish heathenish heinous and monstrous as Morton maketh it nor is it such grosse lying as his first lying and vnlearned cōclusion auoucheth it to be But let vs goe forward 25. The next place shall be out of our Sauiours wordes to the Pharises in S. Iohns Ghospell where he saith Ego non iudico quemquam I doe not iudge any man which proposition without some reseruation cannot stand for that it should be contrary to many other places of Scripture as that Pater omne iudicium dedit filio the Father hath giuen all iudgment to his sonne and againe in the Actes of the Apostles S. Peter auoucheth in his Oration to Cornelius and those that were with him that God had commaunded him and the rest of the Apostles to testify to the whole world Quia ipse est qui constitutus est à Deo Iudex viuorum mortuorum that Christ is appointed by God Iudge both of the liuing and the dead which S. Paul confirmeth aswell to the Romans as to the Corinthians that we must all stand before the tribunall of Christ to be iudged by him 26. So as if we take this propositiō as it lieth written without any mentall reseruation it is false For if any man should aske of me whether Iesus Christ be our iudge or no if I should answere no I should speake both falsly and impiously and how then may this negatiue be made true which as vttered by Christ cannot be false Surely by no way but by a mentall reseruation of the speaker Christ our Sauiour which reseruation the ancient Fathers doe seeke after and lay forth vnto vs in diuers manners For that S. Augustine S. Bede and Rupertus in their explication of this place doe affirme that the reseruation was secundum carnem according to the flesh so as the whole proposition was I doe iudge no man according to flesh and bloud as yow Pharises doe for that the wordes of Christ immediatly going before were these to the Pharises Yow iudge according to the flesh but I iudge no man but other Greeke Fathers S. Chrysostome Leontius Theophilact and Euthymius doe thinke that this cannot stand in respect of the wordes immediatly following Et si iudico ego iudicium meum verum est and if I doe iudge any man my

〈◊〉 ordinaria neque absoluta then he inferreth out of that that it is as vnlawfull for God to Equiuocate for that otherwise saith he the elect of God should not haue any strong consolation for that they may still doubt that God doth Equiuocate with them and so when his spirite doth witnes to the spirites of his elect that they are the sonnes of God and that they shall not perish yet might they suspect saith he that it is spoken with some secret reserued clause of delusion which blasphemy saith he be farre from the hartes of his regenerate 22. Wherto I answere first that hauing set downe that which we haue before about the different nature of falsitie and Equiuocation euery child will laugh at Thomas Mortons inference God cannot lye or vtter a false proposition Ergo he cannot vtter a doubtfull or Equiuocall proposition that may haue one sense in the hearers vnderstanding and another in the speakers such as that was of Christ our Sauiour when he said dissolue this temple and I will buyld vp the same againe in three dayes which the Pharisees and all other hearers commonly vnderstood of the materiall temple wherin he stood when he spake the wordes but they were deceyued for himselfe meant the holy tēple of his sacred body Ergo in this he did Equiuocate according to the definition of Equiuocation now agreed vpon betweene vs yea Aristotles definition also agreeth to this speach of Christ for that the word temple heere doth equally signify two thinges and consequently either Morton must deny Christ to be God or affirme that God can Equiuocate though he cannot lye And the many examples which we haue alleadged before in the 9. Chapter and shall do afterward in this to the next argument must needes put this Minister in a sacke stopp his mouth in this behalfe 23. His second inference also that if God could Equiuocate the consolation of the elect could not be strong is ydle in like manner For if God could lye this inference might haue place but an Equiuocall proposition in the sense we talke of that is to say where some parte is vttered and some other reserued in the mynd is as true and certaine in the vnderstanding of the speaker as any other proposit on is or can be and in matters of religion it belongeth to the faith of the hearer so to belieue and to seeke out the speakers reseruation for his better assurance as in the examples before alleadged when God said by the Prophet That whosoeuer calleth vpon the name of our Lord shal be saued and the hearer on the other side seeth all heretickes and Sectaries whatsoeuer to call vpon the same name and yet shall not be saued yea he heareth also those wordes of Christ Not euery one that saith vnto me Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdome of heauen c. Yet is he bound vnder payn of Infidelity to belieue that the former generall proposition of Ioel the Prophet which hath a further reserued mentall meaning then in wordes is vttered is true and infallible and consequently he must seeke out the true reseruation or clause not expressed whereby the whole proposition is made true which otherwise as it lyeth and soundeth is false for that to speake generally without reseruation That euery one that calleth vpon the name of God shal be saued cannot vniuersally be true for so much as the contrary therof is euident that many who call vpon that name are not saued but damned And almost infinite other places like to this are foūd in Scripture as he that belieueth and is baptized shal be saued he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting and such other which cannot be verifyed in the generall 〈◊〉 of the words without some reseruation not expressed 24. And as for that he would not haue his new elect Protestants to want of their strong consolation or to stand in doubt of some reseruation as he saith when Gods spirit witnesseth to their spirits that they are the sonnes of God that they shall not perish which reseruation he wickedly calleth A clause of delusion he might more truly terme that their fond presumption delusion wherby they will needs apply vnto themselues that thing absolutly which God speaketh alwayes with due reseruation and condition as now hath byn shewed in the examples alleadged that not euery one absolutly shall be saued that calleth vpon the name of our Lord or belieueth and is baptized or eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud but they only that call vpon his name rightfully and as they ought to do and as Christ himself expoundeth it to witt they that call vpon him and ioyntly doe performe the will of his Father in keeping his commandemēts and the like in those that belieue are baptized and liue well and those that eat his flesh and drinke his bloud worthily which conditions and reseruations must necessarily be vnderstood also in the speach of that spirit that speaketh to protestants if it be from God as both S. Iohn and Christ himselfe expoundeth and this is not blasphemy as Tho. 〈◊〉 imagineth but true humility for here the doubtfulnes is not of the assurance of Gods promise but of our performance that is to say whether we do performe 〈◊〉 necessary conditions which alwayes are to be vnderstood in Gods promises towards vs for keeping his commandements And thus much of the first part of his argument apperteyning to God 25. But now for the other parte concerning the Dyuell it is much more childish for thus he argueth MAIOR That doctrine cannot be true which stopped a mans mouth from geuing the Dyuell the lye MINOR But if Equiuocation be admitted all mankind is silenced from geuing the 〈◊〉 his due tytle of lyer ERGO Equiuocating is no doctrine of truth c. 〈◊〉 for proofe of his Minor he alleadgeth only the 〈◊〉 of Eue in paradise demaunding of vs whether whē the dyuell said to her Though yow eate yow shall not dye she might haue said to him thou lyest For if we deny that she may then do we tye her tongue from calling the dyuell a lyer and if we grant that she may say so then would the dyuell escape by saying to her that he did not lye but only Equiuocate 26. And is not this goodly stuffe fit for a booke fit for a print fit for a Chaplyn of my Lord of Canterbury Are these things suffred to passe without controlment in England If the dyuell be father of lyes and consequently of them that do lye of what kynred will he proue to be 〈◊〉 this Minister that hath byn taken now with so many notorious witting and wilfull lyes as before hath byn shewed which how they are Equiuocatiōs also in a worser sense shall be shewed in the chapter following and consequently that T. Morton is an egregious Equiuocator in that sorte and kind which Sathan himsefe did vse to deceaue