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
A73378	An exposition of the lawes of Moses Viz. Morall. Ceremoniall. Iudiciall. The second volume. Containing an explanation of diverse questions and positions for the right understanding thereof. Wherein also are opened divers ancient rites & customes of the Iewes, and also of the Gentiles, as they haue relation to the Iewish. Together with an explication of sundry difficult texts of Scripture, which depend upon, or belong unto every one of the Commandements, as also upon the ceremoniall and iudiciall lawes. Which texts are set downe in the tables before each particular booke. All which are cleered out of the originall languages, the Hebrew and Greeke, and out of the distinctions of the schoolemen and cases of the casuists. / By Iohn Weemse, of Lathocker in Scotland, preacher of Gods Word.; Works. v. 3	Weemes, John, 1579?-1636.	1632 (1632)	STC 25207.5; ESTC S112662	524,931	1,326

or else we shall never come by the true meaning The literall sense is that which the words beare eyther properly or figuratively therefore he sayd well who sayd bonus grammaticus bonus theologus for we can never come to the true meaning and sense unlesse the words be unfolded A figurative literall sense is eyther in verbis vel in rebus eyther in the words or in the matter In verbis in the words as Luk. 13.32 Herod is a Foxe Psal 22.12 The princes of Israel are Buls of Basan in these words there is but one sense So Let the dead bury the dead Luk 9.50 Dead in soule bury the dead in body here is but one sense but where the words in one sentence have diverse significations then they make up divers senses as judge not that yee be not judged Iudicium libertatis Iudicium potesta●is Mat. 7.1 the first is judicium libertatis the second is judicium potestatis When we search to finde out the literall sense of the Scripture that cannot be the literall sense of it which is contrary to the analogie of faith which is eyther in credendis or in faciendis If it be contrary to the articles of our faith or any of the commandements then that cannot be the literall sens● as Rom. 12.20 If thine enemy be hungry give him meate if he thirst give him drinke for in so doing thou shalt heape coales of fire upon his head Here to feede the enemy and to give him drinke are to be taken literally because they are commanded in the sixt Commandement but to heape coales of fire upon his head must be taken figuratively because according to the letter it is contrary to the sixt Commandement Example 2. Matth. 5.29 If thy right eye offend thee plucke it out and cast it from thee Here the words are not to be taken literally for this were contrary to the sixt Commandement but figuratively So this is my body is not to be taken literally for it is contrary to the analogie of faith because the heavens must containe the bodie of Christ untill he come againe Act. 3.21 The second is figurative in rebus as in the Sacrament of the Supper when he sate with his Disciples he sayd This is my body he pointeth at the thing present and understandeth the thing that is not present he had the bread and cup in his hand and he sayd This is my body This is my blood In these propositions there is the subject and the attribute the subject is the bread and wine which he doth demonstrate the attribute is that which is signified by the bread and wine and these two make up but one sense propius remotius when Peter had made a confession that Christ was the Sonne of the living God Matth. 16. Christ to confirme this unto him and to the rest of the Disciples saith Tu es Petrus Similie super hanc petram c. he pointeth at Peter but he understandeth himselfe upon whom the Church is built and not Peter When a man looketh upon a picture he saith this picture is my father here he understandeth two things propius remetius to wit the picture it selfe and his father represented by the picture this picture at which hee pointeth is not his father properly but onely it representeth his father Object But some will object when it is sayd Hic est sanguis meus that the article hic agreeth with Sanguis and not with Vinum therefore it may seeme that it is his blood indeed and not wine that he pointeth at Answ This cannot be for in the former proposition when he sayd hoc est corpus meum he should have sayd hic est corpus meum because it repeateth the word panis as it is more cleare in the Greeke therefore the article hic hath relation to some other thing than to the bread at which he pointeth for the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 repeateth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bread or the wine but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his body and his blood When Moyses sayd Exod. 24.8 Behold the blood of the Covenant here the word blood is properly to be understood because their covenants were confirmed with blood and there was no sacrifice without blood But when Christ sayd This is my blood of the New Testament there was no blood in the Cup here but he had relation to his owne blood which was signified by the wine in the Cup. Quest When Christ saith This is my body This is my blood how was he present with the bread and the wine there A thing is sayd to be present foure manner of wayes Answ first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and fourthly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when a man is bodily present Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as when a man is present by his picture Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the sunne is present by operation in heating and nourishing things below here Fourthly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when we apprehend a thing in our mind Christ when he sayd this is my body and this is my blood he was present there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he was not in the bread and the wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then his blood should have beene there before it was shed then hee should have had two bodies one visible and another invisible but he was present there in the bread and the wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the bread and the wine represented his body and his blood So hee was present there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Spirit working in their hearts and he was present to them by faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they did spiritually eate his body and drinke his blood and this is the true and literall sense of the words Which is the literall sense in those words Quest Hoc facite in mei recordationem doe this in remembrance of me Although there bee many things implyed in these words Answ both upon the part of the Minister and upon the part of the People yet they make up but one sense as upon the part of the Minister Take this bread blesse this bread breake it and give it to the people And upon the part of the people take this bread eate this bread c. yet all these looke but to one thing that is to the remembrance of Christs death and therefore the externall action bringeth to minde the internall action the remembrance of Christs death so that in these words there is but one sense Testimonies of the old Testament cited in the New make but one sense When the testimonies of the old Testament are cited in the new the Spirit of God intendeth propinquius remotius something nearer and something farther off yet these two make not up two divers senses

their enigmaticall speeches were not those Symbolicall and taught them some other thing as ignem gladio ne fodias Pythagoras meaning was that they should not provoke an angry man so the precepts of Moses commanding them to abstaine from such and such beasts as uncleane were Symbolicall and implied some other thing This Commandement forbiddeth not mixtures in Religion How this precept is an appendix of the sixt Commandement as an appendix of the second Commandement but as an appendix of the sixt Commandement to abstaine from cruelty as not to take the damme sitting upon the young ones and not to muzzle the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the Corne. Yee shall not seeth a kid in the mothes milke The divers interpretation of this precept this is not the meaning of the command content your selves to eate the kid The true meaning of this precept but take head that yee eate not the damme also neither is this the meaning of it ye shall not eate flesh with milke as the Chaldee Paraphrast Paraphraseth it neither is this the meaning of it take heed that ye seeth not the kid in the mothers milke as the superstitious Iewes expound it at this day they will not seeth flesh and milke in one pot neither will they cut both flesh and cheese with one knife and amongst the precepts which they have written of things lawfull to be eaten they forbid the eating of flesh and milke together but the meaning of the place seemeth to be this ye shall not eate of a kid or of a Lambe for so the Seventy translate it so long as it sucketh the damme for all this time it is as it were but milke they might sacrifice it when it was but eight dayes old but not to eate of it so long as it was sucking 1 Sam 7.9 Samuel tooke a sucking Lambe and offered The Lord forbiddeth also Exod. 22.31 To eate that which was torne by beasts the former Commandement that they should not seeth a kid in the mothers milke was a ceremoniall law belonging to the sixt Commandement Not to eate that which was torne is a ceremoniall appendix both of the sixt and eight Commandement but this Commandement that they should not eat of that which was torne by beasts was an appendix both of the eight and sixt Commandement whereby he taught them both to abstaine from blood and from theft Quest Whether should those words Levit. 15.17 Be read copulativè the soule which eateth that which dyeth of it selfe and is torne by beasts or disiunctivè that which dyeth of it selfe or is torne of beasts Answ Some of the Iewes read the words copulativè thus if it dye of it selfe and be torne of beasts they might not eate of it but the true reading is disiunctive if it dye of it selfe or bee torne as Iunius readeth it for the law saith expressely that that which is torne is uncleane although it dye not first and then be torne and some of the Iewes make that more uncleane which is torne then that which dyeth of it selfe one demanded the question of R Ioseph Gersaeus Whether the beast that dyed of it selfe or that which was torne was the more uncleane why hee writ the Law rather upon the skinne of a beast that dyed of it selfe than upon the skinne of a beast that was torne he answered them by this comparison I tell you whereunto I liken the beast that dyeth of it selfe and that which is torne to two malefactors who are adjudged to dye the one malefactor the judge himselfe killeth and the other the hangman killeth so they hold that that which dyed of it selfe was not so uncleane as that which was torne by wild beasts Conclusion The conclusion of this is here we may see the infancy of the Iewish Church when the Lord forbiddeth them to taste touch or handle and restraineth their baser senses tasting touching and handling Coloss 2.21 Even as parents forbid their little children to touch this or handle that whereas they forbid them when they come to understanding to looke upon evill God dealeth with the Iewes as fathers doe with little children or to heare evill So under the Gospell the prohibition is given chiefely to the nobler senses hearing and seeing and not so much to the base senses touching and tasting Commandement VII EXERCITAT XXVIII When a Bastard might enter into the Congregation under the Law A ceremoniall appendix of Command 7. Deut. 23.2 A Bastard shall not enter into the Congregation unto the tenth generation THe Lord forbiddeth here that a Bastard should enter into the congregation of the Lord unto the tenth generation there are foure things to be considered here First who is called Mamzer a Bastard here Secondly What is meant by entering into the congregation Thirdly That this is but a ceremoniall Law What is meant by Bastard here and Lastly That it is not meant of every sort of Bastard First he is not called Mamzer here if his father were an Hebrew and his mother a Gentile as the Chaldee Paraphrast taketh it for then Obed the sonne of Ruth the Moabitesse should have beene a Bastard Secondly He is not called Mamzer or Spurius who is borne of a Widdow as the Hebrewes hold as if an Hebrew had maried a captive woman and had lyen with her and she fel with child and it was in doubt whether hee was the child of the first husband or of the last And so they hold that David begot Chiliab upon Abigail and that his mother called him Daniel and his father Chiliab 2 Sam. 2.2 and 1 Chro. 3.1 Because hee was incerto patre but this is one of their dreames neither is he called a Bastard qui ex secundis nuptijs natus est as when a man marieth a Widdow and begeteth a child upon her her The Iewes are most mistaken in this Ben Syra in his Proverbes saith Oculos tuos absconde a muliere vidua et ne concupiscas pulchritudinem ejus in corde tuo nam filij ejus fiij scortationū sunt hide thine eyes from a Widdow Woman and be not taken with her beauty for her children are the children of fornicatiō And the same Ben Sira at the letter Samech saith Ben syra inter proverbia alphabeto 2. Scriba ducat virginem et ne ducat eam quae maritū habuit nam aquae virginis tibi soli erunt aquā vero eius qua maritū habuit ante te alius praeter te hausit that is let a scribe mary a Virgin and let him not mary her who hath had an husband before and content himselfe with the waters of his owne cisterne and not to drinke of that water where another hath drawne before him where he alludeth to the phrase of the Scripture which calleth adultery stollen waters Prov. 9.17 Water put for seed And they put water for seed Num. 24.7 So Moab is his fathers water But the Iewes were much mistaken in

the Apostle maketh no mention of the golden Altar but onely of the golden censer maketh mention of the golden censer onely and not of the golden Altar and this he doth to signifie that this was the last period of the Leviticall service to be done away for the last thing which the Priest did when he came out of the Temple was to hold up incense with his censer The Highpriest when he went into the holiest of all once in the yeare he left the golden censer there for the whole yeare Why the Highpriest left the censer in the holiest of all Heb. 9.4 to signifie that this Leviticall service was to be layd downe and that Christs intercession indureth for ever and the Apostle passeth by all these things without the vaile to signifie that the ceremonies without the vaile were to be abolished The Angell appeared to Zacharias when he was offering incense At the right side of this Altar the Angell appeared to Zacharias Luk. 1.11 and first he appeared to him at the time of incense when all the rest of the ceremoniall service was ended and when he had done all things which were requisite in the first Tabernacle as dressing of lamps sacrificing putting bread upon the Table every Sabbath to teach us that now Christ was to come when the ceremonies were drawing to an end Why the Angell appered to Zacharias the father of Iohn the Baptist Againe he appeared to Zacharias who was the father of Iohn the Baptist to signifie that now Christ was neare comming because Iohn Zacharias sonne his forerunner was now at hand Why he appeared to Zacharias an inferior Priest Lastly he appeared to Zacharias an inferior Priest and not to the Highpriest to signifie that Iohn should be but a servant and one that should not thinke himselfe worthy to loose the latchet of Christs shooes The signification of the brasen Altar The Altar for the burnt offering was covered with brasse and it signified Christs passion as the golden Altar signified his intercession and as none might goe to the golden Altar to offer incense but he who might goe to the brasen Altar and offer sacrifice so we have no mediator of intercession but he that is the mediator of our redemption This Altar was a large Altar in Solomons time twentie cubits in length and twentie in breadth when there was a great sacrifice upon this Altar it was filled to the corners Allusion and Zachariah alludeth to this they shall be filled like bowles and as the corners of the Altar Zach. 9.15 When the Sacrifice was accepted of the Lord they tooke this for a signe that it was all turned to ashes A signe of the acceptation of the Sacrifices and they prayed the Lord turne thy sacrifice to ashes Psal 20.3 This Altar had hornes as the golden Altar had The Sacrifice was tyed to the hornes of the Altar and they that were to offer a sacrifice delivered the beast to the Priest and he tyed it to the hornes of the Altar and from hence he tooke it to the north gate and killed it and then the Priest cut it in so many quarters and laid it upon the Altar and burnt it Allusion and David alludeth to this Psal 18.27 Bind the sacrifice with cords even unto the hornes of the Altar There was one border about the Altar above and another at the foote of it The blood of the beasts sprinkled upon the Altar and powred under the Altar and there was a great ditch about the Altar where the blood of the beasts was powred which were killed this blood was brought from the north gate and sprinkled upon the hornes of the Altar and it ran downe to the foote of the Altar into that ditch where the rest of the blood was powred and it was all carried through secret passages to the brooke Kidron and Iohn alludeth to this Revel 6.9 Allusion I saw under the Altar the soules of them that were slaine for the word of God The border went round about the foote of the Altar that no man might fall into this deepe ditch where the blood was powred So the Lord commanded them to make battlements about their houses for the safety of men Deut. 22.8 and so there was peribulum or a wall round about the Temple to save the people that none fell over because it stood upon a hill The Lord placed the brasen Altar in the midst of the Court but AhaZ tooke it out of the owne place How Ahaz remooved the brasen Altar and set it upon the north side of the Altar of Damascus 2 King 16.14 even in that place where the Idoll of jealousie was set up at the north gate Ezek. 8.5 and here the glory of the Lord appeared at his owne Altar when he testified unto them by his apparition that hee was to leave his Temple for their Idolatry Ezek. 8.4 this vision of Ezekiel was in atrio gentium in the court of the Gentiles but when the Lord was to give sentence against them he came to the threshold of the doore Ezek. 10.4 Why Salomon sacrificed in the middle of the Court. Because this brasen Altar was not large enough to containe all the sacrifices therefore Salomon hallowed the middle of the court where he sacrificed the rest of the sacrifices 1 King 8.64 David and Salomon being Prophets and immediatly directed by the Spirit of God David and Salomon added many things which were not in the Tabernacle added somethings which were not in the Tabernacle as David for conveniencie caused the Priests to enter in the service of the Tabernacle when they were twentie five yeares of age whereas the Priests before did not enter in their ministerie to serve in the Tabernacle untill they were thirtie yeares of age So Salomon for conveniencie hallowed the middle court for the sacrifices because the brasen Altar could not containe all the sacrifices at that time being an extra-ordinarie sacrifice Something 's added in the Temple for signification Secondly something was added in the Temple for signification as Salomon added two Cherubims in the Temple which were not in the Tabernacle to signifie that the Gentiles were to be called and that the ministerie of the Angels should be extended to them Something added in it for order Thirdly something was added for order as David divided the Priests in foure and twentie orders but none of the Kings of Iudah else did the like neyther Iosias nor yet Hezekiah because they were not Prophets as David and Salomon were Quest Whether should any Altar be retained now in the Church or not Answ The Fathers call the Table of the Lord an Altar by allusion The fathers by allusion called the Table of the Lord an Altar but when they speake this they meane not properly of an Altar but onely they call it so because it carieth a remembrance of that sacrifice once offered There are foure sorts of Altars

of their sinne So the Covenant here is the Lords Covenant and the deceiver is not able to make it of no effect But where the principall intention of the contracter is deceit and the person with whom the contract is made is deceived When the errour of the person maketh the contract of no effect then the contract is nullified as if a man should ignorantly buy a free man for a slaue here the free man should be released error personae irritat contractum Object But yee will say in all contracts God hath an hand and he is never deceived therefore no such contract should be dissolved where there is error personae Answ In the blessing betwixt Isaac and Iacob and the contract betwixt Ioshua and the Gibeonites God had set downe his revealed will God had revealed his will in the blessing of Iacob and the sparing of the Gibeonites what he was minded to doe in both of these and therefore neither the error of Isaac nor the deceit of Rebecca and Iacob made the blessing of no effect so neither in the contract betwixt Ioshua and the Gibeonites But the Lord forbiddeth fraudulent contracts in his Word neither is it his intention that such contracts should be made therefore they are of no effect CHAPTER XX. That a Iudge may giue out sentence by the information of the false witnesses and yet be free 2 SAM 1.16 And David said unto him thy bloud be upon thy head for thy mouth hath testified against thee IN Iudgement the principall part dependeth upon the witnesses and if they testifie an untruth The chiefe part in judgment dependeth upon the witnesses they make a wrong sentence to proceed out of the mouth of a just Iudge David here giueth out sentence against the Amalekite it was a just sentence in respect of the Iudge because he condemned him out of his owne mouth but a wrong sentence in respect of the Amalekite because he did not kill Saul but bragged onely that he had killed him for the Text saith that Saul killed himselfe 1 Sam. 31.5 When the Grecians besieged Troy Simile Palamedes was killed there amongst the rest and when the Greekes had raised their siege from Troy and taken Ship to returne to Greece Nauplius the father of Palamedes to be revenged upon the Greekes tooke a Boate in a darke night and went into the Sea and set up a Beaken upon a rock which when the Greekes did see they tooke it to be the Harbour and directed their Course towards it and so they runne the most of their Shippes upon the rockes and were cast away We cannot say here that the fault was in the Pilots because the Shippes were cast away but the fault was in false Nauplius who held up a wrong light unto them So when a good Iudge giveth out a wrong sentence the fault is not in the Iudge but in the false witnesses who hold up a false light unto him and therefore the Iudge should labour to punish these false witnesses and to restore the partie who is wronged to his right and as Telephus was healed by the speare that hurt him so should they studie to cure the person whom they haue wounded by their sentence A Iudge must not proceed without witnesse If a Iudge call two or three witnesses that is the first thing required of him in tryall of the truth nam testimonio unius non proceditur and one witnes doth not proue There are three witnesses in heaven to certifie us of the truth the Father the Word and the holy Ghost And there are three that beare witnesse to us in the earth of the remission of sinnes the Spirit the water and bloud 1 Ioh. 5.7.8 So in Iudicatories of the Church three witnesses are required 2 Cor. 13.1 This is the third time that I am comming to you in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established So in the tryall of civill causes every thing was established by the mouth of two or three witnesses Deut. 21.15 A Iudge is to make choise of faithfull witnesses Secondly The Iudge must call faithfull witnesses they are called faithfull witnesses when they are reputed so in the common estimation of men Esay 8.2 And I tooke unto me faithfull witnesses Vriah the Priest and Zechariah the sonne of Ierebechiah Vriah was not a faithfull man yet because he was so reputed amongst the people therefore he is called a faithfull witnesse They must be eye-witnesses Thirdly Hee must call witnesses who haue both heard and seene 1 Ioh. 1.1 That which we haue heard that which we haue seene with our eyes which we haue looked upon c. Fourthly They must be contestes and their testimonies must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreeing in one Mark 14.56 Now if the Iudge proceed this way and the sentence be false it is not his fault for by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established that is shall be holden for truth When a Iudge demaundeth of the witnesses hee asketh them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what murther is Secondly he asketh not of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the effects and consequents of murther which follow it as the guilt and punishment Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he asketh them whether it were casually or maliciously done And fourthly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they saw him kill such a man this is the speciall thing that they require and if the Iudge giue out sentence this wayes according to things proved then the blame lieth not upon him if there bee a wrong sentence pronounced It may be said Object when a man taketh a thing to bee a truth although it be an untruth he speaketh an untruth why doth not a Iudge then pronounce a sentence which is not true although he take it to be a truth There is a greater vniformitie required betwixt the mind and the tongue Answ then betwixt the sentence of the Iudge and the testimonie of the witnesses for there is nothing required in the Iudge but that he proceed secundùm allegata et probata according to things alledged and proved CHAPTER XXI Of one who killed in suddaine passion 2 SAM 14. And thy hand maid had two sonnes and they two stroue together in the field and there was none to part them but the one smote the other and slew him THere is a difference betwixt those things which wee doe in suddaine passion Difference betwixt things done in passion and deliberately and those things which are done deliberately those things which children mad men and beasts doe they are not said to be done deliberately they come not from the will which is principium agendi possunt laedere sed non injuriâ afficere Violenti●● Coactum Non spontaneum Voluntarium Againe there is a difference betwixt violentum coactum non spontaneum voluntarium Violentum is that which by outward force a man is constrained to