Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	remission_n	sacrifice_n	sin_n	8,484	5	5.4732	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25225	The additional articles in Pope Pius's creed, no articles of the Christian faith being an answer to a late pamphlet intituled, Pope Pius his profession of faith vindicated from novelty in additional articles, and the prospect of popery, taken from that authentick record, with short notes thereupon, defended.	Altham, Michael, 1633-1705.; Altham, Michael, 1633-1705. Creed of Pope Pius IV, or, A prospect of popery taken from that authentick record.	1688 (1688)	Wing A2931; ESTC R18073	87,445	96

they are made Righteous when they are justified but as the Apostle saith They are justified freely by his Grace Rom. iij. And to explain himself a little after he adds That Grace would not be Grace if it were not given freely but rendred as a due Debt In the same Epistle I find also these words It is not therefore in vain that we sing unto God His mercy shall prevent me and His mercy shall follow me Whence life eternal it self which in the end shall be enjoyed without end and therefore is rendred to precedent merits yet because those merits to which it is given are not prepared by any ability of ours but are wrought in us by Grace even Life eternal it self is called Grace for no other reason but because it is given freely not therefore because it is not given to Merits but because those very Merits to which it is given are themselves a gift These words are an Inference from what went before where St. Austin argues against Merit either before to obtain Grace or after to deserve a Reward These are his words What is the Merit of Man before Grace by which he may deservedly obtain Grace when as all our Merit is from Grace and when he crowns our Merits he crowns nothing else but his own Gifts And from hence he inferrs in the words before cited Whence I observe 1. That all that is good in us here is owing to Divine Mercy preventing us 2. That all the good we can expect hereafter must be from the same Divine Mercy following us 3. That Life eternal which is the great Reward of Vertue and Goodness is called Grace 4. That though it be said to be given to Merits it is not said to be given for the sake of those Merits 5. That those Merits to which it is given are themselves the gift of God and therefore not Merits in the strict sence of the word It is not Righteousness but Pride in the name of Righteousness that expects eternal Life as a Reward due to its deserving These are St. Austin's own words in the next page which directly contradict this Definition of the Council of Trent viz. That a man justified truly deserves Life everlasting by his good works And now if the Vindicator can make any advantage of these words of St. Austin either to himself or to his cause I shall not envy him IV. He tells us that the Council hath defin'd That by works a Man is justified and not by Faith only And to prove this he alledgeth Jam. ij 24. where it is said ye see then how that a man is justified by works and not by faith only This place of Scripture hath been so often urged and all the Arguments raised therefrom so often and so miserably baffled that I wonder with what confidence this Gentleman could bring it upon the stage again They have been often told that St. James here doth not speak of Justification before God but before Men. That as Faith only though that Faith be not alone justifies us before God so good Works do justifie the truth of that Faith and evidence the reality of our Justification thereby unto Men. Which Interpretation is well warranted by St. Paul when he saith If Abraham was justified by Works then hath he whereof to glory but not before God Rom. iv 2. I likewise profess That in the Mass is offered a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead TO persuade us to a compliance herewith the Vindicator advanceth both Scripture and Antiquity Two great Arguments if well managed Which whether they be or no I shall now Examine 1. He begins with Scripture and by way of Preface thereunto tells us That our blessed Saviour being a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedeck did at his last Supper offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins This is unhappily to stumble at the Threshold For 1. How his Consequent comes to be tack'd to his Antecedent is past my capacity to understand Our blessed Saviour was made a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck Therefore at his last Supper he did offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins What Logick there is in this I am yet to learn. 2. If he did offer himself at his last Supper to whom did he do it For we do not find that he did address himself or offer any thing to any but only to his Disciples and surely he will not say that he offered himself as a Sacrifice unto them 3. If he did offer his Body and Blood then was it not an unbloody Sacrifice as they say it was 4. If it was an unbloody Sacrifice then could it not be propitiatory For without shedding of Blood there is no Remission of Sins Heb. ix 22. But the Vindicator hath good Scripture for all this viz. Luke xxij 19. 1 Cor. xi 24. Matth. xxvi 28. In all which places the Words of Institution are recited with some variation St. Matthew saith This is my Body vers 26. St. Luke adds Which is given for you And St. Paul saith Which is broken for you His whole Argument there depends upon the Words of Institution Before therefore I meddle with his reasoning therefrom it will be convenient to consider and explain them And 1. Our Saviour saith This is not This is Transubstantiate or wonderfully converted into another substance viz the substance of my Body 2. If when he said This is he meant Transubstantiation then his Body must be Transubstantiate before he spake and if so then the Conversion doth not depend upon the Words as they affirm For This is implies a thing already done 3. When he said This is my Body it is evident that his true natural humane Body was there with them took the Bread brake it gave it eat it now if that which he took brake gave and eat was then the Body of Christ either he must have two Bodies there at that time or else the same Body was by the same Body taken broken given and eaten and yet all the while neither taken broken given nor eaten 4. When he saith This is my Body which is given for you as St. Luke or Which is broken for you as St. Paul if it be understood literally then must it be either his natural or his glorified Body if they say the former then we urge them again with the preceding Observation the latter they will not dare to say because his Body was not then Glorified 5. If these words be to be literally and strictly to be understood then the substance of Bread must be Christ's Body at that time for what can any Man living understand by This but only this Bread For what he took he blessed what he blessed he brake what he brake he gave to his Disciples what he gave to them he bad them take and eat and what he bad them take and eat of that he

saith This is my Body and all this he himself tells us was Bread. And that it did not receive any such wonderful Conversion or Change as they believe it did by the pronouncing of those words St. Paul who may be presumed to understand the mind of his Master as well as any of them is a very good Evidence who after the Words of Consecration by which they pretend the Change is made doth over and over again call it Bread as you may read 1 Cor. xi 26 27 c. 6. When he saith Do this in remembrance of me it implies an Absence for we can no more be said to remember that which is present than to see that which is absent 7. When it is said This Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins Are these words to be understood literally too Must we believe that by the pronouncing of these words there is a substantial Change made If so then it must not be of the Wine but of the Cup and that not into the Blood of Christ but into the New Testament or New Covenant in his Blood which none of them as yet have been so bold as to affirm 8. If we consider that our Saviour celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion and said This is my Body which is broken and This is my Blood which is shed it cannot be literally true of his natural humane Body for that was then whole and unbroken and his Blood was not then shed And indeed it was impossible that the Disciples should understand these words literally because they not only plainly saw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given not his Body broken and Blood shed because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his Body whole and unpierced Having thus considered the words of Institution and made some Remarks upon them let us now see how the Vindicator argues therefrom His first Remark is That the words of Institution are spoken in the present Tense whence he thus argues That it is certain that then before the Passion on the Cross the Body was given and broken Mystically and the Chalice shed for the Remission of Sins To this I answer 1. That if the Vindicator had consulted the Romish Bible or the Mass he might there have found Tradetur instead of Traditur shall be given instead of is given and Effundetur instead of Effunditur shall be shed instead of is shed Which words were likewise long ago used by Origen and St. Chrysostom Origen in Matth. Tract 35. Chrysost in 1 Cor. 11. Sa in verb. Matth. Cajetan in Luc. 22. and the Jesuit Sa would have told him in Greek it is said Which is shed the time present for the time to come And Cardinal Cajetan would have informed him even as the Evangelists by the time present have expressed the future Effusion of Blood saying is shed St. Paul likewise saying is broken signifieth by the present time the breaking of his Body which was after to be done upon the Cross Barrad Harmon Evangeilst Tom. 4. l. 3. c 4. And Barradius the Jesuit saith The Lord useth the time present instead of the future time which then approached for the words ought to be understood of his future passion which then drew near in this sence This is my Body which shall shortly be given for you to suffer and to die So that though the words were really spoken in the present Tense yet did not that hinder either the Primitive Fathers their own Translators of the Bible the Compilers of their Mass or their own Eminent Doctors from understanding them of the time to come Nor is it to be wondered at for they well knew that it was our Saviour's way and manner of speaking As for instance before any of the Jews were come to lay hands on him he said Behold the Son of Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is betrayed or given into the hands of Sinners Matth. xxvi 45. Therefore doth my Father love me because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I lay down my Life that I may take it again John x. 17. And in another place I am no more in the World John xvij 11. And St. Paul in conformity to his Master's way and manner of speaking saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am already offered up 2 Tim. iv 6. All which considered it will not appear to be so very certain as this Gentleman thinks it is That the Body of Christ was given and broken before his Passion on the Cross But 2dly He seems to qualifie the rigour of his Assertion by telling us That all this was done Mystically To which I answer That if by Mystically he mean Sacramentally i. e. That our blessed Saviour by what he did at his last Supper intended to signify to his Disciples what he was about to do and suffer for them and the rest of Mankind the day following we shall not differ with him about it But if by Mystically he mean Really though Invisibly as undoubtedly he doth we cannot agree with him for in a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice as the Article which he here undertakes to defend calls it the thing offered ought to be visible and there ought to be a Destruction of it in the Sacrifice none of all which appears to be in this Action of our Blessed Saviour But he proceeds Which saith he being done in an unbloody manner and offered to God we call it an unbloody Sacrifice and it being for the Remission of Sins 't is likewise propitiatory To this I answer 1. The Vindicator here takes that for granted which we can by no means allow him viz. That the Body of Christ was given and broken Mystically and the Chalice shed for the Remission of Sins before his Passion on the Cross And why we cannot admit of this I have given you an Account already 2. He contradicts himself for he tells us This was done in an unbloody manner and yet he had before told us That the Chalice was shed by which I suppose he means if he have any meaning in it the Blood in the Chalice Now if Christ's Blood was shed how could it be done in an unbloody manner Or how could it be called an unbloody Sacrifice 3. He tells us It was offer'd to God but how doth that appear That our Saviour in his last Supper did indeed offer Bread and Wine to his Disciples is very plain and evident but that he offered either them or any thing else to God the Words of Institution give us no account 4. That it being for Remission of Sins it was likewise propitiatory And here he is under a great mistake for every thing that is for Remission of Sins is not a propitiatory Sacrifice The Baptism of John and his Preaching was for the Remission

of Sins Mark i. 4. And so likewise is Baptism and Repentance Acts ij 38. And yet I suppose the Vindicator will not say That either Baptism or Preaching or Repentance are propitiatory Sacrifices But perhaps he will say That all shedding of Blood made for Remission of Sins is a propitiatory Sacrifice I cannot consent to him in this neither for there is a shedding of Blood sacramental and not real which is made to represent the shedding of Christ's Blood upon the Cross and that is no propitiatory Sacrifice But what if it be real Though it be yet will not the proposition be universally true for the Blood of our Lord was really shed and for Remissions of Sins too at his Circumcision and yet Circumcision was no Sacrifice In a true propitiatory Sacrifice three Things are required 1. There must be a real Effusion of Blood. 2. That real Effusion of Blood must be for the Remission of Sins 3. That Effusion of Blood must be by the Death of the thing offered None of which are to be found in this Action of our Blessed Saviour at his last Supper and therefore it could not be a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice But if we should grant which we cannot do that this were a Sacrifice and a propitiatory Sacrifice too will it by a necessary Consequence follow that every Mass-Priest at this day doth in the Mass offer a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead Yes saith the Vindicator For though Christ was offered but once upon the Cross of which St. Paul speaketh Hebr. vij 27. yet in this manner as Christ offered himself at his last Supper we believe that the Apostles and their Successors were commanded to repeat it in a perpetual memory and representation of his Death and Passion by Christ's own Institution when he said to them Do this in remembrance of me in which words he gave them power of doing the same that he had done To this I answer That in the same manner as Christ offered himself at his last Supper he is offered still i. e. Sacramentally and that by the command of Christ we are obliged often to celebrate or repeat this Sacrament in memory of his Death and Passion upon the Cross And that by virtue of those Words Do this in remembrance of me Power was give to the Apostles and their Successors to do the same thing he did i. e. to celebrate this Sacrament in memory of his Death and Passion on the Cross All this we readily grant but what is all this to the Priest's Offering in the Mass a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead Those of the Roman Communion do indeed lay great stress upon these words Do this in remembrance of me pretending to find therein a power given to every Mass-Priest to offer up the Son of God as a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead But if they would but consult St. Paul he would better inform them what the importance of these words is For after he had recited the words of Institution and in the close thereof these very words Do this in Remembrance of me in the very next words he tells them what it was they were to do in remembrance of him saying As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come 1 Cor. xi 26. 2. Having gone as far as he can with his Scripture proofs he calls in the assistance of Antiquity telling us with sufficient confidence That this i. e. the matter contained in this Article is the Sence of the Primitive Fathers Whether it be or no is the thing we are now to consider and for that purpose I shall examine his Quotations out of them His first Witness is St. Chrysost Hom. 7. I suppose he means 17. in Ep. ad Hebr. where it is said We still offer the same Sacrifice c. To this I answer What St. Chrysostom meant by those words I know no body can better inform us than St. Chrysostom himself who immediately subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or to speak more properly we make a commemoration of the same Sacrifice And in the same Homily had the Vindicator carefully perused it of been so honest as to have noted it he might have found such Expressions as these We offer indeed but it is in remembrance of his Death This Sacrifice is an Example of that Sacrifice This which we now do is in commemoration of that which hath been done But that which the Vindicator seems to lay the great stress upon is That St. Chrysostom in this Homily and likewise l. 6. de Sacerd. calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice We grant it but if he will let him explain himself he will tell him upon what account he so calleth it in this Homily Because it representeth the Sacrifice of our Lord's Death and therein we commemorate the same till his coming again And in the other place Because we pray unto God that he would receive the Sacrifice of his Death as a satisfaction for our Sins His next Evidence is St. Ambrose sup Ps 38. Where he speaks of the Priest's offering Sacrifice for the People and of Christ's being offered up upon Earth when his Body is offered St. Ambrose in the same place explains himself saying The Shadow went before the Image followed the Truth shall be The Shadow in the Law the Image in the Gospel the Truth in the Heavens O Man go up into Heaven and thou shalt see those things whereof here was an Image and a Shadow Where he plainly tells us that what is done here upon Earth is only an Image or Representation And in another place he saith In Luc. l. 5. c. 7. We have seen him and look'd upon him with our Eyes and we have thrust our Fingers into the print of his Nails For we seem to see him that we read of and to have beheld him hanging upon the Cross and with the feeling Spirit of the Church to have searched his Wounds Now as St. Ambrose here saith We see him hanging on the Cross c. In like manner doth he say He is offered up upon Earth when his Body is offered For as their own Gloss upon the Sentences of Prosper saith Christ is Sacrificed i. e. his Sacrifice is represented and a commemoration is made of his Passion His next Authority is Cyril Alex. Anath 11. We celebrate in our Churches an Holy Life-giving and Vnbloody Sacrifice What St. Cyril meant by this Unbloody Sacrifice he himself will best inform us if we consult him about it for in another place he saith Cyril contr Julian l. 10. We having left the gross Ministery of the Jews have a commandment to make a fine thin and spiritual Sacrifice And therefore we offer unto God for a sweet smelling savour all manner of Vertues Faith Hope Charity And in the same sence that he calls these Sacrifices doth he call