Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	aaron_n	bread_n	visible_a	47	3	6.9655	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20744	Tvvo sermons the one commending the ministerie in generall: the other defending the office of bishops in particular: both preached, and since enlarged by George Dovvname Doctor of Diuinitie.	Downame, George, d. 1634.	1608 (1608)	STC 7125; ESTC S121022	394,392	234

say that he brought forth Bread and Wine and not to God as an Oblation but to Abraham for his refection If he had offered vp Bread Wine as a Sacrifice to God how commeth it to passe that the Apostle comparing the Priesthood of Christ and Melchizedeck so particularly maketh no mention at all thereof For certainly the point being so materiall and the place so fit it must needs bee great ignorance or negligence to omit it To say nothing that if your owne reason be good the Sacrifice of Melchizedeck shall be inferiour to that of Aaron Bread and Wine being of lesse value and not so evidently representing the death of Christ as the slaying of Beasts doth Secondly you say that the true Flesh of Christ is contained in this Sacrament and that the ancient Fathers with one consent testifie the same which in your sense and meaning is vtterly false For neither is the Flesh of Christ vnder the Accidents of Bread by Transubstantiation neither doth any of the ancient Fathers testifie it as in the sequele God willing shall more plainely appeare Thirdly where you say and many others as my Author setteth downe it seemeth that in this point you beleeue but by an Attornie pinning your Faith vnto the credit of I knowe not whom The true flesh of Christ say you is contained in the Sacrament How knowe you that By the ioint consent of Fathers And how know you they consent therein My Author tells me so And what may he be Peter or Paul or one of them vpon whom clouen tongues descended I trow no but some equivocating Priest or Iesuite A sure rock I promise you to stay your faith vpon You say lastly that the Bloud of the Testament described Exod. 24. Heb. 9. was fulfilled when Christ said This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud False For then hee did but institute the Sacrament of his death and fulfilled it the day following when really hee suffered death vpon the Crosse. And what reason haue you to thinke it was performed in a Commemoratiue sacrifice wherein your selues confesse there is no effusion of Bloud rather then in the true Sacrifice vpon the Crosse wherein the pretious bloud of the sonne of God was plentifully shed N. N. Out of all which Figures is inferred that for so much as there must bee great difference betwixt the Figure and the thing prefigured no lesse if we beleeue S. Paul then betweene the Shadow and the Body whose Shadow it is it cannot be imagined by any probability that this Sacrament exhibited by Christ in performance of the Figures should be only creatures of Bread and Wine as Sacramentaries doe imagine for then should the Figure be either equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured it selfe For who will not confesse but that Elias his Bread made by the Angell that gaue him strength to walke fortie daies vpon the vertue thereof was equall to our English Communion Bread and that the Manna was much better I. D. The Antecedent being as we haue shewed vntrue it is no matter what Consequence soeuer you deduce from it Neverthelesse let vs for the present suppose it to be true What inferre you therevpon The Real Presence and Transubstantiation How so I pray you Because otherwise the Figure would be either equall or more excellent then the thing prefigured which is absurd and contrary to the rule of S. Paul This indeed I confesse would bee absurd but how doe you shew it to be so in this particular By a double instance of Elias his bread and Manna whereof you say the one was equall the other more excellent then our English Communion Bread But still I deny the consequence the weaknesse whereof if you see not in this I hope you will in the like Argument The Cloud the Red sea and Circumcision were all as you say Figures of Baptisme and the Figure is euer inferiour to the thing Figured If therefore Baptisme be only Water and suffer no Transubstantiation at all the Figure is equall or more excellent then the thing Figured For the Water of the Cloud the Red sea was equall to the Water of Baptisme and the Foreskin in Circumcision is much better as being part of the Flesh of man What say you now Doth this Argument follow yea or no If yea then haue wee a Real Presence also in Baptisme by Transubstantiation of Water which I suppose you will not admit If no then neither doth it follow in the Eucharist for the reason is exactly the same in both Would you yet more plainely see your errour It is this your Disiunction is not sufficient either there is a Real Presence or the Iewish Figures equall our Sacraments For there are diuers other waies wherein our Sacraments excell theirs although there be no such Presence at all What waies will you say Verily not in the worth or value of the outward Elements for therein they may be exceeded nor in the thing signified for it is one the same in both even Christ Iesus Wherein then Even in these particulars First their Sacraments respected Christ yet to be exhibited in the flesh our Christ alredy exhibited Now as the Faith of things future is ever more languid and faint then of things past so is the adumbration and shadowing of them vnto Faith more obscure also Secondly although Flesh may perhaps seeme better to expresse Christs body then Bread the killing of the sacrifice his death then the breaking of Bread yet in regard of the word annexed vnto ours plainly declaring what they are to what end instituted and what proportion there is betweene the signe and the thing signified ours must needs be more evident and cleare then theirs Even as a Picture to vse S. Chysostomes similitude when it is perfected and set forth with liuely colours better representeth the person of the Prince then when no more but the first lineaments thereof are drawne or it is yet but darkly coloured Thirdly in the Eucharist are figured two things the Death of Christ our Communion with him That without this availes no more to our soules health then the sight of meat without touching it to the nourishment of our bodies That is shadowed by the breaking of Bread and powring out of Wine Not so expresly will you say as by the Leviticall sacrifices Suppose it though in regard of the Sacramentall words the cleare knowledge we haue of this mysterie it is far otherwise Yet this I meane our Communion with Christ is as exactly represented by the Eating of Bread and Drinking of Wine as nothing can be more Finally seei●g the Iewes were strictly commanded to abstaine from Bloud and we on the other side are charged Sacramentally in the Wine to drinke Bloud and in the Bread to eate Flesh our Sacrament even in regard of the externall ceremonie is to bee preferred to the Iewish And thus you see wherein our Sacraments excell theirs Now where you affirme that

and vnheard of vntill this time and example whereof you cannot find in any writer Neither finally is the body of Christ it For that is the thing signified and by your rule the signe and the thing signified must be two differing and distinct things not the same Which also perfectly agreeth with right reason For seeing nothing is opposite vnto it selfe the signe and the thing signified are opposed one vnto another by way of Relation they being Relatiue tearmes it cannot bee that the thing signified should bee one and the same with the signe and consequently that Christs body should be a signe of it selfe The conclusion of all is that if neither bread nor the Accidents of bread nor the body of Christ be the signe in the Eucharist then there is no signe at all therein and if no signe then is the Nature of the Sacrament destroyed a signe being necessary to the constitution thereof Secondly the signe as you say ought to be visible and sensible which is very true For the Sacrament being a Representation of the Death of Christ it can no more be expressed by Insensible signes then a Picture be drawne with Invisible colours But in the Eucharist there is no sensible signe Not the bread for ceasing to be it ceaseth also to bee visible Not the Accidents of bread for though they be visible yet are they not signes as we haue shewed but only of their proper subiect Nor the body of Christ for that being covered from our sight vnder the Accidents of bread cannot be seene of vs. What Seraphicall and piercing eyes some of your Illuminates may haue I knowne not but sure I am ordinary men see it not and what they see seemes to them rather bread then flesh Your owne men confesse so much and therefore the more shame against their owne rule to make it a signe that I say which is Invisible and cannot be seene so that which is visible and may be seene Thirdly lastly you acknowledge that in every Sacrament there ought to be a Proportion and agreement betweene the signe and the 2 signified 1 thing But in the Eucharist as you order it there is no such Proportion For there is nothing that resembleth vnto vs either the Passion of Christ or the nourishment of our soules by his Flesh and Bloud or our mutuall Vnion and Coniunction in his mysticall body Wherein the Analogie and agreement principally standeth Bread indeed would every way be answerable therevnto if according to Christs institution you would suffer it to bee there For the Breaking of the one resembleth the Suffering of the other and the nourishing of our bodies by the one the nourishment of our Soules by the other and our Participation of one Bread our Vnion and Communion in the same mysticall body But you haue banisht it out of the Sacrament and therefore this Analogie also together with it Besides it there remaineth nothing but Christs body and the Accidents of bread Christs body is one and the same for he assumed not more Bodies And to seeke a similitude in an Identitie or betweene the same thing and it owne selfe is meere phrenzie It resteth therefore to make vp the Proportion that the Accidents be broken that they be composed of divers graines and grapes and that they are able to feed and nourish our Bodies or else neither is Christs passion nor our mysticall coniunction nor the spirituall nourishment of our soules by his body resembled by them But this is a foule heresie in Philosophy and whosoever affirmes it deserues to haue his braine purged with a good quantity of Hellebore For if Accidents nourish then are they turned into our substance and if so then haue wee here a stranger Transubstantiation then of bread into Christs body for that is of one substance into another this of Accidents into substance If your Monks for tryall hereof might for a while be fed with nothing else but Accidents I thinke the swaging of their fat paunches would soone put an end to the controversie and force them to confesse that nothing but substance can keepe them from staruing It may be you will say though the Accidents of bread feed not yet they seeme to feed which is sufficient Wherevnto I answere that God vseth not to mocke his Church with vaine shewes and illusions but as he truly and really feedeth our soules with the body and bloud of his Sonne so hath hee ordained true and reall Symbols and resemblances thereof Thus haue wee learned Christ and no otherwise Fourthly it gainesayeth the perpetuall consent of Antiquity And here to avoide tautology I omit all those passages of the Fathers already quoted wherein is affirmed either that bread is the body of Christ or that it is the Figure of his Body Out of both which as wee haue shewed it necessarily followes that bread remaines and that the words of Institution This is my body are to bee vnderstood not literally but tropically Neither will I alleage such frivolous broken and impertinent sentences as your Author furnished you with for your Reall Presence and Transubstantiation But among many I will select a few choice ones such as shall be pregnant and direct to the purpose For I desire to be breefe and to beare you downe not so much with the number as the weight of them Iustin Martyr affirmeth that by the sanctified foode of the Eucharist our Flesh and bloud is nourished by the change thereof and Irenaeus that the substance of our flesh is nourished and augmented thereby It is bread therefore for the true bread of Cstrist neither nourisheth our bodies nor is converted into them The same Irenaeus saith that the Eucharist consisteth of two things the one earthly the other heavenly Take away bread and there remaineth no Earthly thing therein vnlesse you will say that the Accidents are Earthly Clemens of Alexandria proueth against the Encratites who abhorred wine that our Saviour himselfe dranke it because he dranke of the blessed cup. But the argument followes not if there were only bloud in the cup and no Wine Tertullian What then he would haue bread to signify he sufficiently declared calling bread his body If bread signifies his body then is it not his body Origen That meat which is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer as touching the materiall part thereof goeth into the belly and is cast forth into the draught This cannot possibly be vnderstood of the Accidents for they are not materiall nor of the Body of Christ for that were too vnworthy of bread therefore which in the same place hee calleth the Typicall and Symbolicall Body of Christ distinguishing it from his true Body Cyprian The Lord offered Bread and the cup mixt with Wine That which is offered is Consecrated Ergo after Consecration it is Bread and Wine Againe Wee finde it was a mixt cup which the Lord did offer and that it was wine which he