Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	blood_n	bread_n	cup_n	4,095	5	9.9348	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62876	Theodulia, or, A just defence of hearing the sermons and other teaching of the present ministers of England against a book unjustly entituled (in Greek) A Christian testimony against them that serve the image of the beast, (in English) A Christian and sober testimony against sinful complyance, wherein the unlawfulness of hearing the present ministers of England is pretended to be clearly demonstrated by an author termed by himself Christophilus Antichristomachus / by John Tombes.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1667 (1667)	Wing T1822; ESTC R33692	356,941	415

quod or the terminus ad quem to which it had been directed But if he had only taken occasion upon the sight of the Sun to worship God as David did Psal. 8.3 magnifie or worship God the Creator it had been no Idolatry though the Moon or Sun were the objectum à quo significativè or the sight 〈◊〉 it the motive to it Till Divine worship be given to a creature it is not Idolatry although in the kind or means of worship there may be Will-worship and in the opinion of those that count their act or the object to be holy when it is not there may be superstition of the mind and in the use of such things or forbearing their use superstition in the members That which this Author saith of his major Proposition as generally owned by Protestants I do not believe it to be true understanding it as he doth of relation only to the creature as objectum significativè à quo or the motive of the adoration and not the object to which it is directed As for this minor it may be denied even in his own sense for the adoring of God though it be at the receiving the elements yet the elements are not objectum significative à quo or the motive of their kneeling according to the Common-Prayer Book which saith That the order in the Office for the administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants should receive it kneeling is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue That thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental bread and wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood Which intimate that the elements are not the objectum significativè à quo or the motive of their kneeling but the benefits of Christ in the Lords Supper given to all worthy receivers And that not the sight of bread or wine which is not seen till the cup be in their hand but the remembrance of Christs death and the remission of sins by his blood by saith are the motive to kneel to God with prayer and thanksgiving to him without any honour of the bread and wine though received eaten and drunk to remember Christs death as the procuring cause of those benefits As for his Reason if the elements were not there they would not kneel therefore they are the objectum significativè à quo or the motive of their kneeling partly the Antecedent is not true for they kneel before they receive the elements brought to them and after they have eaten and drunk while they are in the meditation of Christs death and the benefits by it using holy ejaculation in prayer and thanksgiving to God partly the consequence may be denied For though they would not kneel were not the elements there yet this is not sufficient to prove their presence the motive of kneeling any more than the presence and speech of the M●nister who delivers them with prayer and exhortation to whom yet this Author makes not the kneeling to have relation And indeed it is not the presence of the elements when they are received that is while they are in the Ministers hand or their own or in their mouths which is the objectum significativè à quo but the actions with the elements at the consecration by the Minister which signifie Christs death and the use by themselves in eating and drinking whereby are signified their nourishment by Christ unto life eternal which are the motive to that gratitude and trust in Christ which in kneeling they exercise by prayer As for the words of Didoclavius with Maccovius his assent they are the words of an Adversary to the Ministers in this cause and therefore not fit to be alleged as a proof in this matter Nor if they were true would they prove kneeling to be Idolatry but to be some way against the second Commandement for avoiding Idolatry We might more justly and more to the purpose allege the words of Dr. Ames in his Triplication to Dr. Burges his Rejoynder ch 4. sect 4. p. 382. There is no Non-conformist which refuseth to kneel unto Christ in the celebration of the Lords Supper And the Conformists deny they require kneeling to any other than God and the Lord Jesus Christ. As for their bowing and cringing at the Altar it concerns them to speak for themselves who use it neither do all the Conformists use it no not in Cathedrals if my information be right nor is there any established Law for it and those that use it do avouch they do it not to any other than God and therefore are not to be charged with Idolatry whatever other fault they are chargeable with by reason of it It follows Sect. 16. The Crimination of the Ministers as Idolaters is not excusable Object To what hath been hitherto offered in this matter if it be said That the charging the present Ministers of England with Idolatry is exceeding harsh and that which is an argument of a very unchristian and censorious spirit Though this makes nothing to the enervating of what hath been offered yet we answer 1. That many words of Christ himself were accounted hard sayings and not to be born and that by such hearers as were once his admirers and did with seeming great affection attend upon his ministry That such poor worms as we should be recharged herewith it is no great marvel it is enough for the Disciple to be as his Master 2ly We have in this matter said nothing but what is in Thesi over and over asserted by most or all Protestant Writers upon the second Commandement who assert fully That the worshipping God in a way not prescribed by him is Idolatry such as do so are Idolaters With our application hereof unto the present Ministers of England if they are guilty as that they are hath been abundantly demonstrated why should any be offended To speak truth when our silence would be prejudicial to the souls of our Brethren me-thinks should not be accounted unchristian or censorious In the margin are these words Calvin Perkins Ames Macc●vius Altingius Wendeline Paraeus Explicat Cate. p. 3. Q. 96. p. 528. saith Quid postulat secundum praeceptum Res. Ne Deum ullâ imagine aut figurâ exprimamus neve nullâ ratione eum colamus quàm qua se in suo verbo coli praecepit 1 Sam. 15.23 Deut. 12.30 Mat. 15 9. And afterwards he addeth Huic secundo praecepto contraria sunt ea quae vero cultui divino adversantur 1. Idololatria quae est culius numinis fictitius aut superstitiosus Sunt autem Idololatriae du● species praecipuae una crassior cum fictitium numen colitur haec species prohibetur in primo praecepto aliquâ ex parte in tertio

heretical or false doctrin And sith the Church of Corinth was manifestly Schismatical 1 Cor. 1.11 12. Yet Apollos a true Minister to them or who else were their Pastors And sith the Church of Sardis is charged as having a name that it lived but was dead yet the Angel of it one of the seven Stars in Christs right hand then may there be a true Ministry in such false Churches Revel 3.1 that is schismatical or hypocritical not consisting of real Saints And if it be that what is charged on Laodicea Rev. 3.15 16 17. were by reason of defect in Church constitution and disciplin as Mr. Brightman conceived then also a false Church in respect of such irregularity may have a true Ministry But because this is only an argument ad homines to such as concurre with Mr. Brightman in his conceit I will prove that in a National Church or a Church irregular in its constitution or discipline miscalled false may be a true Ministry of Christ. 1. If the truth of the Ministry depend upon the truth of the Church or it's regularity then where is no true regular Church there is no true Ministry But that is false sith there may be a true Ministry where there is no Church at all and therefore no true Church Ergo the truth of the Ministry depends not on the truth of the Church but a true Ministry may be in a false Church 2. If there be a true Ministry though to or in a National visible Church or Catholique then that extent which is conceived to be inconsistent with a true Gospel Church makes not the Ministry false but Peters and Pauls Ministry to the Jews or Gentiles Churches were true Ministries though the Churches were National or Catholique even set by God in the Church 1 Cor. 12.18 Ergo. 3. If Ministry to Churches Hypocritical Schismatical and in some sort Heretical may be true Ministry much more to a Church National irregular in constitution and discipline those being greater degrees of falsehood than this But the antecedent is before proved from the Epistles to the Corinthians to the Churches of Pergamos Thyatira and Sardis Ergo the consequent is true 4. If the regular constitution disciplin of the Church the election of the Church or their sending be extrinsecal or accidental not necessary or essential to the truth of the Ministry then may there be a true Ministry in such a Church as this Author calls false But the antecedent is true sith the Apostles were true Ministers afore the regular constitution and discipline of Churches without their Election or mission therefore the consequent is also true 5. If the denomination of true Ministers be from the truth of their Doctrin and no other form denominating them and there may be a Ministration of true Doctrin in such a supposed false Church then there may be a true Ministry in such a false Church for where the form denominating is there the Subject is rightly denominated from it But the antecedent is true both from all the Texts before alledged which place the truth of Ministry in the Doctrin taught and no other thing and in that the Colossians learned the grace of God in truth from Epaphras he is termed St. Pauls Fellow-Servant and for them a faithfull Minister of Christ Col. 1.6 7. and reason and experience confirms the possibility of preaching true Doctrin in a National mis-called false Church therefore the consequent is also true 6. If false Prophets false Apostles false Brethren be only denominated from their false Doctrin then they are not false Ministers but true who teach the truth of the Gospel notwithstanding their defects or the Churches in which they are But the antecedent is true as may be evinced from 2 Pet. 2.1 2 Cor. 11.13 Gal. 2.4 5. 1 John 2 1● 21 22 26. 2. John 7. and many more places which denominate them false Prophets false Teachers false Apostles false Brethren Antichrists not Ministers of Christ from their erroneous Doctrin therefore from it and not from defects of Churches or other things are they false Ministers and if they preach true Doctrin true Ministers though in an irregular Church There being nothing offered against this to be answered I pass on to this Authors next Quaerie Sect. 20. Gods love to us is not less in not determining the whole of his Worship to us as to the Jews 3. Saith he Whether God doth not bear as much love to and exercise as much faithfulness over his New Testament Churches as over the National Church of the Jews Answ. No doubt of it yet doth not God shew his love nor exercise his faithfulness over his New Testament Churches in the same way or course of Providence as he did and perhaps will do over the National Church of the Jews He doth not gather the New Testament Churches by a mighty hand and a stretched-out arm as he did when he brought Israel out of Egypt by the hand of Moses but by the calling of his Word and operation of his Spirit Nor doth he make them Conquerours by Arms but they overcome the old Serpent by the blood of the Lamb and by the Word of their Testimony and they love not their lives unto the death Rev. 12.11 Nor doth God now settle his Church in one fruitful Land under one earthly King as he did the Jews under David and Solomon but in all Countries where they are called protects and feeds them by the Great Shepherd of the Sheep the Lord Jesus Christ and his Spirit in that estate and station wherein they are called Nor is it improbable that in the future calling of the Jews God will shew more remarkable Providences for their re-ingraffing into their own Olive than ever he hath yet shewed towards the Churches of the Gentiles It is added If so then 4. Whether he hath not as of old he did with reference unto the then Church determined the whole of the Worship appertaining unto them to whose Institutions without any Humane additions it is the duty of souls solely to conform Answ. The whole of the Worship appertaining to the New Testament Churches is either inward or outward To the New Testament Churches God hath determined the whole of his inward Worship as of old he did with reference unto the then Chu●ch or rather he hath more fully determined the Worship of himself by exercise of Faith and hope in Prayer and Thanksgiving having now more 〈◊〉 opened the mystery of his Will in the way of access to him and accepting of our service than he did to the Jews before Christs coming But for the outward Worship though he have set down sufficiently what we are to place his Worship in and wherein he hath determined by Precept or Example that hath the force of a Precept what is to be done by us that alone we are to account his Worship and to conform solely to it as his Institution without any Humane Additions or Alterations yet in respect of