Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	body_n	eat_v	lord_n	4,945	5	4.6368	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35340	A discourse concerning the true notion of the Lords Supper by R.C.	Cudworth, Ralph, 1617-1688.	1642 (1642)	Wing C7466; ESTC R13968	38,463	77

an intercalation of one day in the former Month and decreed the following one and thirtieth day to be the Calends And yet notwithstanding if after the fourth or fifth day there should come some Witnesses from afarre that testified they had seene the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in its due time nay though they came toward the end of the Moneth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The Senate when they had used all meanes by affrighting them from that Testimony that so if it were possible they might decline a New Consecration after they had already made an Embolisme in the former Moneth if the Witnesses remained constant were then bound to alter the beginning of the Moneth and reckon it a day sooner to wit from the thirtieth day Here we see the True Ground of the Difference of a day that might arise continually about the Calends of the Moneth and so consequently about any of the other Feasts which did all depend on them viz. Betweene the true Time of the Moones {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} upon the thirtieth day and that of the Senates Decree a day after For since it appeares out of their owne Monuments how unwilling they were having once made a Consecration of the Neomenia to alter it againe it may be probably conceived that in those degenerated times the Senate might many times refuse to accept the Testimony of undoubted Witnesses And then it seemes they had such a Canon as this {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} That whatsoever Time the Senate should conclude of for the Calends of the Moneth though it were certaine they were in the wrong yet all were bound to order their Feasts according to it Which I cannot thinke was approved of by our Saviour and the most pious Jewes And therefore I conceive it most probable that this was the very case betweene our Saviours Passeover and the Jewes in that he followed the True {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} confirmed by sufficient and assured Witnesses but the other Jewes superstitiously observed the Pertinacious Decree of the Senate or Sanhedrin which was for the day after And now at last we are come againe to the Acme of the Question that was first propounded How our Saviours Passeover notwithstanding all this might be sacrificed the day before those of the other Jewes were To which I answer that upon this Ground not only our Saviour his Apostles but also divers others of the most religious Jewes kept the Passeover upon the fifteenth day from the true {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of the Moone and not from the Senates Decree which I may confirm from the Testimony of Epiphanius that reports there was at this time {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a Tumult and contention amongst the Jewes about the Passeover and so we may easily perswade those other Evangelists that intimate Christs Passeover to have beene solemnized when many others kept it to agree with Saint Iohn who assures us that it was also by divers Jewes kept the day after Now it was a Custome among the Jewes in such doubtfull cases as these which oftentimes fell out to permit the Feasts to be solemnized or Passeovers killed on two severall dayes together Maymonides affirmeth that in the remoter parts of the Land of Israel they alway solemnized the Feast of the New-Moones two dayes together nay in Ierusalem it selfe where the Senate sate they kept the New-Moone of Tisri which was the beginning of the yeare twice lest they should be mistaken in it In the Talmud we have an instance of the Passeovers being kept two daies together because the New-Moone was doubtfull in Gemara Rosh Hashanah cap. 1. Hence the Karraites who still keepe the ancient custome of observing the Moones {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} retaine it as a Rule to this day {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Observare duos dies propter dubium Nay the Rabbinicall Jewes themselves since they have changed the Phasis for the Synod or Conjunction of the Moone in the middle motion in imitation hereof still observe to keepe the Passeover two dayes together iisdem ceremoniis as the learned Author of the Jewish Synagogue reports and Scaliger himselfe not onely of that but also of the other Feasts Iudaei post institutionem hodierni computi eandem solennitatem celebrant biduò propterea quòd mensem incipiant à medio motu Lunae itaque {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} propter dubium Conjunctionis Luminarium Pascha celebrant 15. 16. Nisan Pentecosten 6. 7. Sivan Scenopagiam 15. 16. Tisri idque vocant {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Festum Secundum Exiliorum Now then we see that nothing hinders but that the Passeover might be a Sacrifice And thus we have hitherto cleared the way CHAP. IV. BUT lest we should seeme all this while to Set up Fancies of our owne and then Sport with them We come now to Demonstrate and Evince that the Lords Supper in the proper Notion of it is EPULUM EX OBLATIS or A FEAST UPON SACRIFICE in the same manner with the Feasts upon the Jewish Sacrifices under the Law and the Feasts upon {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} things offered up to Idols among the Heathens And that from a place of Scripture where all these three shall be compared together and made exact Parallels to one another 1 CORIN 10. 14. Wherefore my dearely beloved flee from Idolatry 15. I speake as to wise men judge you what I say 16. The Cup of Blessing which we blesse is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ 18. Behold Israel after the flesh are not they which eare of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar 20. Now I say the things which the Gentiles Sacrifice they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God and I would not that you should have Fellowship with Devils 21. Ye cannot drinke the Cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and the Table of Devils Where the Apostles Scope being to convince the Corinthians of the unlawfulnesse of Eating things Sacrificed to Idols He doth it in this manner Shewing that though an Idoll were truely Nothing and things Sacrificed to Idols were Physically Nothing as different from other Meates as it seemes they argued and Saint Paul confesses ver. 19. Yet Morally and Circumstantially to Eate of things Sacrificed to Idols in the Idols Temple was to consent with the Sacrifices and to be guilty of them Which he doth illustrate First from a Parallel Rite in Christian Religion Where the Eating and Drinking of the Body and Blood of Christ offered up to God upon the Crosse for us in the Lords Supper is a Reall Communication in his Death and Sacrifice ver. 16. The Cup of blessing which we blesse is

A DISCOVRSE CONCERNING THE TRVE NOTION OF THE LORDS SVPPER By R. C. LONDON Printed for Richard Cotes 1642. The Chapters of the following TREATISE CHAP. I. THat it was a Custome among the Iewes and Heathens to Feast upon things Sacrificed and that the Custome of the Christians in Partaking of the Body and Bloud of Christ once Sacrificed upon the Crosse in The Lords Supper is Analogicall hereunto Page 3. CHAP. II. An Objection taken from the Passeover Answered Proved that The Passeover was a True Sacrifice and The Paschall-Feast a Feast upon a Sacrifice From Scripture and Iewish Authors pag. 16. CHAP. III. An Answer to some Objections against the Passeovers being a Sacrifice And the Controversie about the Day upon which the Iewes kept the Passeover about the time of Our Saviours death Discussed Proved against Scaliger and others of that Opinion that no Translations of Feasts from one Feria to another were then in use pag. 33. CHAP. IV. Demonstrated that the Lords Supper in the Christian Church in reference to the True Sacrifice of Christ is a Parallel to the Feasts upon Sacrifices both in the Iewish Religion and Heathenish Superstition pag. 52. CHAP. V. The Result of the former Discourse That the Lords Supper is not a Sacrifice but a Feast upon a Sacrifice pag. 54. CHAP. VI The further Improvement of that Generall Notion How The Lords Supper is a Federall Rite betweene God and us at large Concluded with a memorable Story out of Maymonides and Nachmanides pag. 56. THE TRVE NOTION OF THE LORDS SVPPER ALL great Errours have ever been intermingled with some Truth And indeed if Falshood should appeare alone unto the world in her owne true Shape and native Deformity she would be so blacke and horrid that no man would looke upon her and therefore she hath alwayes had an Art to wrap her selfe up in a Garment of Light by which meanes she passes freely disguised and undiscerned This was elegantly signified in the Fable thus Truth at first presented her selfe to the world and went about to seeke enter ainment but when she found none being of a Generous nature that loves not to obtrude her selfe upon unworthy spirits she resolved to leave earth and take her flight for Heaven but as she was going up she chanced Eliah-like to let her Mantle fall and Falshood waiting by for such an opportunity snatch'd it up presently and ever since goes about disguised in Truths attire Pure Falshood is pure Non-Entity and could not subsist alone by it self wherfore it alway twines up together about some Truth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as Athenagoras the Christian Philosopher speakes like an Ivy that growes upon some Wall twining her selfe into it with wanton and flattering embraces till it have at length destroyed and pul'd downe that which held it up There is alway some Truth which gives Being to every Errour Est quaedam Veritatis Anima quae Corpus omnium Errorum agitat informat There is ever some Soule of Truth which doth secretly Spirit and Enliven the dead and unweildy Lump of all Errours without which it could not move or stirre Though somtimes it would require a very curious Artist in the midst of all Errours Deformities to descry the defaced lineaments of that Truth which first it did resemble as Plutarch spake sometime of those Aegyptian Fables of Isis and Osiris that they had {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} certaine weake apparences and glimmerings of Truth but so as that they needed {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} some notable Diviner to discover them And this I thinke is the case of that Grand Errour of the Papists concerning the Lords Supper being a Sacrifice which perhaps at first did rise by Degeneration from a Primitive Truth whereof the very Obliquity of this Errour yet may beare some dark and obscure intimation Which wil best appear when we have first discovered the True Notion of the Lords Supper whence we shall be able at once to convince the Errour of this Popish Tenet and withall to give a just account of the first Rise of it Veritas Index sui obliqui CHAP. I. THe Right Notion of that Christian Feast called The Lords Supper in which we eate and drinke the Body and Bloud of Christ that was once offered up in Sacrifice to God for us is to be derived if I mistake not from Analogy to that ancient Rite amongst the Jewes of Feasting upon things Sacrificed and eating of those things which they had offered up to God For the better conceiving whereof we must first consider a little how many kinds of Jewish Sacrifices there were and the Nature of them Which although they are very well divided according to the received opinion into foure {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The Burnt-offering the Sinne-offering the Trespasse-offering and the Peace-offering Yet perhaps I may make a more Notionall Division of them for our use into these three species First such as were wholly offered up to God and burnt upon the Altar which were the Holocausts or Burnt-offerings Secondly such wherein besides something offered up to God upon the Altar the Priests had also a part to eate of And these are subdivided into the Sinne-offerings and the Trespasse-offerings Thirdly such as in which besides Something offered up to God and a Portion bestowed on the Priests The Owners themselves had a share likewise and these were called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or Peace-offerings which contained in them as the Jewish Doctors speak {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a Portion for God and the Priests and the Owners also and thence they use to give the Etymon of the Hebrew word Shelamim {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Because these Sacrifices brought Peace to the Altar the Priests and the Owners in that every one of these had a share in them Now for the first of these although perhaps to signifie some speciall Mystery concerning Christ they were themselves wholly offered up to God and burnt upon the Altar yet they had ever Peace-offerings regularly annexed to them when they were not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Offerings for the whole Congregation but for any particular persons that so the Owners might at the same time when they offered up to God feast also upon the Sacrifices And for the second although the Owners themselves did not eate of them the reason whereof was because they were not perfectly reconciled to God being for the present in a state of guilt which they made atonement for in these Sacrifices yet they did it by the Priests who were their Mediators unto God and as their Proxies did eate of the Sacrifices for them But in the Peace-offerings because such as brought them had no uncleannesse upon them Levit. 7. 20. and so were perfectly reconciled to God and in covenant with him therefore they were in their owne persons to