Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	bread_n	cup_n	eat_v	7,692	5	7.7115	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20944	A defence of the Catholicke faith contained in the booke of the most mightie, and most gracious King Iames the first, King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, defender of the faith. Against the answere of N. Coeffeteau, Doctor of Diuinitie, and vicar generall of the Dominican preaching friars. / Written in French, by Pierre Du Moulin, minister of the word of God in the church of Paris. Translated into English according to his first coppie, by himselfe reuiewed and corrected.; Defense de la foy catholique. Book 1-2. English	Du Moulin, Pierre, 1568-1658.; Sanford, John, 1564 or 5-1629.	1610 (1610)	STC 7322; ESTC S111072	293,192	506

runnes into the disputation of the Sacrifice of the Masse We may let him runne seeing he betakes himselfe to his heeles yet let vs giue him this aboue his bargaine Of the Sacrifice of the Masse AS all errours goe hand in hand and are linked together so the opinion of the Sacrifice of the Masse hath drawne priuate Masses after it for after it began to be beleeued that in the Masse the Priest doth really sacrifice Christ Iesus for the price and ransome of our soules mans reason witty to deceiue it selfe hath presumed that this payment cannot but be good though made in a corner and that payment may be made for vs without our assistance for to celebrate the Sacrament of the Communion which we haue together with Iesus Christ a communion of many is necessarily required but to offer a payment vnto God retchlesse ignorance hath held it lesse requisite for many to be assistants this is the reason why this wound must be searched to the quicke and this abuse carefully discouered besides this point troubles vs the more because to goe to Masse and be a Romane Catholicke are taken in one signification The Councell of Trent in the two and twentieth Session declareth that in the Masse Christ is really sacrificed as a true propitiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the liuing and the dead by reason whereof when the Bishop ordereth a Priest after he hath annointed him in sundry places of his bodie he laieth his handes vpon him and saith Accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium Deo Missasque celebrandi tam pro viuis quam pro defunctis Receiue power to offer Sacrifice vnto God and to celebrate Masse both for the liuing and the dead So hee confirmes him a Sacrificer to sacrifice Christ Iesus really for a propitiatory sacrifice And this sacrifiice is called the Masse which is celebrated by a Priest clad with aenigmaticall and allegoricall robes with a thousand feates and gesticulations by tale and in wordes not intelligible therefore the people vse to say Let vs goe heare a Masse but if one should phrase it thus as the Apostles doe Act. 2. 20. Let vs goe breake bread or Let vs goe to the Lords Supper he should be thought eyther to be out of his wits or to deserue the Inquisition for in this admirable age the language of the Holy Ghost is become eyther ridiculous or prodigious or vnseasonable Being then armed with the word of God let vs gently sift out the falshood that here offers it selfe more then halfe vnmasked for the errours are palpable 1 First we demaund of our Masters who hath authorised the Bishops to establish Sacrificers in the Church of Christ Here they are silent and can neuer answere to the purpose and so the Priests are conuinced to haue no calling but an imaginary charge brought into the Church without the commandement of God as if one should bring in Fidlers or Fencers among the Counsellors of State to make them sit in the Kings Courts and place Sacrificers in equall ranke with faithfull Pastors and Bishops of the flocke 2 Againe we aske of them who hath instituted this propitiatory sacrifice of the Masse where Iesus Christ is really sacrificed They answere that Christ hath instituted it Enquire farther where and in what wordes of the Institution of the Eucharist they alleadge these words Do this in remembrance of me An admirable proofe Doe this that is to say Sacrifice me really vnder the forms of the bread and wine is a Sacrifice propitiatory for the liuing and the dead O fruitfull words in consequences which like ringing bels may be made speake answerably to euery mans imagination 3 But let vs take them according to their own words for they themselues confesse that by these words do this Christ hath commanded to do that which himselfe did then must they shew vs that Christ in this Sacrament offered his body for a sacrifice and there are they grauelled and put to silence it is easie to finde what Christ offered to his Disciples when he said Take eate but it appeares not that he offered any thing vnto God 4 Neyther did Christ vse any eleuation a Ceremony vsed in Sacrifices which the Priest obserueth also in the Masse 5 Also the Apostles performe no adoration against the nature of euery Sacrifice which doth necessarily require adoration in those that offer 6 Besides whosoeuer doth offer vnto God addresseth himselfe by speech and otherwise vnto God but Christ in the whole forme of the institution of the Eucharist neyther addresseth himselfe vnto God nor speakes to any but his Apostles 7 Yea these wordes Do this in remembrance of me doe call our aduersaries to a triall for if Doe this signifie Sacrifice me it then followes that Doe this in remembrance of me signifies Sacrifice me in memory of me which is a sense absurd and incompatible for the memoriall of a thing cannot be the thing it selfe no man offers a present in remembrance of the present not would sacrifice a Lambe in memory of the Lambe so doth he not sacrifice Iesus Christ in remembrance of Christ 8 But will we haue these wordes Doe this expounded Let vs then learne them of the Apostle 1. Cor. 11.25.26 Iesus tooke the cup saying This cup is the new Testament in my blood doe this as oft as yee drinke it in remembrance of me for as often as ye shal eate this bread and drinke this cup ye shew the Lords death till that he come Then to doe this in remembrance of Iesus Christ is to eate the bread and drinke the cup to shew or celebrate his death 9 Some thinking here to shew their wits argue thus Euery powring out of blood for the remission of sinnes is a sacrifice but Christ saith that in the Eucharist his blood is shed for the remission of sinnes therefore the Eucharist is a sacrifice Whereunto I answere that both the propositions of this Argumunt are false yea the second is contrary to the Church of Rome It is false that the shedding of blood for the remission of sinnes is a sacrifice vnlesse this blood be offered vnto God for an Oblation and with the death of the Sacrifice the blood whereof is shed Now here you see not that Iesus Christ did offer any thing vnto God nor that he suffered death in the Eucharist The second proposition is also false for it is true that Christ saith in this Sacrament that his blood is shed but saith not that it is shed in this Sacrament He speaks of the effusion of his blood vpon the Crosse which he was to doe immediately after for Christ doth often speake of his death approaching as if it were at hand as in the tenth of Iohn ver 17. I lay downe my life that I may take it vp againe And a little before I giue downe my life for my sheepe S. Paul saith in like manner 2. Tim 4 6. For I am now offered because he should be sacrificed soone

4. Epist 5. or heresie In this sense therefore are we hereticks and Sectaries sith that now-a-dayes to acknowledge no other Mediator then Iesus Christ nor any expiation but by his blood or any propitiatorie sacrifice but his death nor any satisfaction of Gods iustice but by his obedience nor any rule to guide vs to saluation but his Worde conteyned in the holy Scriptures is accounted heresie But more clearely to purge himselfe of this crime his Maiesty of England following the commaundent of the Apostle S. Peter which is to be alwayes ready to yeeld an account of the hope that is in vs doth set downe at large a confession of his faith agreeable to the holy Scripture and al vncorrupted antiquity Who shal henceforward be ashamed to confesse the name of God or defend the truth of the Gospell being thus ensampled by a mighty King but this confession conceiued in choyse and significant wordes full of euidence and of power doth worthily challenge a seuerall Discourse And besides it is that against which Coeffeteau doth principally discharge his choller THE DEFENCE OF THE CONFESSION Of the Faith of IAMES the first King of Great BRITAINE THE SECOND BOOKE ARTICLE I. Touching the Creede The KINGS Confession I Am such a Catholicke Christian as beleeueth the three Creedes That of the Apostles that of the Councel of Nice and that of Athanasius the two latter being Paraphrases to the former And I beleeue them in that sense as the Auncient Fathers and Councels that made them did vnderstand them To which three Creedes all the Ministers of England do subscribe at their Ordination And I also acknowledge for Orthodoxe all those other formes of Creedes that eyther were deuised by Councels or particular Fathers against such Heresies as most raigned in their times To this Article Coeffeteau findeth nothing to reply and holding his peace thereupon hee iustifieth vs by his silence ARTICLE II. Touching the Fathers in generall AS for the Fathers I reuerence them as much and more then the Iesuits doe The KINGS Confession and as much as themselues euer craued For what euer the Fathers for the first fiue hundred yeares did with an vna●ime consent agree upon to be beleeued as a necessary point of saluation I eyther will beleeue it also or at least will be humbly silent not taking vpon me to condemne the same Here againe Coeffeteau is silent and knoweth not what to reprehend The Reader may please to call to minde that the points in which his Maiesty of England doth abstaine to condemne the Fathers albeit his beleefe is not bound to follow them are eyther points not necessary to saluation or opinions in which as well our Church as the Church of Rome doth condemne them The Auncients for the most part held that the fall of the Diuels came to passe by reason of their cohabitation with women This is altogether false and a point little important to our saluation They held also for the most part that the soules shall all be purged by the fire of the last iudgement in the expectation of which day the soules as well of the good as of the bad are shut vp in certaine receptacles And in this point they are neyther followed by vs nor by our Aduersaries ARTICLE III. Touching the Authority of the Fathers in particular The KINGS Confession BVt for euery priuate Fathers opinion it bindes not my conscience more then Bellarmines euery on of the Fathers vsually contradicting others I will therefore in that case follow S. * Lib. 2. cont Cresconium cap. 32. Augustines rule in iudging of their opinions as I finde them agree with the Scriptures what I finde agreeable thereunto I will gladly embrace what is otherwise I will with their reuerence reiect Doctor Coeffeteau dooth yet approue of all this for good seeing he saith nothing to the contrary He acknowledgeth then that the Fathers often disagree among themselues and that they doe not alwayes accord with the word of God neyther must we settle our selues alwayes vpon what some one Father hath taught Causa 12. Quaest 1. Canon Dilectissimi Denique quidam Graecorum sapientissimus haec ita sciens esse colam debeatur ait Amicorum comia esse omnia In omnibus autem sunt sine du bio Coniuges And indeed his Maiesty of England saith this with iust reason for not we alone but also the Church of Rome doth not allow the opinion of Pope Clement the first who would that mens goods and their wiues should be common among Christians Neyther doth the Church of Rome approue the opinion of Ignatius who in the Epistle to the Philippians saith that to fast on the Saterday or on the Sunday it is to be a murtherer of Iesus Christ nor the doctrine of Iustin Martyr who saith in his Dialogue against Tryphon That God in the beginning gaue the Sunne to be adored Nor the opinion of Athanagoras in his Apologie that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That second marriage is but a handsome Kinde exercise of Adulterie Also the Church of Rome doth not beleeue with Origen that the Diuels shall be saued Nor with Clemens Alexandrinus in the sixth booke of his Stromata that the Greeks were saued by their Philosophy Nor with Arnobius in his second booke that God is not the Creator of soules And that the soules of the wicked are reduced to nothing Nor with Ireneus Lib. 2. cap. 63.64 that the soules separated from the body haue feete and handes Iustin was a Chiliast Tertullian a Montanist S. Cyprian an Anabaptist Saint Hilary in his tenth booke of the Trinity mayntaineth in diuers places Virtus corporis sine sensu paenae vim paenae in se desaeuientis excepit Christus cum cibū potum accepit non necessitati corporis sed consuetudmi tribuet Secundam ducere secundum praeceptumo Apostoli licitum est ecundum autem veritatis rationem verè fornicatio est He saith the same about the end of his booke De fide Symholo that Iesus Christ in his death suffered no paine And that he did not eate because his body had neede of sustenance but onely by custome Chrysostome alleadged in the Canon Hac Ratione in the Cause 31. Question 1. he saith that S. Paul commaunding second mariages hath spoken against truth and reason and that is truely fornication Saint Austin in his fift booke of his Hypognosticks and in his Epistles 93. and 106. held that the Eucharist is necessary for young children newly borne that they may be saued And in his booke De Dogmatis Eccles cap. 11. He saith that the Angels are Corporeal and in his booke of the Christian combat cap. 32. he sayth that our bodies after the Resurrection shal be no longer flesh nor blood but an heauenly body Gregory of Nyssa in his first Sermon of the resurrection teacheth a prodigious errour namely that the soule of Iesus Christ was already in the graue euen then whiles

resemble the nayles which pierced our Sauiour and the linnen clothes that wrapped him in his infancy Whereunto if any obiect that these common nayles and linnen are not in any consecrated place nor appointed to that end nor purposely made to serue as Images or memorials of the Passion or birth of Christ I answer that this is to graunt as much as we desire and to fall into the like impiety for this is to affirme that common nayles and ordinary linnen ought to be worshipped if they were carried into some holy place and appointed to serue for the resemblance or commemoration of Christs passion which our aduersaries wil be vnwilling to grant And wherfore then doe they adore all maner of Crosses yea without crucifixes assoone as they are put into some holy place and ordayned to represent the passion For if the question be of the touching the linnen touched the body of Christ as neere as the Crosse yea I say that the nayles and Iron of the Speare touched him nearer euen to the very heart and then whence is it that the nayles and Iron of the Speare put into a holy place are not adored as well as the Image of the Crosse And where is the adoration of this Image commaunded by God To be short I say that if any should doe obeysance or speake vnto the kings cloake although the king did weare it he should neuertheles be thought to be beside himselfe How much more if he spake to the cloake or did obeysance to it when it is hanged vpon a hooke And yet how much more if he should salute or talke to the picture of this cloake In like manner I say that if any had saluted the Crosse whiles our Sauior was fastened thereunto or had spoken vnto it hee would haue beene thought to haue beene madde although his salutation had beene relatiuely made vnto Christ How much more then if he had saluted it alone Christ not being thereon And how much more if he had saluted or spoken to the picture or Image of this Crosse especially to a bare Crosse without a crucifixe as at this day the Church of Rome doth Certainely no wordes can sufficiently expresse the absurdity of this abuse So Coeffeteau doth giue no manner of satisfaction to that which his Maiesty of England doth obiect namely that if the Crosse ought to be worshipped because it touched Iesus Christ then Iudas his mouth and the handes of those that buffeted him and the land of Canaan whereon he walked which is at this day an example of Gods curse ought also to be worshipped Coeffeteau answeres that the reason is not alike because the lips of Iudas and the handes of the executioners were their liuing members that touched him sacrilegiously but the Crosse was a dead thing and a guiltlesse Instrument of the death of our Redeemer This is but a bare shift for first if our Sauiours touching had made dead things adorable it should much more haue made prophane things holy Our aduersaries haue also forged a fable of one S. Longis that with hate and insultation pierced his side and thereby became a Saint And secondly the Crosse as Coeffeteau saith is not to be worshipped the more for that it was a dead thing Thirdly the water wherewith Christ was baptized obteyned no life thereby and to speake with Coeffeteau it was an innocent Instrument of his baptisme and did touch Christ and yet was neuer adored Fourthly our aduersaries as I suppose would not worship the empty Chalices although they did beleeue that the bloud of Christ yea his whole body had beene therein They will not adore the Priest albeit hee haue often eaten God and that he come to take Christ a fresh into his stomacke Fiftly the whips wherewith Christ was bloudied were harmelesse Instruments of his sufferings yet wee finde not that euer Christian worshipped them Sixtly nothing touched Christ so neare as the nayles and speare that pierced him and they were also harmelesse Instruments of his passion and yet the primitiue Christians neuer worshipped them Constantine put two of them into his Helmet and of two others he made a Bitte for a Horse wherein he had some seedes of superstition yet had Constantine adored these nayles he would haue caused them to bee put into the Church rather then to haue put them into the mouth of a Beaste and left them hanging on a post in the Quirry Ambros de obitu Theodosu Theodor. Histor Lib 1. cap. 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet Theodoret and Ambrose approue this action Seuenthly if the nayles touched the body of Christ nearer and his fore-parts deeper then the Crosse why doe they not adore the Image of the nayles and yet they adore the Image of the Crosse yea without a crucifixe Coeffeteau addeth that there is more in the Crosse besides the touching for it is a representation also of the death of Iesus Christ If he speake of the true Crosse it is not true that it representeth the death of Christ For that of the Crosse which they worship now adayes is but little peeces of worme eaten woode which haue neyther figure nor fashion of the Crosse But if he speake of the Image of the Crosse in siluer or paynting it is false that Christ euer touched it And if these Crosses be without crucifixes they doe not resemble the passion For there is no Image of the passion where there is no Image of him that suffereth it may be some remembrance but no resemblance The Reader shall also note that Coeffeteau omits that excellent obseruation which the King makes touching the bodily touch and the touch of fayth and the example of the woman that touched the hemme of Christs garment as also the example of that woman that said Happy is the wombe that bare thee together with the reason which he doth excellently draw from the person and the shadow of Peter and the comparison of Images condemned by the Prophets which haue eyes and see not eares and heare not with the Crosse which hath no resemblance of eyes or eares This Doctor suffers all this sweetely to slide a way and honestly holdeth his peace hauing of set purpose in my opinion made his booke a foile to giue lustre to the King of great Britaines booke After all these abuse these our Masters haue the good grace to accuse vs of misprision of the Crosse of Christ who say with the Apostle Galat. 6. God for bid that I should reioyce in any thing but the Crosse of our Lord Iesus Our aduersaries talke of the Crosse of Christ but we practise it they paint it wee beare it they glory in some peeces of the Crosse but we in suffering for his name they paint it on walles and we print it in our hearts many carry it tossing vpon their body whose belly is an enemy of the Crosse of Christ Let vs learne then to fasten our affections to his Crosse and to crucifie our olde man with him