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	lord_n	7,751	5	4.8519	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65699	A discourse concerning the idolatry of the Church of Rome wherein that charge is justified, and the pretended refutation of Dr. Stillingfleet's discourse is answered / by Daniel Whitby ...	Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1674 (1674)	Wing W1722; ESTC R34745	260,055	369

ancient Fathers did pass as deep a censure on this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God-eating as the Heathens did and looked upon it as an instance of the greatest madness and stupidity to Worship as a God what they did Eat and Sacrifice And upon all occasions did upbraid the Heathens for being so exceeding mad and stupid It must be infinitely certain that they neither did nor could conceive this Doctrine to be the mind of Christ or his Apostles or the received tradition of the Church of Christ If Christ when he administred this Sacrament did give to his Disciples his natural Body Arg. 3. §. 3. and his proper Blood then was his natural Body broken and his Blood actually poured out before his Passion for he administred this Sacrament before his Passion and what he then administred was if we may believe his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his broken Body and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his blood shed or extravasated now since his body was then whole and not yet broken on the Cross for us seeing his Blood remained still in its proper Chanuels and neither Heart nor Hand were pierced to let it out and therefore what he did then administer could not in any natural and proper sence be stiled his body broken and his blood shed for us his words must necessarily be interpreted in such a Tropical and Sacramental sence as Protestants do plead for Add to this That if Christ gave his Body in the natural sence at the last Supper then it was either a Sacrifice propitiatory or it was not if it was not then it is not now and then their Dream of the Mass is vanished if it was propitiatory at the last Supper then God was reconciled to all the world and Mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our Blessed Saviour For Christ expresly saith that he then gave unto them his body which was given for us Luk. 22.19 Mat. 26.28 and his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins which if we literally understand his future passion must be vain and needless so dreadful are the consequences of this portentous Doctrine If we may credit the Apostle Paul what we receive in the participation of the Holy Sacrament is Bread Arg. 4. §. 4. for after Consecration he so stiles it 1 Cor. 10.16 17. at the least five times The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ for we are all partakers of this Bread Let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11.28 and so let him eat of that Bread for as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lords Death c. Wherefore verse 26. whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ In which expressions it is five times said that what we eat and do partake of what is unto us the Communion of Christs Body and sheweth forth his Death and therefore what is Consecrated in this Holy Sacrament is still bread And is it not a wonder that one passage mentioned by our Saviour whilst he was alive and had his blood within his Veins should be esteemed sufficient to make us all believe that his whole body and so his hand was in his hand and that this Living Christ was also Dead and Sacrificed and that his blood was shed before he suffered on the Cross and also that the same Body which was whole before the Eyes of his Disciples was also broken for them and many thousand contradictions more and yet that what the Holy Ghost who knew the meaning of our Saviours words as well as any R. Catholick hath called so often Bread and seems to all our sences so to be should not be deemed sufficient to make us think it Bread If Christ had said This is my Body and the Holy Ghost had never said that it was Bread we might have had some reason to suspect our sences in this matter But when it is so oft in Scripture affirmed to be Bread and is but once affirmed to be the Body of our Lord and it is absolutely necessary that one of these two affirmations should be acknowledged to be Tropical that as great evidence as sence and reason can afford in any case whatsoever should be of no effect at all or have no influence to move or to instruct our Judgments how to pass sentence in this case but that it should be thought as rational all other circumstances being equal to determine against the greatest evidence of sence and highest reason as to determin according to the verdict of them both is most apparently absurd Add to this that the Apostles buisness in this place was to reprove those persons who prophaned this Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and used it as Common Bread and so discerned not the Lords Body and to convince them of the greatness of the Sin committed by their unworthy eating of this Bread and therefore it concerned him the better to convince them of so great a Crime and to discover the vileness of this prophanation to have expresly told them That what they thus prophaned was the very Son of God that suffered for them this being a most signal aggravation of their guilt whereas to say so often that it was Bread was to extenuate the Crime and therefore we may rationally presume St. Paul would have exprest himself not as we Protestants are wont to do but according to the Judgment of the Roman Catholicks had he believed as they do God never wrought a miracle in confirmation of the Faith of any body Argum. 5. Sect. 5. but he still represented it unto their sences and made it apparent to their eyes ears feeling or their experience that he wrought it there is not one instance to be given to the contrary from Scripture or any humane Writer the Devil himself is not so impudent as to require his servants to believe he works a wonder without some cunning slight to cheat their sences and make them seem to see hear or tast what really they do not To this convincing evidence and demonstration T. G. returns this sorry answer P. 293. that such miracles as are done for the Conversion of unbelievers ought to be objects of our sence but this is not done upon such an account but for the Sanctification of those that believe already and for these it is enough that Christ hath said it is his body they know very well the danger of not believing him more than their sences Answer 1. We have in Scripture many instances of Miracles done not for the Conversion of unbelievers but for the benefit of those that did believe and such were all the standing Miracles that are recorded in the Book of Moses the Manna the water of Jealousie the Vrim and Thummim c. Such also were all the Miracles that the Apostles wrought

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that to be made doth not continually import a change of nature and therefore that this passage of St. Ambrose cannot with any certainty be thus interpreted Secondly we must not know what follows in that very Chapter to explain these words and to confute the Doctrine of Transubstantiation viz. p Si tant a vis Sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant N. B. in aliud commutentur ibid. if there be so great force in Christs words that by it things begin to be that which before they were not how much more operative must it be to cause that things be what they were and yet be changed into another Which words are extant thus in all the Ancient Maniscripts and old Editions of St. Ambrose and are thus cited by Guitmund Yvo Algerus Gratian and Anselm and in the old Editions of Lanfrancus though in the late Editions of St. Ambrose they are corrupted and to abet this fraud Lanfraneus in a new Edition is produced affirming that some Copies did admit a diverse lection We must not know what also here he doth affirm That q Sed forte dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet fimilitudinem sicut enim similitudinem mortis sumpsisti ita etiam smilitudinem pretion sanguinis bibis ut nullus horror cruoris sit pretium tamen operetur redemptionis ibid. as we do receive in Baptism the likeness of his death so in the holy Sacrament do we receive the likeness of his pretious blood Again we must be told St. Ambrose saith * T. G. p. 305 de Sacram. l. 6 c 1. That as our Lord Jesus Christ is the true Son of God not as men are by Grace but as the Son of the substance of his Father so it is his very true Flesh as him self hath said which we receive and his very true Blood which we drink But then we must not know what follows to explain this passage and to confirm our Doctrine viz. That r In similitudinem quidem accipls Sacramentum sed vere naturae gratiam virtutemque consequeris de Sacr l 1 c. 6. we receive this Sacrament in a Similitude but truly do obtain the grace and the vertue of the nature whence it is evident that it is therefore said to be Christs very Flesh and Blood because it doth convey the vertue of them which is more evident form that which follows to wit that ſ Quomodo discendit panis vivus de Caeso Resp quia idem Dominus noster Jesus Christus consors est divinitatis corporis to quia accipis Panem N. B. Divinae ejus substantiae in illo participaris alimento ibid. our Lord Christ being partaker of the Divinity and humane nature thou who receivest Bread dest in that nourishment partake of his Divinity And let it be observed that Ambrose doth indeed affirm that as Christ said that which we receive is truly Flesh and is true drink but he doth not affirm that we receive it truly and substantially and as when Christ declared that unless we eat the Flesh of the Son of Man c. That Flesh drink he spake of was true Flesh and drink but the receiving the eating and the drinking of it was Metaphorical so may it be here and hence * De Baptismo Aethiopum c. ult Cyril Glaphyr in Exod. l. 2. Fulgeutius and others tells us that we do eat it in our Baptisme and therefore as we are said to eat it there so also may we be conceived to eat it in the other Sacrament Lastly we must be told how the same Ambrose doth assert that the Word of Christ which of nothing could make that to be which was not can change those things which are into that which before they were not And yet that this mutation was not a change of nature but of signification and of the vertue of the Sacrament is evident from that vvhich follovvs in this Chapter viz. That * T. G. p. 304. Non corporealis esus sed spiritualis est ante benediction in verborum caelestium alia●pecies nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur c. 9. de his qui initiantur it is not Corporal meat but Spiritual and that before the benediction it is named another kind but after Consecration it signifies Christs body or that elsevvhere he tells us that the power of God so operates to change them as that they still continue what they were before Nay this is also evident from the vvords cited by T. G. viz. That word of Christ which of nothing could make that to be which was not can it not change those things which are into those things which they were not For it is not a less matter to give new natures to things than to change their natures vvhere evident it is that this nevv nature given to the Sacramental Elements is opposed to the mutation of their nature and therefore it is evident that in the judgment of St. Ambrose this change was made not by mutation of the nature of Bread and Wine but by addition of a new nature to them i.e. by the addition of new qualities and vertues in which familiar acceptation of the word St. Peter tells us that by the promises of Christ we are all made partakers of the diuine nature And the Fathers frequently affirm that by faith and by the holy spirit we are changed into another nature and that after the Resurrection we shall thus be changed Or this kind * De Sacr. Euch. l. 2. p. 489.504 Albertinus hath collected above Thirty instances Ob. The change which is made in the nature of Bread is here illustrated by the examples of those miraculous changes T. G. p. 304. which were wrought by holy men of old in the natures of things as of Moses his Rod being turned into a Serpent the waters of Aegypt into Blood c. Answ But this c. conceals three instances produced by Ambrose which only signifie an accidental change viz. t Jordanus retrorsum conversus contra naturam in sui fontis revertltur exordium nonne claret naturam vel maritinotum fluctuum vel fluvialis cursus esse mutatam Marath fluvius amariss●mus erat ut sitiens populus bibere non posset Mifit Moses lignum in aquam amari tudinem suam aqua rum natura deposuit quam infusa subito gratia temperavit Sub Haeliseo propheta uni ex filiis prophetarum excussum est ferrum de securi statim mersum est Rogavir Helisaeum qui amisserit ferrum misit etiam Helisaeus lignum in aquam ferrum natavit utique hoc praetet naturam factum esse cognoscimus cap. 9. de his qui initiantur The sweetning of the waters of Marah the swimming of the Iron and the returning of the waters of the River Jordan Whence it is