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
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A66413 The Protestant's answer to The Catholick letter to the seeker, or, A vindication of the Protestant's answer, to the seeker's request Williams, John, 1636?-1709. 1688 (1688) Wing W2720; ESTC R2915 32,577 43

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

confidence to have said as he now doth I doubt not but it appears that the Texts brought on the Catholick Roman side are abundantly plain and sufficient for the Being of Christ's Body in the Sacrament as thus set down And it would doubtless have been some gratification to his Reader if he had given us a Paraphrase as his Adversary had done according to these his Sentiments But here he saith that the Answerer pretends not to prove by these Texts that the Body and Blood of Christ are not in the Sacrament p. 24 Why so Because it 's one of their Negative Articles and to require plain and express words of Scripture to prove such a thing is not there taught is says he to demand a proof the thing is not capable of As if suppose there was not express words of Scripture to confute Arianism therefore that could not be confuted by Scripture It 's enough that what is not in Scripture is no Article of Faith it 's enough that there are such Propositions in Scripture as are sufficient to refute it though there should not be express words But however if he will take it in the words of our Article and if it may be to his content we shall find it positively said that Transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture And we have our Author acknowledging that his Adversary undertakes to shew that the Protestants have the Letter of Scripture for them meaning as he saith that in the Sacrament is Not contained the Body of Christ p. 30. And now let us try whether the Answerer did not give them more than his bare word for it in the use he made of his own Quotations As he observed from thence SECT II. 1. THat it 's no contradiction to our Saviour's manner of speaking to interpret these words Figuratively since our Author after all his Exclamations of giving Christ the Lie is forced tho here he slips over it elsewhere to acknowledg that the Cup yea and the word Bread is so used p. 28. 2. That in many Instances the Letter of Scripture is for us As Arg. 1. That there is no Substantial change in the Elements but they remain the same Bread and Wine after Consecration as before So it 's five times call'd Bread 1 Cor. 10. 26 c. and the whole Solemnity is call'd Breaking of Bread Act. 2. 42. To this our Author replies several ways as By the word Bread saith he is meant the Communion of the Body of Christ as by the word Cup is signified the Communion of the Blood of Christ p. 24. But to this I answer 1. That if the words Bread and Cup are not to be understood Literally but with a thereby is meant and thereby is signified then there is no more reason from the bare words to understand This is my Body Literally And that it may be as well interpreted This is the Representation and Sign of my Body as this Bread is the Communion of my Body 2. From hence it follows That if the Bread be the Communion of the Body of Christ as the Cup is the Communion of the Blood of Christ then the Bread is no more changed than the Cup but as the Cup remains the Cup so the Bread remains the Bread in the Communion 3. If the Bread be the Communion of the Body of Christ then the Communion of the Body of Christ is in the Communion of the Bread and so the Bread is still Bread. 4. Our Author has not touched the Point which was to shew the Letter of Scripture is for us when it calls it Bread after Consecration But he saith Saint Paul mentions not the words Cup and Bread but he explains them to be the Body and Blood of Christ 1 Cor. 11. 26. As often as ye eat this Bread ye do shew the Lords death which was not shewn but by offering up his True and Real Body and Blood. I answer so we may better say he mentions not the Body of Christ but he explains it when he five times afterwards calls it Bread But how doth the shewing of the Death of Christ prove the Bread to be his Body when it rather proves it not to be his Body because his Body is not according to them visible and to be shewn He saith further How could they be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord v. 27. if the Body and Blood be not there I answer As persons may be guilty of it out of the Sacrament Thus we read Heb. 6. 6. Who crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh And Chap. 10. 29. Who trod under foot the Blood of the Covenant And so by unworthy receiving of the Lords Supper in which his Death was Commemorated and Represented they after the same manner were by Interpretation guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. And this the next ver 29. shews not discerning the Lords Body which can be understood only of a Spiritual discerning by Faith. Or rather as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies discriminating Lastly he adds 'T would be hard a sinner should be damn'd meerly for moderate eating and drinking Wine for according to the Protestant Answerer the Sacrament is no more who tells you p. 11. There is no other Substance distributed among the Communicants than that of Bread and Wine 1. But if our Author had gone three or four Lines further he would have found those words pag. 11. The Body of Christ is not otherwise present than it is eaten that is after an Heavenly and Spiritual Manner in the Spiritual Blessings and effects of his Merits and Sufferings in his Body to those that believe So that he prevaricates when he saith Sinners are damn'd meerly for moderate eating and drinking and that we esteem the Sacrament no more 2. We look upon it as a Divine Institution and by virtue of that Institution a means of Grace and that by a worthy participation of it we partake of that Grace which is thereto promised therein exhibited and thereby conveighed as it 's there declared p. 17. and consequently the damnation threatned is to the contempt of God's Ordinance and of the Sufferings of Christ therein represented and of the Grace of God purchased by those Sufferings and therein to be obtained The Answerer shew'd also as the Bread so the Wine was without alteration from Mat. 26. 28. who after he had said This is my Blood calls it the Fruit of the Vine And from the order in St. Mark 14. 23 24. where the Apostles are said to have drank of it before our Saviour said This is my Blood. This Branch of the Argument our Author divides from the other and casts it forward three or four Pages Pag. 28. for it gave too much light to the other whilst they were together As to the former Text I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine he saith St. Luke gives the plainest order of it Chap. 22. 14. and that there it has