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	eat_v	lord_n	9,045	5	4.7478	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54154	The invalidity of John Faldo's vindication of his book, called Quakerism no Christianity being a rejoynder in defence of the answer, intituled, Quakerism a new nick-name for old Christianity : wherein many weighty Gospel-truths are handled, and the disingenuous carriage of by W.P.	Penn, William, 1644-1718.	1673 (1673)	Wing P1305; ESTC R24454	254,441	450

Testimonial or Signification of their Belief in the Visible Appearance of the then so much denyed so cruelly derided and crucisied Jesus Wherefore I say it was not Evangelical but an Introductory Ceremony suited to the external State of things in that Day which in some competent Time so varied that there could be no Pretence of Christian-Prudence for Perpetuating the Practice of it much less any Reason for its Institution for as the Christian Power and Spirit then brightned and Christ came to be more and more formed in the Hearts of his People VVater gave way to the Holy Ghost and Fire John to Christ and their Carnal Historical Faith of Christ to the Revelation of the Son of God in them the one thing necessary even the Eternal Substance that as He grew up and put forth himself gradually wore off all Shadowy and Figurative Observations Thus did God restore the Kingdom to Israel and bring back the Captivity of his People having laid Help upon one that is Mighty the Son of his Love who alwayes was the Baptizer of all them that believe in him into his own pure Nature which is that Regeneration without which no Man shall ever enter into the Kingdom of God CHAP VII Of the Bread and VVine which Christ gave to his Disciples after Supper commonly called the Lord's Supper OUR Adversary begins his Sixteenth Chapter thus Reply pag. 69. W. P. having little to any purpose to say upon the Point of the Lord's Supper hath recoruse to his old Shifts First he charges the Independents with the Death of J. Parnel p. 141. But what is that to the Question and I believe as little to the Truth as my hand in the Blood of Kings and Princes Rejoynder Then is John Faldo deeply guilty of the Blood of Kings and Princes for certain Persons of that Way apprehended imprisoned and hardly used him to Death Doubtless no Murderer no Traitor was ever handled at that in humance ●ate by English Men as was this poor Young-man by those pretended Saints I refer my Reader to the second Part of our Serious Apology p. 185 186 187. for further Satisfaction Nor have I used any Shifts to avoid the Strength of J. Faldo's Charges or Proofs I am glad when he meddles with Matter for I find more Trouble Chaff Froth and Pedantry then when I encounter any thing more solid But if this be not crying out first there is no such thing as I will make appear in this very Chapter I brought several Reasons to justifie our Discontinuance of the Supper soberly discoursed in four or five pages He takes no more notice thereof then if there had been no such thing saving that he tells us He neglects them because they be speak the Emptiness of their Author Such a Way of Replying that had I loved Shifts more then honest Answers and could put off my Conscience at that easie but unjust Rate it would have saved me the Trouble of having to do with John Faldo's essayes against the Quakers He bestows his time in making good two Proofs he pretended to bring out of our Frinds Writings how well he acquits himself we will examine J. Parnell it seems said The Bread that People broak in that Observation was Outward Natural and Carnal This he counted most Hainous I told him That the Bread and Wine being of an Outward Elementary Nature and Substance may in Comparison of what they signifie be very properly termed Natural and Carnal Upon which he bestows this Reply after his wonted Modesty Reply pag. 69 70. Very well becoming Penn's knowing Divinity and Philosophy Fire and Air are of an Elementary Nature is Fire and Air therefore Carnal Rejoynder We would not that any should think that we intend by Natural and Carnal the worst Sense that may attend these words for sometimes they import a Wicked and Accursed State but simply as they are opposed to things Supernatuaral and spiritual and in this Sense all parts of this visible World may fall under their Signification Outward relates to the same thing and so doth Elementary as vulgarly understood and by me appropriated I was not making a Philosophistical Lecture but writing of plain and Evangelical Doctrine I know that VVords in Philosophy do carry a quite other Sense then what they bear in common Conversation I opposed Natural to Supernatural Carnal to Spiritual Outward to Inward and Elementary which relates to any of these VVorlds Elements to the Nature of that Food which comes down from above and I think Bish VVilkins's Real Character will vindicate me from the Crowing Charge of this pretended Divine and Philosopher His next Testimony was out of VV. Smith's Primmer They Bread and VVine in the Lord's Supper are the Pope's Invention This I utterly denyed to have been delivered by VV. Smith and did require him in the view of the World to produce any such Words out of the Books of W. Smith or any other of our Friends His Reply is this Reply p. 70. What W. P insnuates I charged them with viz. calling the Bread and Wine Christ blessed the Invention of the Pope I am as little concerned to make Proof of as he is honest to make report of for my Book layes no such thing to their Charge Rejoynder What a silly Evasion is this Did he not charge us with calling the Bread Wine of the Lord's Supper the Pop●s Invention And doth he now tax my Honesty in saying That he makes us to call he Bread and VVine Christ blessed the Invention of the Pope I would fain know what is the Difference between these two Expressions were not the Bread and VVine Christ blessed the Lord's Supper If not he knows what follows and if they were the Lord's Supper then to call the Bread and VVine Christ blessed or the Lord's Supper the Invention of the Pope is equivalent therefore he ought to think himself greatly concerned to make us Satisfaction for having cast so great a Scandal upon us our Doctrine But he hopes to help one Shift by another Hear him Reply p. 70. But you are to take Notice that W. P's Words import that very same Bread and Wine which Christ and his Disciples eat and drank together at Jerusalem Rejoynder Oh J. Faldo leave of these horrible Falshoods Hath neither Christianity nor thy Profession nor common Reputation Power enough to influence thee into more Justice towards thy Adversary What Man of Sence can think I meant only that very same Bread and Wine which Christ and his Disciples eat and drank together There is no Foundation for this ill Comment And I dare appeal to my Readers Conscience in this Matter And so meanly hast thou managed this Matter that thy very next Words show the slightness of thy Reply Reply p. 70. VVhereas my Charge is of the Bread and Wine used in the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper after his Death among God's People and his Churches Rejoynder What Difference was there in Point of Time between

Christ's eating the Supper with his Disciples just before his Death and their breaking Bread together soon after his Death Not a Year whereas the Pope showed not himself till near six hundred Years after I cannot see Friendly Reader how much more criminal I made my Adversary by charging him with saying in our Name The Bread and VVine Christ blessed is the Invention of the Pope then he hath made himself by his own Saying That we call the Lords Supper eaten soon after his Death the Popes Invention unless he should deny the Latter to be the same Sort of Supper with the former In short We cannot but repute this an Injury too apparent for John Faldo's utmost Invention to cover But that he may not suffer the Imputation of Forgery at least a very gross Perversion he thus braveth me Reply p. 70. If Pen dare deny it to be in W. Smith's Book which Iquoted three or four times over in pag. 39. I shall prove him a Deceiver to all that will but read it W. S. answers to this Question I would know Father how it is concerning these things called Ordinances as Baptism Bread and Wine which are much used in their Worship Answ Why Child as for those things they rose from the Pope's Invention Rejoynder This Citation as rankly and partially as he hath put down doth not prove that we account the Lord's Supper either as it was eaten by Christ and his Disciples before his Death or by his Disciples after his Death to be the Pope's Invention How can it since we know the Pope's Date to have been so many hundred Years after that Practice His Citation must therefore be understood of such a Baptism and such a Supper as the Apostate Church hath presumed to practice and that I put not a fairer Gloss then his own Answer will allow observe these Words and the whose Practice of those things AS THEY use them had their Institution by the Pope and were never SO ordained of Christ strongly implying that what was of Christ's Ordination was not of the Pope's Invention and Institution consequently That the Lord's Supper was neither a popish Invention nor Institution which is yet plainer from his following VVords For he did not ordain sprinkling Water in a Child's Face or to make a Sign of the Cross in his Forehead nor God-Fathers and God-Mothers to undertake for it Neither did he ordain Bread and VVine to be SO or after that Manner used and received So that nothing can be plainer then that his Reflection lies against their Manner of practizing and using them not against the Things themselves as at any time practiced by Christ or his Disciples Followers Therefore he is quite beside the Truth in telling the VVorld that he doth but apply these VVords Pope's Invention to the Name that is Lord's Supper which the Quakers apply to the Thing since we so clearly distinguish betwen Baptism the Lord's Supper Name and Thing and these Practices and Usages of them which have risen since the Apostacy Now it rests with thee Friendly Reader to pass Judgment which of us two hath acted the Deceiver to leave out a great many more of his hard VVords he that affirmed VV. Smith called that Baptism and Lord's Supper which was in Use some time as well after Christ's Death and Ascension as before the Pope's Inventions or I that affirmed and from VV. Smith's own Book have expresly proved that there was no such thing said as Primitively practiced but only as they have been since abused by the Apostate Church For the Supper it self I refer the Reader to the sixteenth Chapter of my Answer and shall only say at this Time that as it was a Commemoration or Remembrance of Christ to the Disciples who were at that Day so weak in Faith as Luke 24. 11. Mary Magdalen's news about Christ's Resurrection seemed to them as Idle Tales yet that the Service and consequently the Institution of it were of as they came to witness him the Evangelical Supper of Passover to their Souls and that we therefore discontinue it First Because the false Church hath made Market with her imitating that primitive Practice drawn the Minds of People abroad from the Heavenly Bread of Life which is only to be received within and hath been shedding so much Blood about it rendring it and Water Baptism the Seal of Christianity thereby puffing up People to believe that of themselves which they are not Next we have the Testimony of God's Spirit that he is withdrawn from such Observations that have been so much insisted on and magnified in the World Lastly and eminently we discontinue it because Christ is become unto our Souls that very Thing which it was most truly and properly the Sign of to wit the Heavnely Bread and Passover which nourisheth the Soul unto Eternal Life Where by the Way it must not be forgotten how perversly he wrongs Christ and Holy Scripture who turns this Passage Do this till I come after this strange Manner The Lord's Supper is a Remembrance of Christ's Death past NOT TO COME Rep. p. 71. wherein first he makes as if there were a Death to come Next Instead of exhorting People to look for his Coming until which he bid his Disciples practice it he turns back their Eyes from that Expectation and makes the Sign wholy to have Reference to what was past and not what was to come thereby seeking to perpetuate his Absence and bar out his Appearance implyed in these Words till I come which ends the Absence during which the Institution lasteth For the plain English of it framed into an Argument is this The Supper is to remember Christ's Death that is past but that will be alwayes past therefore it ought to be alwayes so remembred The like may be said upon the Word Remembrance for if it ought to be practised because of remembring Christ's Death then forever because his Death ought never to be forgotten Thus it perverts the Text in that it makes not the outward Supper to cease upon his Coming as John 14. 23. Rev. 3. 20. which is the Evangelical Supper till whose Coming Christ bid his Disciples do it But to continue upon the Score of remembring Christ's Death only which as I said before ought never to be forgotten is consequently to continue it upon Institution forever I shall only leave two things with my Reader and so proceed to the next Chapter first That from our discontinuing the Practice of these outward and temporary Observances J. Faldo concludes our absolute and general Denyal of them 2ly Because some of our Friends have denyed rejected and termed Popish the long Abuse of these Things he makes no Difficulty of charging us in so many Words with calling Water-Baptism and the Lord's Supper as laid down in Scripture and primitively practised Popish Inventions c. God if he please make this Man sensible of his notorious Injustice towards us CHAP. VIII Of the Doctrine of

manifested himself by it was from Everlasting In short Christ qualified that Body for his Service but that Body did not constitute Christ He is invisible and ever was so to the ungodly World that was not his Body as honest J. Bradford told Arch-Deacon Harpsfield B. Mart. 3. Vol. p. 293. and so much the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or anonted signifieth which was not outward after the Jewish Ceremony but by the Spirit and invisible Power of God Lastly I will leave it with my Reader to consider what better terms then Earthly and Perishing J. F's Comparison implyeth to Christ's Body for such was the Apostles and the Bodies of those Saints he writ to But he will by no means have himself concerned with a great Part of my following Discourse which was he thinks in Opposition to no Body because I argued that the meer Body of Christ could not be the intire Christ though he makes our Denyal of it to be a disowning of the true Christ producing a Passage out his Book to my Purpose in Contradiction to himself viz. p. 72. The Flesh and Blood of Christ we do not believe to be Christ separated from his Mans Soul or that to be Christ separated from his Divne and Eternal Nature bestowing upon me for so ill employing of my time these Terms Vain Trifler Pedantick Magesterialness Forger and that it is a greater Wickedness then being a Thief to make him assert the meer Body to be the intire Christ adding but this is Penn ' s high-way and beaten Rode One would think after all this that I had wronged him with all imaginable Baseness in fastning upon him any such Conclusion yet if I make it not appear by his Reply which one would think he should have penned a little more cautiously after he had given such Occasion by his former Discourse and that to in his very next page let my Reader say I merit all th●se hard Words that J. Faldo flingeth so angrily upon me He produced several Scriptures to prove as I understood him the Manhood to be the Christ of God or else he did nothing for without so believing and arguing it was impossible for him to prove our Denyal of the true Christ because we asserted Christ to have been before that Body consequently that it was not the the intire Christ which I explained and rescued He omits giving the Reader any account of it only in general Tearms and that not without Perversion His Reply unto which will make good my Construction of his Words or I am greatly mistaken Reply p. 77. Whereas I produced Abundance of Scriptures to prove that the Man Jesus is the Christ W. P. will by no means allow them to have that Sence no not that in Luke 2. 26. And it was revealed to him Simeon by the Holy Ghost that he should not see Death before he had seen the Lord's Christ neither that the Child Jesus whom Simeon took up in his Arms was the Christ Certainly sayes W. P. p. 161. This Allegation from Luke 2. 26. will never prove the Body of Jesus which the Father prepared before him to be the whole intire Christ c. Neither did I produce It to prove the Body to be such what Disputing can there be with a Man that keeps neither to my Words nor to the Question Rejoynder But is this the great Enemy to Forgery the express Quoter one that cites to a Tittle and scorns as to Ignore his own Concessions so to render his own Conclusions for his Enemies Assertions who charges me with denying this Passage among others as any whit proving the Man Jesus to be the Christ whilst he quotes my own Conclusion upon it to have been no other then the Body of Jesus to have been the whole and intire Christ Now he cant compass his End he produced not those Scriptures to prove any such Thing but what is clearer then that it is the same thing with J. Faldo to deny the Body of Jesus to be the intire Christ of God and to deny the Christ of God consequently that by the Christ of God he understands with L. Muggleton only the Body that died So that he did but evade when he said that I argued against no body in affirming and proving that the Body taken in that time was not the whole Christ of God and that he produced those Scriptures to that very End notwithstanding what he sayes to the contrary for what else can any infer when he so obviously makes no Difference between saying The Man Jesus is not Christ and the visible Body of Jesus is not the whole intire Christ Thus Reader he Faulters at the Entrance I will give a brief Account of neer two pages of Answer by him omitted It is and will be granted that Simeon saw the Lord 's Christ but I hope J. F. will not deny unto that good man who waited for Israel's Consolation that he had as well a spiritual as natural or inward as outward Sight of Christ for it were both to deny Christ's Divinity and to conclude Simeon void of any spiritual Sight or Intendment in these Words of the Lord 's Christ as a Light enlightning the Gentiles c. though still be it understood that we confess that Child as seen and understood by Simeon with Respect to that great End of his Appearance to be the Lord 's Christ Let none then be so unjust as to infer we deny the Lords Christ because we rather chuse to say the Body of Christ then Christ for sayes J. Faldo as well as we elsewhere Christ is God manifest in Flesh See my Answer pag. 161. Nothing can be clearer then that I only argued in Opposition to his carnal Doctrine against the meer Bodie 's being the Christ of God Now since he makes me hereby to deny the Man Christ Jesus I must conclude that by the Man Jesus he understands no more then the meer Body of Jesus otherwise how do I deny the Man Jesus to be the Christ of God in only scrupeling to call the meer and only Body of Jesus the ●hrist of God His next Animadversion was this Reply p. 78. Let us observe how W. P. abuses that Scripture Acts 5. 30 31. The words sayes he are thus to be understood The God of our Fathers who raised up the Body of Jesus from the Dead which ye slew and hung upon a Tree him whose Body you so cruelly used hath God exalted at his Right Hand c. Beside this Construction which renders it not to be Christ but only his Body that suffered and so Christ never suffered nor dyed nor rose he W. P. puts instead of whom he slew which he slew that it may intend only the Body and not the Person of Christ Rejoynder I appeal to my Reader 's Understanding and Conscience if J. Faldo doth not in this Sentence make the meer Body of Christ to be the Christ of God for one Reason why he denyes my Interpretation is my