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	show_v	5,537	5	5.6290	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

of Iesus Christ is not destroyed in the Masse it followes that the naturall essence of Iesus Christ is not offered in the Masse and then is it another sacrifice then that of the Crosse where he offered his essentiall being Secondly For it is certaine that that is the destruction of Christs naturall being which is the price of our redemption and then if the Masse doe offer and sacrifice another essence of Christ then doth it not offer the price of our redemption Thirdly Besides this Sacramentall essence is a meere Chimera for one man can haue but one being 2. de Consecrat Can. Sacrificium This is taken out of S. Austin l. 10. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 5. Epist 5 Scotus in 4. dist 10. Quest 5. Oculi Christi subspecie panis non recipiunt obiecta c. Quaest 7. Corpus Christi vt hic non respirat aerem c. §. Aly vi verborum Hoc est corpus meum solum Christi corpus sine anima sine sanguine incipit esse inaltari vi aliorum verborum Hic est sangurs incipit sanguis solus seorsim a corpore esse in altari because it is the being that makes him to be one man Fourthly And seeing the Sacrament by the definition of the Church of Rome doth signifie a holy signe then a Sacramental being must signifie a being significatiue which is open mockerie Fiftly Yea this Sacramentall being of Iesus Christ which is said to be in the Masse cannot be significatiue or representatiue for whatsoeuer representeth any thing ought to be visible but this Sacramentall being is altogether inuisible Sixtly And that which representeth a thing ought to resemble it but this sacramental being is contrary to the naturall being for the natural being giues vnto Christ longitude latitude situation of partes power of mouing seeing speaking and breathing but contratiwise the Sacramentall being depriues him of all these 16 I would willingly know if this speech of Bellarmines be allowed also by their other Doctors namely that By vertue of these wordes hoc est corpus meum the bodie of Christ begins to be vpon the altar without the soule and without blood And that by the vertue of these wordes Hic est sanguis This is the bloud that the bloud begins to be alone and diuided from the body vpon the Altar For if this be so the Masse doth sacrifice a dead body but a liuing and passiue body was offered vpon the Crosse therefore is it not one and the same sacrifice 17 Our aduersaries being thus vrged and extremely perplexed at length they are forced to yeeld and as the Stagge being tyred doth sometimes yeelde himselfe to the Hunters so they vnable to resist so euident a truth they fairely come ouer to our side which is a point whereof I pray the Reader to consider Our aduersaries say that the sacrifice of the Crosse and the sacrifice of the Masse are one sacrifice and that the sacrifice of the Crosse is re-iterated in the Masse but the truth is so strong and the euidence thereof so plaine to the contrary that oftentimes it slips from them and they giue sentence against themselues For the Councell of Trent Ses 22. cap. 1. saith that Christ hath left vnto his Church a sacrifice by which the bloudy sacrifice which he was to make vpon the Crosse was represented and the memory thereof perpetuated The same Councell addeth that the sacrifice of the Crosse and the vertue thereof is applyed vnto vs by this sacrifice And this doe we beleeue and many of ours haue beene burned for so saying And indeed if the Eucharist be the commemoration and application of the Sacrifice of the Crosse it is then certaine that it is not the same sacrifice with that of the Crosse and that it cannot be a sacrifice propitiatory First for the commemoration of a thing is not the thing it selfe the commemoration of a battell is not a battell the commemoration of a sacrifice is not the same sacrifice Secondly In like manner the application of a thing is not the thing it selfe the application of a fashion is not the fashion the application of a Plaister is not the Playster the application of the propitiatory sacrifice of Iesus Christ is not the propitiatory sacrifice of Iesus Christ Thidly Which is most true in matter of payment for the Sacrifice of Christ is the payment ransome for our soules being cleare that the commemoration of a payment is not the payment to remember a payment it needes not to begin it againe and the Priest doth but mocke with God if he thinke eyther to pay him or redeeme vs by a commemoration Fourthly if the sacrifice propitiatory of Iesus Christ be applyed in the Masse then certainly it is not re-iterated for a thing is not reiterated by the application thereof a medicine is not re-iterated by applying it to re-iterate a writing or a sacrifice to apply it this needes purgation more then refutation Let them learne then to speake things in congruity for they must of necessity eyther say that the Masse is neyther application nor commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse or if in that point they be vnremoueable let them confesse that it is not the Sacrifice of Christ nor a sacrifice propitiatory Fiftly and finally if they will needes haue that the death of Christ is applied vnto vs by sacrificing they must shew out of the Scripture that God will haue it so applyed We finde in the Scripture that Iesus Christ is applyed vnto vs and that wee haue communion with him by baptisme Gal. 3.27 1. Cor. 10 16. Ioh. 14.23 Ephes 3.17 by breaking of bread by the word and by faith but of application by sacrificing not a word All which already said is more then sufficient to discouer the abuse and conuince the falshood If they will yet haue any ouer-measure to make the strangenesse of their errour more plaine Then if the Masse be truely and properly a Sacrifice wherin Christ Iesus is sacrificed for a Sacrifice propitiatory for our redemption they must of necessity tell vs in what action this Sacrifice consisteth and that they shewe vs in the institution of the Eucharist which is comprized in the Gospell what were the actions by which Iesus was sacrificed Cardinall Bellarmine after hee hath beene a long while tormented about the matter §. Haec mihi in the last chapter of the first booke of the Masse in the end he fals vpon the opinion of Thomas who sayth that the sacrifice consisteth in these three things in the breaking blessing and eating of the bread But he attributes the principall essence of the Sacrifice to the blessing or consecration which is worthy the examination Of the breaking Touching the fraction or the action of breaking the host it is not onely not of the essence of the sacrifice but also it cannot be an action necessarily in the sacrifice 1. for if by chaunce the Priest let fall

vnto the 15. verse of the 21. chapter Seauen dayes after his arriuall he is taken and to auoyd the violence of the Iewes he appealeth vnto Caesar when he came to Rome he preached there two yeares Acts 28.30 and there suffered Martyrdome as we may easily gather out of the 2. Timothy Chapter 4. verse 6. and by the subscription of the Epistle From whence it appeareth that the Epistle to the Romanes could not be written aboue three yeares before his death and not to be too strict let vs admit that it might be 4. yeares let vs now shew that S. Peter had not beene at Rome when S. Paul wrote this Epistle for that is prooued by the fifteenth chapter of the said Epistle to the Romanes where Saint Paul saith that he is resolued to goe to Rome whereof he rendreth this reason to wit I study to set forth the Gospell not in those places where mention hath beene already made of Iesus Christ to the end faith he that I build not vpon another mans foundation He presupposeth then that neyther S. Peter nor any Apostle had till that time laid nay foundation in the Church of Rome otherwise S. Paul going thither soone after should haue built vpon anothers ground-worke The renowne and credite and the mutual conference and conuersation of the Christian strangers with the Romanes had sowen the Christian Religion at Rome but before S. Pauls comming thither there was not any forme of a Church gouerned S. Paul laid the first foundation as is manifest by the place alleadged This being thus gained let vs end the rest of the combat The Kings Maiesty of England hath aduisedly noted that the Apostle S. Paul did excommunicate the incestuous person of his owne authority the spirit of the Corinthians ioyning with his spirit without making or medling with S. Peters spirit Coeffeteau here answereth that by the spirit S. Paul meant not authority but knowledge and declaration of will as Beza expoundeth it I aunswere that this declaration of will was done by vertue of the power and authority which he had as he addeth in the wordes following In the name of our Lord Iesus and by his power so calleth he that power which Christ had giuen him and which hee denieth to haue receiued from any man Gal. 1. v. 1. and chap. 2. v. 6. n = * They which were the cheef brought nothing vnto it But saith Coeffe●eau it is not necessary at all times to expresse all the functions of the Church nor the Primacy of S. Peter it being sufficient to beleeue it Then say I if he omitted it in this place and neuer thelesse beleeued it you must then shew vs some other place wherehe confesseth that he beleeued it Coeffoteau goeth further and saith Coeff fol. 89. That in the Letters of the Councell of Ierusalem the decision was made by the authority of the whole Assembly without speaking of Peter Acts 15.23 because the Letters were sent in the name of all the company n = * The apostles and the Elders brethren to the brethren that are of the Gentils in Antiochia Besides it is sufficient that elsewhere S. Peter is called cheefe by the Oracle of truth and that Peter himselfe speaketh first To this I say that if in these dayes a Councell where the Pope were present should write Letters to decide a Controuersie it would be thought very strange if in those Letters there were no mention made of the Pope Againe we cannot finde that the Oracle of truth did euer giue vnto S. Peter any power or Iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles Furthermore in this Councell Peter spake as a man that gaue his aduise or iudgement but it was Iames that spake last and pronounced the finall decision as President in the action But among all the reasons alleadged by the King of great Britaine that is most witty and forcible which is drawne from the first chapter of the first to the Corinthes which hath not beene yet noted by any other S. Paul had founded the Church of Corinth and had laboured mightily but after his departure from them they fell to faction and partaking one saying I am of Paul another of Apollo and another of Peter Those that said they were of Paul had a desire rather to become his followers then Peters it appeareth then that S. Paul had not taught them to acknowledge S. Peter to be his Superior and to be the head of the vniuersall Church for if he had so taught them they would neuer haue resisted and withstood that his instruction Neyther is it possible that any man would oppose himselfe herein against S. Paul thinking in so doing to become his Disciple or that he would not beleeue him to the end he might become his follower This is not onely absurde but it is also impossible from this argument so aptly collected Coeffeteau being vnable to comprehend the force thereof is driuen to shifts and querkes cleane from the purpose To as little purpose is it when he saith that Caluine speaking of the Controuersie betweene Paul and Peter Coeff fol. 90. Gal. 2. did not inferre a Preference of S. Paul before S. Peter but onely an equalitie for his Maiestie doth not intend a preheminence of S. Paul aboue S. Peter in generall but onely in this particular action Forasmuch as iustly to reprehend is a thing more noble then to be reprehended and to teach better then to learne I also adde that it is very likely that if S. Peter had had his Cardinals about him or a guard of Swyssers and Light Horsemen See Crysostome vpon chap. 1. to the Galathians he would not haue suffered S. Paul to haue withstood him to his face But follow on the line and leauell of S. Pauls purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it will lead you directly to the truth that S. Pauls drift was to meete with and to preuent the mis-regard which some had of his Apostleship which some held to be of an inferior ranck because he was none of the twelue but came after them Against this opinion of theirs he iustly armeth himselfe and saith in the very beginning of his Epistle that he is an Apostle not of men nor by man but by Iesus Christ where he teacheth vs sufficiently that hee had no commission from S. Peter And chap. 2. verse 6. he saith that they that seemed to be in estimation added nothing vnto him He saith that the charge was diuided betweene him and Peter to him were the Gentiles committed euen as to Peter those of the circumcision that Iames Peter and Iohn who were accounted the Pillars gaue him the right hand of Fellowship that he withstood Peter to his face when he came to Antioch Petrum solum nominant sibi comparat quia primatum ipse accepit ad fundandam Ecclesiam se quoque pari modo electum vt primatum haberet in fundandis gentis um Ecclesijs and went not the right