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
A62876	Theodulia, or, A just defence of hearing the sermons and other teaching of the present ministers of England against a book unjustly entituled (in Greek) A Christian testimony against them that serve the image of the beast, (in English) A Christian and sober testimony against sinful complyance, wherein the unlawfulness of hearing the present ministers of England is pretended to be clearly demonstrated by an author termed by himself Christophilus Antichristomachus / by John Tombes.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1667 (1667)	Wing T1822; ESTC R33692	356,941	415

2 Chron. 6.41 2 Chron. 5.13 2 Chron. 29.30 In the Titles of Psal. 92. and 102. Jerem. 33.11 Ezra 3.11 Zech. 3.2 Jude 9. Revel 12.3 4. Revel 15. 3. Hos. 14.2 3. Isai. 12.1 Deut. 21.8 and 26.5.10 Isai. 26.1 Mr. Ainsworth himself than whom none was more opposite to any set Form as appeared by his avouching in his writing to Mr. Paget the Reasons in the Separatists Apology p. 69. against using the words of the Lords-Prayer in prayer to which Mr. Paget hath answered in his Arrow against the separation of the Brownists p. 69. c. in his Annot on Exod. 12.8 reciting the Form of the later Jews at their Passover saith Vnto these phrases the New Testament seemeth to have reference when it speaketh of the cup of blessing 1 Cor. 10.16 And of singing an Hymn Mark 14 26. And after These Observations of the Jews while their Common-wealth stood and to this day may give light to some particulars in the Passover that Christ kept as why they lay down one leaning on anothers bosome John 13.23 a sign of rest and security and stood not as at the first Passover neither sate on high as we use Why Christ rose from supper and washed and sate down again John 13.4 5.12 Why he blessed or gave thanks for the bread apart and for the cup or wine apart Mark 14.22 23. And why it is said He took the cup after supper Luke 22.20 Also concerning the Hymn which they sung at the end Mat. 26.30 And why Paul calleth it the shewing forth of the Lords death 1 Cor. 11.26 As the Jews usually called their Passover Haggadah that is Shewing or Declaration From which Observations we may gather that our Lord Christ did use the forms in Blessing which is a part of Prayer which the Jews without particular command of God had taken up And that St. Paul alludes to them expressing the use of Christians by the phrases of the Jews which shews the Christians used their forms Yea that the Apostles in many things of their ministry retained the customes in their Synagogues in matters of Worship and Ecclesiastical Government is avouched by Mr. Stillingflete in his Irenicum part 2 d. ch 6. After Mr. Selden Dr. Lightfoot Dr Hammond Mr. Thorndike and many others Which things do abundantly prove that this Author doth too too inconsiderately write That there are not the least footsteps of a stinted form of service in the worship of God to be found in the New Testament No not in the whole Book of God amongst the people of the Jews No nor yet was there any such a way of worship thought of much less imposed in the first and purer times of the Gospel for several centuries of years after the dayes of Christ and his Apostles I do not gainsay what this Author writes about the Liturgies fathered on some of the Apostles and some of the Ancients Neither will I justifie the use or imposition of them as they have been in the later ages only this I say which is sufficient for the present purpose 1. That neither the words of Justin Martyr in his 2 d. Apology to Ant●ninus That the President did send forth prayers and thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he had ability the people testifying their consent by saying Amen Nor the words of Tertullian alleged by this Author out of his Apologetique against the Gentiles c. 30. That the Christians prayed for the Emperour looking towards Heaven and without a monitor because from the heart do necessarily exclude stinted forms of Prayer The words of Justin Martyr may be understood of the intention of the affections or duration of prayers which may be in stinted forms nor is it unlikely but that thanksgivings were some of them such as in their Psalms which they sung which Pliny mentions in his Epistle to Trajan in that age and those it is likely were stinted forms And they might pray without a monitor or prompter which excludes the suggestion of others and from the heart includes of their own accord and yet pray in stinted expressions Yea the things mentioned that they prayed for seem to intimate Set forms agreeable to the things he mentions as prayed for 2. However it is apparent if not from Tertullians Book of Prayer yet out of Cyprians Book concerning the Lords Prayer that Christians did and conceived they ought in publique prayer to use the prescript words of the Lords Prayer and that they had some other forms then whieh are still retained which those words intimate Therefore also the Priest a Preface being premised before Prayer prepares the minds of the Brethren by saying Lift up your hearts that when the people answer We lift them up to the Lord they may be minded that they ought to think on nothing else but the Lord. Which if it prove not an entire Liturgy to have been then in use yet a worship of God by a stinted form of Words was sure thought on in Cyprians time and that this Author writes too confidently when he saith The least footsteps of such a way of worship are not found nor were thought of in those times It follows Sect. 5. Common-Prayer-Book worship shuts not out of doors the exercise of the gift of Prayer To which we add 2. That Worship which is an obstruction of any positive duty charged by Christ to be performed by the Saints is not a worship that is of his appointment But this is undeniably true of the Common-Prayer Book worship Therefore That Christ did upon his Ascension give unto his Church Officers as signal characters of his love to and care of it will not be denied Ephes 4.11 is an evidence hereof beyond exception That to th●se Officers he gave gifts and qualifications every way suiting the empl●yment he called them forth unto cannot without a most horrid advance against the wisdome faithfulness love and care of Christ towards the Beloved of his Soul be gainsaid That he not only expects but solemnly charges upon these Officers an improvement of the gifts bestowed upon them for the edification of his Body is evidently compriz'd and very frequently remarked in the Scripture 2 Tim. 1.6 1 Cor. 12.7 Ephes. 4.11 Prov. 17.16 Luke 19.20 To imagine after all this that any Worship should be of the institution of Christ that should shut out of doors as unnecessary the exercise of the gifts given by him to be made use of in the solemn discharge of the worship of his house is such an imputation of folly to him as may not be charged upon any person of an ordinary capacity or understanding Yet this is righteously to be imputed to him absit blasphemia if the Common-Prayer-Book worship be a Worship of his appointment The exercise of the gift of Prayer to mention no more being wholly excluded hereby Nor will it in the least take off the weight of this Argument to say That liberty is granted for the exercise of this gift before and after Sermon For

quod or the terminus ad quem to which it had been directed But if he had only taken occasion upon the sight of the Sun to worship God as David did Psal. 8.3 magnifie or worship God the Creator it had been no Idolatry though the Moon or Sun were the objectum à quo significativè or the sight 〈◊〉 it the motive to it Till Divine worship be given to a creature it is not Idolatry although in the kind or means of worship there may be Will-worship and in the opinion of those that count their act or the object to be holy when it is not there may be superstition of the mind and in the use of such things or forbearing their use superstition in the members That which this Author saith of his major Proposition as generally owned by Protestants I do not believe it to be true understanding it as he doth of relation only to the creature as objectum significativè à quo or the motive of the adoration and not the object to which it is directed As for this minor it may be denied even in his own sense for the adoring of God though it be at the receiving the elements yet the elements are not objectum significative à quo or the motive of their kneeling according to the Common-Prayer Book which saith That the order in the Office for the administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants should receive it kneeling is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion as might otherwise ensue That thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental bread and wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood Which intimate that the elements are not the objectum significativè à quo or the motive of their kneeling but the benefits of Christ in the Lords Supper given to all worthy receivers And that not the sight of bread or wine which is not seen till the cup be in their hand but the remembrance of Christs death and the remission of sins by his blood by saith are the motive to kneel to God with prayer and thanksgiving to him without any honour of the bread and wine though received eaten and drunk to remember Christs death as the procuring cause of those benefits As for his Reason if the elements were not there they would not kneel therefore they are the objectum significativè à quo or the motive of their kneeling partly the Antecedent is not true for they kneel before they receive the elements brought to them and after they have eaten and drunk while they are in the meditation of Christs death and the benefits by it using holy ejaculation in prayer and thanksgiving to God partly the consequence may be denied For though they would not kneel were not the elements there yet this is not sufficient to prove their presence the motive of kneeling any more than the presence and speech of the M●nister who delivers them with prayer and exhortation to whom yet this Author makes not the kneeling to have relation And indeed it is not the presence of the elements when they are received that is while they are in the Ministers hand or their own or in their mouths which is the objectum significativè à quo but the actions with the elements at the consecration by the Minister which signifie Christs death and the use by themselves in eating and drinking whereby are signified their nourishment by Christ unto life eternal which are the motive to that gratitude and trust in Christ which in kneeling they exercise by prayer As for the words of Didoclavius with Maccovius his assent they are the words of an Adversary to the Ministers in this cause and therefore not fit to be alleged as a proof in this matter Nor if they were true would they prove kneeling to be Idolatry but to be some way against the second Commandement for avoiding Idolatry We might more justly and more to the purpose allege the words of Dr. Ames in his Triplication to Dr. Burges his Rejoynder ch 4. sect 4. p. 382. There is no Non-conformist which refuseth to kneel unto Christ in the celebration of the Lords Supper And the Conformists deny they require kneeling to any other than God and the Lord Jesus Christ. As for their bowing and cringing at the Altar it concerns them to speak for themselves who use it neither do all the Conformists use it no not in Cathedrals if my information be right nor is there any established Law for it and those that use it do avouch they do it not to any other than God and therefore are not to be charged with Idolatry whatever other fault they are chargeable with by reason of it It follows Sect. 16. The Crimination of the Ministers as Idolaters is not excusable Object To what hath been hitherto offered in this matter if it be said That the charging the present Ministers of England with Idolatry is exceeding harsh and that which is an argument of a very unchristian and censorious spirit Though this makes nothing to the enervating of what hath been offered yet we answer 1. That many words of Christ himself were accounted hard sayings and not to be born and that by such hearers as were once his admirers and did with seeming great affection attend upon his ministry That such poor worms as we should be recharged herewith it is no great marvel it is enough for the Disciple to be as his Master 2ly We have in this matter said nothing but what is in Thesi over and over asserted by most or all Protestant Writers upon the second Commandement who assert fully That the worshipping God in a way not prescribed by him is Idolatry such as do so are Idolaters With our application hereof unto the present Ministers of England if they are guilty as that they are hath been abundantly demonstrated why should any be offended To speak truth when our silence would be prejudicial to the souls of our Brethren me-thinks should not be accounted unchristian or censorious In the margin are these words Calvin Perkins Ames Macc●vius Altingius Wendeline Paraeus Explicat Cate. p. 3. Q. 96. p. 528. saith Quid postulat secundum praeceptum Res. Ne Deum ullâ imagine aut figurâ exprimamus neve nullâ ratione eum colamus quàm qua se in suo verbo coli praecepit 1 Sam. 15.23 Deut. 12.30 Mat. 15 9. And afterwards he addeth Huic secundo praecepto contraria sunt ea quae vero cultui divino adversantur 1. Idololatria quae est culius numinis fictitius aut superstitiosus Sunt autem Idololatriae du● species praecipuae una crassior cum fictitium numen colitur haec species prohibetur in primo praecepto aliquâ ex parte in tertio

altera est subtilior cum verus Deus coli fingitur sed erratur in genere culius hoc est cum vero Deo culius fingitur praestari aliquo opere quod ipse non praecepit haec species Idololatriae hoc praecepto propriè damnatur nominatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive superstitio And pag 529. Qui peccant contra secundum praeceptum peccant contra primum quia qui Deum aliter colunt atque vult coli illi fingunt Deum aliter affectum atque est hoc est alium Deum Ita non Deum sed cerebri sui commentum quod sic affectum esse sibi persuadent colunt Fingere alium Dei cul●um est aliam Dei voluntatem proinde alium Deum fingere c. But 3ly What would these Objectors have said to Tertullian that renowned servant and witness of the Lord J●sus in his day who is by farr more nice in this print of Idolat●y than we have declared our selves to be He in his Bo●k de Idololatria chargeth such as make Statues or Images build or adorn Temples though it were their Trade Astrologers Schoolmasters that name the names ●f Idols making honourable mention of them in their orations such as keep holydayes d●dicated to Idolatrous service as their Satu●nalia in the stead of which is the time with us called Christmass c. such as adorned their gates posts houses after the Pagan manner at Festivals with Lawrel Ivy c. as symbolizing with Idolaters yet sure we are he could not justly be charged with an unchristian or censorious spirit Answ. The charge is rightly laid and your plea insufficient to take it off Christs sayings were unjustly counted hard because they were true yours justly because not so his sayings tolerable yea precious because they tended to direct them in the way to life eternal yours judged to be from an unchristian and censorious spirit because uncharitable and tending to division That which by the Protestant Writers is said is not all true I think all Will-worship is not ●dolatry Our Lord who accused the Pharisees of Will-worship did not accuse them of Idolatry How farr from Demonstrations your Arguments are may appear by this Answer Were it fit to recriminate I could prove you guilty of as great Idolatry as you impute to the Conformists Your zeal for truth and love to your Brethrens souls were good if it were in a good thing if without knowledge and it tend to errour and schism it may be pernicious in its consequents As for Tertullian omitting what may be excepted against him and the spirit by which he was acted in the close of his life which shewed him to be as Dr. Casaubon observes in his Treatise of Enthusiasm ch 3. a man though otherwise learned that ascribed too much to private Revelations out of an excess of zeal which he shewed in all his works in which I wish it were true that this Author who here so extolls him were not too like him I conceive Tertullian might have such reasons for his niceness in the point of Idolatry in his time when the Christians lived among Pagan Idolaters who bore sway in the Empire of Rome which only maintained such Idolatry as the publick received Worship and persecuted Christians for not conforming to their Idol-service as this Author hath not for his accusing Ministers of Idolatry for using a Service-book in the main right in respect of the Worship and a gesture avowed to be only to the true God in a Church holding in the main the ●ight Faith under a Prince that professes the same Faith and Worship and to be a Defender of it As for such reliques of Pagan customes or Popish as yet remain though it were to be wished they were quite left 〈◊〉 sith they are not used in any honour to the Pagan Idols but the original and reason of them at first being almost if not quite forgotten by those that use them and are become but as civil customes that have no state in religious worship experience shews that they are more easily reformed by neglect than by earnest declamations against them Nor do I think the course this Author takes of seeking Reformation by Invectives and Separations likely ●o promote it but to exasperate Rulers and make opposites more violent in their way It is added Sect. 17. The Martyrs are unjustly made Idolaters by this Author Obj. 2. But what shall we judge of Latimer Ridley Hooper and many other famous witnesses and martyrs of Christ who worshipped God after the same way of worship that these do now Were they also Idolaters How could they be saved then when ●he Scripture sayes that no Idolater shall inherit the Kingdom of God and we do not find that they repented hereof To this we answer 1. That the persons instanc'd in were eminent witnesses of Jesus Christ in their day whose very names are in our nostrils as sweet perfume we readily grant and would be loth to speak one word to abate of that just esteem is due to their names and testimony for Christ. 2ly That they are now with Christ and shall come with him a●d sit upon Thrones to judge their unjust Judges in the day app●in●ed thereunto we have not the least scruple But 3ly They were but men encompassed about with many infirmities That they were guilty of the sin of Idolatry cannot from what hath been said herein its evident be denied Y●t 1. They were in that day but just peeping out of the gates of Babylon beginning to arise and shake themselves out of the dust of the abominations of the great Whore and t is no wonder if some of the filth of her fornications did cleave to them 2. They worshipped God in sincerity according to the light he was pl●●sed in that day to communicate and God accepted of them in Christ granting to them a general repentance for those iniquities they saw not to be so or knew not themselves to be guilty of which is all we shall at present say hereunto The intelligent Reader knows that these things are not of any moment for the invalidating of what hath been offered upon this subject Thus farr of this Argument The present Ministers of England are guilty of Idolatry therefore t is the duty of Saints not to hear but separate from them Answ. Though this Objection be not a direct Answer to your Argument yet it is a very great prejudice against it that by striking at the present Ministers you wound the holy Martyrs you make them Idolaters for that very thing for which they dyed that they might not be Idolaters judging them as committing Idolatry in kneeling with such respect to the bread as they did utterly detest abhorred to the death and for witnessing against it laid down their lives in the flames and making all the godly at that time who did as they did and held communion with them guilty of their sin for hearing them and not separating from them