Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	cup_n	drink_v	eat_v	8,062	5	7.8137	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33220	Seventeen sermons preach'd upon several occasions never before printed / by William Clagett ... with The summ of a conference on February 21, 1686, between Dr. Clagett and Father Gooden, about the point of transubstantiation.	Clagett, William, 1646-1688.	1689 (1689)	Wing C4396; ESTC R7092	211,165	600

be disproved now he is dead And if the great Esteem I had for that Excellent Person and most useful Instrument of God's Service in our late dangerous and critical Times does not render me a very incompetent judg of whatever comes from his hand the Reader will find even in these short Notes enough to reward his Pains and to keep him from thinking the time lost that he shall please to spend in the perusal of them W. W. A Private Conference BETWEEN Dr. Clagett and Father Gooden ABOUT Transubstantiation c. FAther Gooden Proposed the Rule of Faith to be the Subject of the Conference but upon the Request of the Lady for whose sake they met the Question of Transubstantiation was taken And the Father desiring that the Doctor would be the Opponent the Question was Stated on both Sides Dr. That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is salse Doctrine and That the Natural Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament but in Heaven Fa. That after the Words of Consecration the true Body and Blood of Christ are in the Holy Eucharist and that the manner is well exprest by Transubstantiation Dr. This is not all the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Church of Rome The Doctrine of the Church of Rome is this That the Substance of the Bread is chang'd into the Substance of Christ's Body and the Substance of the Wine is chang'd into the Substance of Christ's Blood which Change the Church of Rome does conveniently call Transubstantiation Now against this I thus argue If the Substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist then it is not chang'd into the Substance of Christ's Body But the Substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist Therefore the Substance of Bread is not changed into the Substance of Christ's Body Fath. I deny the Minor viz that the substance of Bread does remain Dr. If Bread remains the substance of bread remains But Bread remains Therefore the substance of bread remains Fath. If the Nature of Bread remains Bread remains but if only the Name of Bread and Species remain then Bread does not remain Dr. That Bread which is properly Natural Bread remains in the Eucharist is proved from 1 Cor. 11.26 As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew forth the Lord's death till he come 1 Cor. 10.16 The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Now from hence we argue thus If that which is here said to be Broken and to be the Communion of the Body of Christ be properly natural Bread then that which is properly natural Bread remains in the Eucharist Fath. I grant the Major Dr. But that which is here said to be broken and to be the Communion of the Body of Christ is properly natural Bread Ergo Properly natural Bread remains in the Eucharist Fath. I deny the Minor. Dr. The Bread of which Saint Paul speaks is Bread that may be broken and therefore it is truly and properly natural Bread. Fath. I distinguish the Antecedent as to the Accidents and Appearance of Bread it may be broken as to the Nature of Bread it cannot because it is not there Dr. This is to beg the Question for the Question is whether Bread be there or not and the Argument to prove that it is there is Because Saint Paul speaks of Bread that might be and was broken but it is no sufficient Answer to this to say that the Accidents of Bread may be broken because the Bread is not there it self which is the thing that was disproved Fath. The Question to be proved was that the Nature of Bread was there therefore it is not a begging of the Question according to the Distinction given to say that the Nature of Bread is not there and consequently could not be broken For the Bread there spoken of is not meant of Natural Bread but of Bread which came down from Heaven and which is the flesh of Christ John. 6.41 I am the bread which came down from Heaven John 6.48 I am the bread of Life Ver. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 58. From whence I infer my Answer to be good that though the H. Eucharist be called Bread and broken as to the Species of Bread yet it is not natural Bread but only in appearance of which St. Paul spoke for the same St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. speaking of the same bread saith He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself not discerning the body of our Lord. Christ also speaking of the same bread saith Take eat this is my Body Matt. 26.26 Also Luk. 22.19 speaking of the same Eucharist This is my Body which is given for you Dr. The Answerer forgetting the Part of a Disputant has pretended to prove largely by the sixth Chap. of St. John and other places of Scripture That St. Paul in the aforementioned places did not speak of Bread properly so called although he spoke of Bread that was to be broken All which places when it is my turn to Answer I will consider particularly But if that which is here said is to go for an Answer the force of it lies in this That by the Bread which St. Paul spoke of we are to understand the Bread which St. John spoke of namely the bread which came down from Heaven by which the Answerer understands the Natural and proper flesh of Christ But that the Bread which St. Paul speaks of cannot be the natural flesh of Christ I prove thus The Bread which St. Paul speaks of was broken But the Natural Body of Christ cannot be broken Ergo. The Bread which St. Paul speaks of cannot be the Natural body of Christ Fath. As to the Species and Appearance of Bread it was broken I grant it as to any Nature contained under those Species of Bread I deny it Dr. This Distinction does not avoid the Argument because if the Bread in St. Paul and the Bread in St. John are really and properly the same and the Bread in St. John be really and properly the flesh of Christ then what is affirmed of the one must be true of the other and therefore if the Bread be broken in St. Paul then the Natural body of Christ must be broken too which cannot be I add further That if by breaking of Bread St. Paul means breaking the Accidents of Bread onely and if the Bread that is broken be really that which is spoken of in St. John as aforesaid it follows also that the Accidents of Bread are properly the body of Christ Fath. That which St. Paul calls Bread had in it both the Accidents of Bread and the substance of Christs body As to the Accidents of Bread it might be broken as to the substance of Christ's body which is mentioned in St. John it is not broken unless you mean as Christ's Body was broken upon the Cross And if the bread which is broken be really that which is spoken of in St. John as aforesaid

that in Enoch's time who was Translated little less than a Thousnnd Years after the Creation there was a very great decay of Piety and Virtue every where that men were generally bewitched with the Pleasures of the beautiful and charming Place which the Earth was before the Flood and forgot their Creator and had lost the Sense of that infinitely better World which Adam and the Religious Patriarchs had by revelation from God given them assurance of In such an Age as this when for the reason now mentioned it is evident that the generality of Mankind were sunk into Debauchery and perhaps into Infidelity too Enoch was a steady Pattern of Piety and Virtue and whilest most Men walked after their own Lusts and the best were much to blame he walked with God and Lived above the pleasures and enjoyments of this Life having God before his eyes and another Life and a better Life in his hopes It is therefore very reasonable to conceive that God intended by this surprising Testimony of Translating Enoch alive into a better World to convince the unbelieving to awaken the inconsiderate and to call off that Voluptuous Age from these brutish debaucheries to mind better things and to prepare for a better Life especially since in the second place 2. This was a very instructing admonition That God who is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him as the Epistle to the Hebrews says upon this very example of Enoch that God I say rewarded his Piety not with giving him a longer Life in that pleasant World but in another which was therefore a place more happy and desirable than the Earth was even in that delicious state and condition of it before the Flood had made as strange an alteration in that as it made in the Age of man's Life That God I say should take him alive out of this World when it abounded with all manner of delights and pleasures and this at the Age of 365 Years when he was but a young man as the World was then younger in proportion than we are now at 30 when he was in full vigour and capacity for all the entertainments of sense which the Earth afforded even to Luxury and this according to the course of Nature to last for some hundreds of Years to come That God should Translate him under these circumstances to another Life after he had served him with a constant Piety in his Younger Years and lived among men with an unreprovable Innocence and Virtue this I say was a demonstration to all that would consider it That that World to which he was Translated was a better World than that from which he was taken and that they might be sure to understand this instruction God took him not away by the common means of mortality since if he had died that Vicious Age would have imputed that change to any thing rather than to a Divine Providence rewarding so excellent a Man with so early a removal to a better Life and therefore he was taken away alive that they might not be able to question the power that did it or to mistake the reason why it was done that they might know Enoch had obtained a reward from God suitable to that Life that he had lived here and to that Faith by which he had lived and in which he had wrought righteousness being removed from hence to pleasures more pure and ravishing than all this World can afford In a word they might have seen and for some time it is like they acknowledged it though they soon fell back again That the great business of mankind here is to live in all Godliness and Honesty and that God doth not reward them that do so with the Pleasures and Glories of this World but with the enjoyments of a better And now having said thus much concerning the extraordinary character of Enoch and the singular end it pleased God to make with him in this World I have yet more to do by way of application and that 1. To propound the example of Enoch and such as he was who walked with God to our imitation And 2. To propound though not the manner yet the substance of his reward for our encouragement to walk as he walked 1. To propound his example as an example that is of it self worthy of our imitation and is withal an imitable example an example that is worthy to be followed and an example not too hard to follow that it is worthy of our imitation appears both from that Life to which his Faith led him and from the Nature of that Principle it self by which he lived As to the Life whereunto it leads it is made up of whatsoever things are Just Honest Lovely of good report if there be any Virtue Praise of Justice Faithfulness Temperance Government of Passions Wisdom and Fortitude which are the Glory of Humane Nature and things acceptable to God and approved of men These things are enough to recommend the Principle from whence they come And yet 2. it is in it self the best whether we consider 1. our concernment in those things which we believe For if there be a God what is our dependance upon this World to our dependance upon him And if we shall endure beyond this Life and that for ever what are our Fortunes till we die to our Eternal state after death It is not our mere Nature but our Relation to God that makes us considerable and we are very abject Creatures if we have nothing to do but Eat and Drink and to Live a sensual Life for a little time and then to Vanish into nothing Or 2. whether we consider Faith as a persuasion grounded upon rational evidence that is such evidence as requires a Free and Unprejudiced and clear Judgment to perceive but which not bearing upon the Senses of Men distinguisheth between the Wise and the Honest on one side and unteachable Persons on the other A Believer doth of all men make the most proper use of his reason because he assents to the Principles of Religion For instance That there is a God not upon immediate bodily Sight but upon a means of Conviction suited to a reasonable nature Or 3. Whether we consider Faith as a means to secure an happy Enjoyment of our selves in this World of which I need to say no more that it is the only true support of Man's mind under all the Afflictions and Calamities of Life and that which can make us easy under them will make us happy in every condition That the Example of these Men who have lived by Faith and walked with God is worthy of our Imitation is a Subject that might be spoken to without end But let us consider it 2. As an imitable Example For that it is so the Pattern mentioned in the Text doth abundantly prove Enoch lived in a World that was full of Temptation and those as dangerous as Temptations can possibly be the Temptations of Luxury which in their kind