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	show_v	4,559	5	5.6281	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A17146	A sermon preached the 30. of Ianuary last at Bletsoe, before the Lord Saint-Iohn and others concerning the doctrine of the sacrament of Christes body and blood, vvherein the truth is confirmed and the errors thereof confuted, by Edward Bulkley doctor of diuinitie.	Bulkley, Edward, d. 1621?	1586 (1586)	STC 4027; ESTC S109470	40,435	102

true and effectuall communion with Christ Iesus Againe S. Paul saith immediatly after 1. Cor. 10.17 we that are many are one bread and one bodie because we are all partakers of one Bread Againe as often as ye shall eate this Bread 1. Cor. 11.26 and drinke of this cuppe yée shew the Lords death till he come Againe whosoeuer shall eate this Bread and drinke the cuppe of the Lord vnworthely shal be guiltie of the body and blood of the Lord And again let a man therefore examine himself and so let him eate of this bread and drink of ●his cup. Here Saint Paul fiue times call●th it bread euen when it is receiued and eaten therfore I conclude that it is bread But here the Papists come in with a craftie cauillation and think they haue found a fine deuise to shift off these plain words of the Apostle they say that saint Paul calleth it bread because it was bread as Aarons rodde being turned into a serpent Exod. 7 1● and being a serpent is called a rodde Aharons rodde deuoured their roddes I aunswere first that they compare things vtterly vnlike for in the Sacrament there must continue a similitude and agréement betwéene the signe and the thing signified as before out of S. Augustine I declared and therefore the substance of the signe must néeds remaine without which there can bée no such similitude But in this matter there is no such agréement betwéene the rodde and serpent but rather bee cleane contrary and therefore the reason of these two are not alike Secondly I say that because the conuersion of the rodde into a serpent was but temporall for a short time to continue Moses had good cause to call it a rodde because thereunto it was straight wayes to be restored and in the nature of a rod to continue Thirdly let the Papists shew that their bread is so turned into the bodie of Christ as that rodde was into a serpent and then they say something other wayes they proue nothing Lastly I may turne this Argument vpon their owne heads that as Moses called the serpent a rodde when it was not a rodde indéede but a serpent So Christ called the bread his body when it was not indéede naturally his bodie but in substance bread and by his ordinance a sacrament of his bodie And as the Papists will haue Saint Paul to call that bread which they say is not bread so why may not our sauiour Christ call that his bodie which not properly but sacramentally is his body Thus I trust this their cauillation is sufficiently confuted that you plainly perceiue that S. Paul calleth it bread because it is bread The which now Dialog 1 I will proue by the testimonies of the ancient fathers Theodoritus beside that plaine place before alledged where he saith that Christ hath honored the visible signes with the title or name of his bodie blood not chaunging the nature of them but Dialog 2 adding grace to nature hath a more plaine and pregnant place whose words be these Thou art catched in thine owne snares for the mysticall signes after sanctification or consecration leaue not their proper nature but they remaine in their former Substance and figure kind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and be visible and tangible as they were before here not only Theodoritus plain words do affirme the nature and substance of bread and wine to remaine after consecratiō but also the whole drift of the disputation betwéene the true Christian the Eutican heretike tendeth to the same end But if the doctrine of transubstantiation had beene then in the Church receiued it had most fitly serued for the heretiks purpose that as the bread after consecration is turned into Christs body so Christs bodie after the ascention is turned into the deitie and so the heretike reasoneth but the true Christian answereth that he is catched in his own snare for as bread and wine after consecration are not turned into Christs bodie and blood but remaine in substance as they were before so Christs bodie after his ascention is not turned into the deitie but replenished with glorie and immortality Gelasius a Bishop of Rome writing against the same heretike Eutiches that Theodoritus did and vsing the same reason setteth downe the same doctrine in these words Gelasius contra Eurichen Certe Sacramenta c. i. Surely the sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing and therefore by them wée be made partakers of the diuine nature and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine and indeed an image and similitude of the bodie and blood of Christ is celebrated in the Accion of the mysteries c. Chrisostome also writeth thus Chrisost ad C●esarium Monachum Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis c. For as before the bread is sanctified we call it bread but when the diuine grace hath sanctified it by the meanes of the priest it is in déed deliuered from the name of bread and is counted worthy of the name of the lords bodie although the nature of bread doe still continue in it and is called not two bodies but one bodie of the son c. Both the words of Gelasius Chrisostome and also the drift of their discourses tending to the same end that Theodoritus doth most plainly shew that after consecration the substance of bread remaineth euen as after Christs assention the substance of his true body continueth or else these reasons taken from the sacrament do not only not make for them but directly against them yea and plainly make for those heretikes whom they by these arguments séeke to confute Origen also saith Panis ille c. Orig. in Mat●h cap. 15. That bread which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer according to the material substance which it hath goeth into the belly is cast out into the draught but by the prayer which is ioyned to it according to the proportion of faith is made profitable By which it appeareth that it is the substance of bread and not Christs bodie which were blasphemie to affirme that is so cast out Cyprian saith De vnctione Chrismatis Dedit dominus noster c. Our Lord at the table whereat he did participate his last feast with his disciples gaue with his own hands bread wine but vpon the crosse he gaue his bodie to be wounded by the hands of the souldiers August de consecr dist 2. qui mandu Augustine also saith Quod videtur panis est c. That which is séene is bread and the cuppe which our eies also do shew vnto vs c. He saith it is bread and not séemeth or appeareth to be bread August in psal 98. And in another place Spiritualiter intelligite quod loquutus sum Nen hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis c. .i. Spiritually

for that our sauiour Christ did eate the sacrament doth appeare by these his words after supper Verely I say vnto you Matth. ●6 I will not henceforth drinke anie more of the fruit of the vine c. And as our Sauiour vouchsafed to be baptized that he might sanctifie Baptisme vnto vs euen so he did receiue this sacrament also to sanctifie it vnto vs and thereby to assure vs the more of our communion fellowship with him Chrisost in Mat. Homil. 83. de Consecr dist 2. cap. nec Moses Et glos in cap. in Christo This both Chrisostom doth flatly affirm and the papists themselues do not deny but plainly confesse in these rude rimes without reason Rex sedet in Coena turba cinctus dnodena Se tenet in manibus se cibat ipse cibo i. The king sitting at his supper with his xii Apostles helde himselfe in his hands and fedde himselfe with the meat of himselfe Now whether this be not an absurditie that our sauiour Christ sitting with his disciples did with his natural body eate his naturall body I will commit it to the conscience and iudgement of the godly to consider And whether it must not hereof follow that he had too bodies one an Actiue that did eate and another a passiue that was eaten An other absurditie hereof ensueth that whereas the papists teach the Christs body is in the sacrament being impassible mortall and glorified contradictories must néeds be affirmed at one instāt vpon Christs bodie for his body wherein he sate at the table with his disciples was visible but the body in the sacrament inuisible that bodie was passible this impassible that subiect to death which shortly after died vpon the crosse this not subiect to death Now it can no more be that Christs body at one instant should be visible and inuisible passible and impassible subiect to death and not subiect to death then it can be a bodie and no body And therefore this is a foule absurditie Moreouer for Christs body to be at one instant in heauen and earth and infinite places of the earth is as I haue shewed and proued before an absurdity And that Christs bodie should bée in the Sacrament without any accidences of a body as form figure lēgth breadth thicknesse is as I touched before an absurditie This doctrine bringeth an other absurdity which they maintain that wicked men do eat the very body of Christ Whereas Christ himselfe saith Iohn ● 54 whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 56. hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day And againe he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood 57. dwelleth in me and I in him hée that eateth me shal liue by me But the wicked haue not eternall life neither do they liue by Christ being deade in their sinnes Therefore the wicked do not eat Christs flesh nor drink his blood Augustine saith August in Ioh. tract 26. Huius rei sacramentum id est vnitatis c. The sacrament of this thing that is of the vnitie of Christs bodie and blood is prepared in the Lords table and receiued of the Lords table in some places euery day in some at certaine times of some men to life of some to destruction But the thing it selfe wherof it is a sacrament is destruction to none but life to euery one that is partaker of it Again the same Augustine saith August lib. 21. de imitat Dei cap. 25. Non dicendum eum manducare corpus Christi qui in corpore non est Christi i. we must not say that he doth eate the body of Christ who is not in the body of Christ And againe in the same place Idem ibid. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi c. Therefore they are not to be said to eat the bodie of Christ because they are not to be counted among the members of Christ for not to speake of other things they cannot at one time be the members of Christ and the members of a harlot Origene saith Est verus cibus i. Orig. in Matth. 15. that is the true meate which no wicked man can eate for if a wicked man could eat the body of Christ it would not be writen He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer These places I do alledge to confute not onely this absurd assertion but also that grosse doctrine of transubstantiation for if the bread be so transubstantiated into Christs body then the wicked do eate Christs body if the wicked do not eat Christs body as by the proofes before alledged doth plainely appeare then is there no such transubstantiation nor carnall presence as they vainely imagine and falsely affirme for to be But heere also they want not a shift which is that the wicked doe eate Christs flesh and drink his blood but not worthily But I would haue them to proue that a man may eate Christs bodie vnworthely In déede I confesse that the wicked may vnworthely eat of this bread drink of this cuppe of the Lords 1. Cor. 11.27 and be guilty of the bodie and blood of Christ as S. Paul saith because that through infidelitie they do reiect Iesus Christ offred therby But that the wicked and reprobate be either worthely or vnworthely partakers of Iesus Christ that I do deny Yet to proue this shamelesse assertion see how they be not ashamed wilfully to corrupt the holy Scriptures Titul 21. Arti. 1. de sumpt Euch. Bunderius a lying and false Frier is not abashed thus to alledge S. Paules place which euen now I brought forth Multi enim indigne accipiunt de quibus ait Apostolus Qui manducat carnem bibit calicem domini indigne iuditium sibi manducat bibit i. For many do vnworthely receiue of whom the Apostle speaketh He that eateth the flesh and drinketh the cuppe of the Lord vnworthely eateth drinketh his owne damnation Heere this deceitfull Frier for panem the bread putteth carnem the flesh that whereas the Apostle saith he that eateth this bread and drinketh this cup c. He maketh him to say he that eateth the flesh and drinketh the cuppe of the Lord vnworthely wherein you sée how he altereth S. Pauls words and corrupteth the place But no maruell for such shamelesse assertions and corrupt doctrin cannot be defended without shame lesse corrupting of the holy Scriptures But they will say the sense and meaning is all one for he that eateth that bread eateth Christs body But that is the question and therefore they vse a deceitfull Argument called petitio principii taking that for graunted which is in question and is denied for the bread is one thing Christs bodie an other And although we are not to seperate Christ from the sacrament yet we ought not to confound them but to distinguish betwéene them for euen as the godly