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	eat_v	lord_n	6,874	5	4.8423	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00604	Transubstantiation exploded: or An encounter vvith Richard the titularie Bishop of Chalcedon concerning Christ his presence at his holy table Faithfully related in a letter sent to D. Smith the Sorbonist, stiled by the Pope Ordinarie of England and Scotland. By Daniel Featley D.D. Whereunto is annexed a publique and solemne disputation held at Paris with Christopher Bagshaw D. in Theologie, and rector of Ave Marie Colledge.	Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.; Bagshaw, Christopher, d. 1625?; Smith, Richard, 1566-1655.	1638 (1638)	STC 10740; ESTC S101890	135,836	299

Councell of Trent defineth Which is a question of greatest importance for if the Body of Christ be not there really and substantially the Church of Rome which adoreth the Host committeth Idolatry in the highest degree by attributing cultum latriae to a piece of bread And that the Body of Christ is not there in such sort as the Councell determineth and the whole Church of Rome beleeveth I will prove by necessary arguments drawne from the words of the institution the doctrine and practise of the ancient Church and the very principles of nature and infallible grounds of Reason Saint Paul fully setteth downe the institution of the Sacrament I have received of the Lord saith he that which I also have delivered unto you to wit that the Lord Iesus in the night that he was betraied tooke bread And when hee had given thankes he brake it and said Take eate This is my Body which is broken for you this doe ye in remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying this cup is the New Testament in my blood this doe as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me For as often as ye shall eate this breaed and drinke this cup ye shew the Lords death till hee come In this faithfull relation of the Apostle many things are very remarkable First our Saviour spake to his Disciples in a knowne tongue you to the Communicants in an unknowne Christ took bread and brake it you breake no bread at all Christ after hee had broken the bread took the cup and gave it likewise to all the Communicants you sacrilegiously mutilate the Sacrament and debarre the Laity of the cup. Christ used no elevation at all neither did his Disciples adore the Sacrament you practise both Lastly Christ when hee said eate and drinke truly reached the bread and cup to all which were present and thereby celebrated a Supper you use the same words eate and drinke you all of this and yet eate and drinke all your selves And call you this inviting Gods people to a Supper where you eate up all and they feed nothing but their eyes D. Bagshaw You promised to dispute M. Featley you do but discourse M. Featley Thus I frame my argument Christ in these words This is my Body called bread his body for hee tooke bread and brake it and said take eate this pointing to the bread but bread cannot be called Christs body properly therefore you must needs acknowledge there is a figure in these words and by consequence they make not for much lesse make any Transubstantiation of bread into Christs body D. B. I denie your Major Christ in these words This is my Body calleth not bread his body M. F. Tertullian saith he doth So God revealed in your Gospell calling bread his body Theodoret affirmeth the same in words most expressely Orth In the delivering of the mysteries hee called bread his body And a little after Our Saviour changed the names imposing the name of the Signe or Symbole upon his body and the name of his body upon the Signe or Symbole D. B. Tertullian speaketh of that which was bread in the old Law but now is Christsbody For in the words before he alleadgeth Jeremie mittamus lignum in panem ejus let us cast wood on his bread Theodoret is not of great credit because he favoured sometimes the heresie of Nestorius M. F. If Theodoret sometimes favoured any heresie that can be no just exception against this passage of Theodoret taken out of those bookes of his which have alwaies beene approved for Orthodoxall even by your own Church Your answer to Tertullian neither satisfieth the place nor avoideth my argument for he proveth not onely by the words of Ieremy in the Old Testament but of Christs also in the Gospell the bread was and is a figure of Christs body His argument standeth thus Christ by the Prophet Ieremie called his body bread let us cast wood on his bread that is the Crosse on his body And in the Gospell bread his body Ergo bread was and is a true figure of his body I insist not upon Tertullians allegation out of Ieremy but upon his explication of the words of the institution in the Gospell The Lord in the Gospell called bread his body And to the like purpose he speaketh The bread taken and distributed unto his Disciples he made it his body saying This is my body that is a figure of my body A little after he propoundeth this question why doth he call bread his body Out of which places I thus argue against your answer Tertullian saith that Christ in the Gospell called the bread which he brake and distributed unto his Disciples his body and therefore hee speaketh not of that which was bread in the old Law and you suppose to bee Christs body in the new but of that which was very bread then when hee called it his body But I inferre that which is truly bread cannot be properly called Christs body Ergo you must reject Tertullian or admit of a figure D. B. Prove that bread cannot properly be called Christs Body M. F. No disparata can be properly affirmed one of the other Bread and Christs body are disparata Ergo The one of them cannot properly be affirmed one of the other D. B. Panis corpus Christi are not disparata because they are not sub eodem genere M. F. Nay for that very reason rather they are disparata because they are not sub eodem genere The especiall difference betweene Contraria and Disparata is that contraria are sub eodem genere proximo disparata may be sub diversis as homo lapis corpus Christi panis the one sub corpore animato the other sub inanimato D. B. You ground your faith upon Scriptures not upon Fathers therefore we expect other arguments from you then such as these M. F. But you ground your faith not upon Scriptures onely but upon the traditive doctrine of Fathers and therefore wee expect from you better answers then these to the Fathers You beare the world in hand that all the Fathers are yours and yet when it comes to the triall dare not stand to their authority but flie to the Scriptures which give you no countenance at all but rather check your errors D. B. Shew me in Scripture where Christ called bread his body or els you doe but trifle out the time M F In the 1 of Cor. 11. v. 24. This is my body which is broken for you D B. Conclude your proposition from these words M. F. Thus I inferre i●… That Christ called his body which he said was then broken for us this is my body which is broken But that which was there broken was bread nothing but bread Ergo he called bread his body D. B. I denie your assumption Christs true body was then broken