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	show_v	4,020	5	5.4880	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26931	Full and easie satisfaction which is the true and safe religion in a conference between D. a doubter, P. a papist, and R. a reformed Catholick Christian : in four parts ... / by Richard Baxter.	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1674 (1674)	Wing B1272; ESTC R15922	117,933	211

Saint and yet not the benefits or effects As if Christs flesh and blood could be in a mans body without his benefit When he hath promised that he that eateth him shall live by him Yet see the measures of their faith and Church Saith Aquinas 3. q. 80. a. 3. ad 2. Vnless perhaps an Infidel intend to Receive that which the Church giveth though he have not true faith about other Articles or about this Sacrament then he may receive sacramentally CHAP. VI. The fourth Argument This Miraculous Transubstantiation is expresly contrary to the Word of God in Scripture Arg. 4. THe Papists say that there is no bread after the words of Consecration Gods word saith There is Bread after the Consecration Therefore the Papists speak contrary to the Word of God I. In 1 Cor. 11. It is called expresly BREAD after consecration no less than three times in three verses together 26 27 28. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and Drink this cup ye shew the Lords death till he come Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup Here they that call for express words of Scripture for our doctrine without our consequences may see their own faith expresly contradicted and our opposition justified The Holy Ghost here expresly calleth it Bread And yet no expresness nor evidence will satisfie them P. By Bread is meant that which was Bread before or else that which nourisheth the soul as Bread doth the body And so it is metonymically only called Bread as Christs Flesh is called Bread in Joh. 6. R. Why then do you call for express texts of Scripture as our proof when that expresness signifieth nothing with you but you can say It is a metonymie or a metaphor at your pleasure But you say so against notorious Evidence The Apostle calleth it Bread so often over and over as if he had foreseen your inhumane heresie He calleth it The Bread which is to be Eaten joyned with Drinking the Cup never once calling either of them the Flesh or Blood of Christ but as he reciteth Christs words which he expoundeth Yea he telleth us that eating this bread and drinking this cup is to shew the Lords death till he come where he calleth us to look back at Christs death as past in our Commemoration and to look forward to his personal coming as future but never telleth us that we must kill Christ and eat him our selves when we have made him nor that his body is there present under the accidents of Bread and Wine But the rest of the Scriptures as expresly justifie our doctrine 1 Cor. 10.15 The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion or Communication of the blood of Christ And the Bread which we break is it not the communion or participation of the body of Christ Here it is the Cup and the Bread after Consecration if the Holy Ghost may be believed And in the next words the Apostle repeateth it in his reason For we being Many are One Bread and One Body For we all partake of one Bread or Loaf Is not here express proof So Act. 20.7 When we came together to break Bread And v. 11. He ascending and breaking bread and eating c. Here it is twice more called Bread after the Consecration which ever went before the Breaking So Act. 2.42 46. It is twice more called Breaking of Bread And what else can the recitation of Christs institution mean 1 Cor. 11.23 24. Panem accepisse fregisse to have taken Bread and having given thanks to have broken What is it that he brake It s non-sence if it have no accusative case that it respects And plain Grammatical construction tells us then that it must be that before mentioned What he Took he blessed and brake and gave But he took Bread and the Cup The same is in Mat. 26 26 27. and the other Evangelists II. The Scriptures expresly Act. 2 c. make the Killing of Christ and drawing his blood to be the heynous sin of the Jews for which some Repented and others were cast off Therefore it is not to be believed that Christ did first kill or tear himself and shed his own blood or that his disciples did kill him or tear his flesh and shed his blood before the Jews did it And if they tore his flesh and drank his blood and yet killed him not the event altered not the fact The Jews did but break his flesh and shed his blood If you fly to a good intention Paul will come in for some further excuse for his persecution III. 1 Cor. 10.21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table and of the table of Devils Here note 1. That the same phrase is used of the Participation of the Lords mysteries and the Devils But it was not the flesh and blood or the substance of Devils which the Idolaters ever intended to partake of but only their sacrifices 2. It is here called only the Table and the Cup and not the flesh and the blood 3. It is said that They could not partake of both whereas according to the Papists doctrine if a man should partake of the Idols sacrifice in the morning and of the Lords Table in the evening without repentance he should really partake of Christs own flesh and blood which the Text saith cannot be done P. It meaneth only You cannot Lawfully or you ought not to partake of both but not that it is impossible or never done R. No doubt but it meaneth that They ought not or cannot Lawfully but that 's not all The text plainly meaneth You cannot have communion with both You may take the bread and wine at your peril but you cannot partake of it as a sacramental feast which God prepareth you and so partake of Christ therein And the same is said expounding this 2 Cor. 6.15 What concord hath Christ with Belial and what agreement hath the temple of God with Idols Intimating that Communion with God and Idols Christ and Belial are so far inconsistent But by the Papists doctrine an Idolater and Son of Belial may partake of the very substance of Christs body and blood into his body as verily as he partaketh of his meat and drink IV. The Scripture teacheth us expresly to judge of sensible things by sense Luk. 24.39 Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have And when he had thus spoken he shewed them his hands and his feet And v. 43 he did eat before them to confirm their faith But they could have no more sensible evidence of any of this than we have of the being of Bread and Wine or some