Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	life_n	righteousness_n	sin_n	20,387	5	5.1345	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79524	Catholike history, collected and gathered out of Scripture, councels, ancient Fathers, and modern authentick writers, both ecclesiastical and civil; for the satisfaction of such as doubt, and the confirmation of such as believe, the Reformed Church of England. Occasioned by a book written by Dr. Thomas Vane, intituled, The lost sheep returned home. / By Edward Chisenhale, Esquire.	Chisenhale, Edward, d. 1654.	1653 (1653)	Wing C3899; Thomason E1273_1; ESTC R210487	201,728	571

this salvation And herewith agree the Fathers of the Primitive Churches Origen who writ about two hundred yeers after Christ upon the text of Matth. 15. The Word was made flesh and very meat which whoso eateth shall live for ever says that no evil man can eat thereof for it is onely eaten by faith And herewith agrees S. Cyprian in Serm. de Coena Dominic saying Our eating and drinking is a certain hunger and desire to dwell in him and that none do eat of this Lamb but such as be true Israelites which hunger is termed of the soul as David was an hungry Psal 41. My soul hath thirsted after God which is the well of life For the soul feeling nothing but the horrour of death and the terrour of Gods justice sin by the Laws impeachment having drawn that direful sentence upon her in her pensive meditations of her just demerits betakes her self to this spiritual refreshment of comfort and solace being hereunto invited with the sweet appellation of blessed if she hunger and thirst after righteousness and a cheerful promise of comforts that she shall be satisfied Matth. 5. Which spiritual hunger and thirst as it is not perceived of a carnal man but onely of such as inwardly desire this refreshment and ease from the deep throws of their sad condition so is it not given to any but such as spiritually long and seek after it God feedeth the hungry but the rich those that stand upon their own integrity he sends empty away It is no carnal banquet that flesh and blood can thirst after Have ye no houses to eat and drink in 1 Cor. 11. It is not eating an ordinary Supper to satisfie the greedy appetite of a natural man but as Christ said to his disciples Joh. 4.32 I have other meat to eat which ye know not The disciples themselves as carnal men knew not of this spiritual food and therefore Christ minding to draw them from their gross fleshly principles and to convince them that there is spiritual food as well as that which the mouth and throat take and swallow plainly says unto them Is any dry let him come to me Joh. 7. for he is meat he is drink which whosoever by faith spiritually eat and drink live for ever Athanasius de peccat in Spir. sanct says Christ made mention of his ascension to pluck men from corporal fancie and thereby to perswade them that his flesh was spiritual food the things which he spake were spirit and life It must needs therefore be understood of spiritual eating and spiritual drinking his flesh and blood which hereticks unbelievers could not do as S. Hierome upon Hos 8. witnesses And S. Ambrose de benedict Patr. cap. 9. says Jesus is the bread which is the meat of the Saints and he that taketh this bread dieth not a sinners death for this bread is remission of sins And S. Austin in his 26 Tract upon John Bread and wine which nourisheth the body a man may eat and drink and nevertheless die but the very body and blood no man eateth but hath everlasting life And in another place in sententiis ex Prosp decerpt cap. 339. He that agreeth not with Christ doth neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood although to the condemnation of himself for his presumption he every day receive the Sacrament of so high a nature Judas did eat the bread saith he in his 59 Tract but not the bread that was the Lord. Christ is onely spiritually in the bread and wine to such as by a lively faith receive him As for the wicked they receive but the meer bread and wine abusing the Ordinance From these Authorities may clearly be evinced that the Church of England doth maintain in this point as the ancient Fathers taught concerning this Sacrament Nor can any otherwise understand of this holy mystery for if Christ be corporally in the bread and wine then the wicked receiving him receive his body and not his Spirit for Rom. 8. as he that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his so he that hath Christ in him believeth because he is justified And if his Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead dwell in you he that raised Christ from death shall give life to your mortal bodies for his Spirits sake that dwelleth in you So that no wicked man hath the Spirit of Christ in him and to maintain that he hath him corporally and not spiritually is to divide his Humanity from his Divinity which blasphemy the Catholike Church abhors Now the Church of England doth not thus divide the Natures but holds that both his Body and Spirit is by faith received but not that the body is corporally in the bread the bread and wine being but the elementary parts signifying the spiritual substance and that God worketh this faith inwardly in our hearts 3. The bread and wine are but figures of the body and blood by his holy Spirit and outwardly confirmeth the same to our ears by the Word and to our senses by the eating and drinking the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy Supper Which eating and drinking is a spiritual feeding requiring no real presence of Christ but onely in Spirit grace and effectual operation And that when Christ said Hoc est corpus meum it was but figuratively spoken it being bread which he brake and gave as a type for a remembrance how his body was crucified for us And let none wonder at this her tenent to say that Christ spake in figures when he did institute this Sacrament for it is the nature of a Sacrament to be figures and types signifying mystical grace thereby received Hence it was that the Philistims when the Ark came into the army of the Israelites said that God was come into the army 1 King 4. And God himself at that time by the mouth of his Prophets said that from that time that he had brought the children of Israel out of Egypt he dwelled not in houses but that he was carried about in tents and tabernacles 1 King 7. which was a figurative speech he speaking that thing of himself which was to be understood of the Ark. Which phrase of speaking Christ himself often used as in Mat. 13.11 17. The field is the world The enemy the devil c. Joh. 16. I am the vine you are the branches Joh. 4. I have meat to eat which you know not And Joh. 10. I am the door Matth. 12. He that doth my Fathers will is my brother and sister c. These and many more Christ spake in Parables Tropes and Figures but chiefly when he said Hoc est corpus a figurative speech This cup is the new Testament in my blood the word my taken for the thing in the cup. Neither is the cup nor the wine Christs Testament but a signe and figure of his Testament And admit that by the word cup neither the cup nor wine is meant but the blood yet it

his own blood entred he once into the Holy place and obtained Eternal Redemption for us Christ was such an High-priest that he once offering himself by once effusion of his blood did cleanse the sins of all that believe he took unto himself not onely their sins which many years before were dead and put their trust in him but likewise the sins of those that until his coming again should believe in his Gospel so that we look for no other Priest or sacrifice to take away our sins but onely his sacrifice made once for all If he should have made any oblation for sin more then once he should have died more then once but he hath made a full and plenary oblation for sin by his death by the will of God are we sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once made Heb. 10.10 For with once offering hath he consecrated for ever them that are sanctified If Christ then have taken upon him the burden of our sins and become a reconciliation not onely for our sins but the sins of the whole world if he himself have made a full oblation for our sins by the offering of his body once made how shall the Popish Priests be excused who presume daily to perswade the people they offer in their Mass a Propitiatory sacrifice and the same that was offered by Christ himself upon the Cross Which if it be so then may we say of them that they crucifie again the Lord of life whereas the Scripture tels us plainly he was not to be offered often as the High-priest offered every year but onely once did put away sin by the sacrifice of himself Heb. 9.26 For as a man must once die so Christ was once offered to take away sins for many and to them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation for Heb. 10. Every Priest appeareth daily ministring and offereth ofttimes one manner of offering which can never take away sins but Christ after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sitteth at the right hand of God It is a rule in Logick Dato uno absurdo mille sequuntur the Papists deduce this Doctrine from their other errors of Transubstantiation and so they proceed from iniquity to iniquity they hereby when they have made the people believe their transubstantiated god that now they may as well rob God of his office and their Priest may make a Propitiatory sacrifice upon the Altar for the sins of the people which S. Paul saith was onely proper to Christ himself He himself entred into the holy place by his own blood It was the office of himself to offer himself the satisfactory oblation for our sins by the will of the Father he being the High-priest of good things to come having an everlasting Priest-hood being holy harmless separate from sin made higher then the heavens which needed not daily to offer up sacrifice as the other High-priest did first for his own sins and then for the peoples for that did he once when he offered himself up once for all Moreover when the Popish Priests take upon them to offer up satisfactory sacrifice at their Altar it must either be understood such a sacrifice as the Priest under the Law offered which were but typical of the Messias and so they become Jewes denying Christ to be already come or else if they think they offer Christ upon the Altar for quick and dead and make the same oblation which Christ made upon the Cross they do hereby either deny the sufficiency of Christs oblation as if his offering once for all did not satisfie without their daily offering and crucifie again the Lord of life or else if that sacrifice of Christ was sufficient they must needs confess that this of theirs is vain and needless being added to the sacrifice which is already sufficient and perfect or if this of theirs be requisite they make the death of Christ of none effect or in vain because this their offering is satisfactory for the sinnes of the people This doctrine is very well known to have sprung up of lucre the Priests by this doctrine finding a means to sell Masses for the quick and promising for and in consideration of such and such Legacies to say so many Masses for the dead whereby they should be released from pains in Purgatory and finding the sweet benefit that doth arise by this doctrine to the Priests and to his Holiness by this doctrine and the other of Indulgences they bend all their wits and wholly apply themselves to darken the truth with the mists of subrile sophistry and fleshly interpretations of the word to gain grateful and liberal Proselytes to this their new doctrine I do not deny that this Sacrament is by some Fathers called a sacrifice it is so properly called but it must not be therefore understood to be a sacrifice for sin onely a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or else it is called a sacrifice to put us in mind of the sacrifice which Christ himself hath made and so is significantly a sacrifice as the bread is called his body and the cup his blood And herewith agreeth Saint Austine in his 33. Eplstle to Boniface and in his book de civitate Dei lib. 10. cap. 5. That saith he which men call a sacrifice is a figure and representation of the true sacrifice And Magist Sentent lib. 4. distic 12. That which is offered and consecrated of the Priest is called a sacrifice because it is the memory or representation of the true sacrifice of Christ and that holy oblation made in the Altar of the Cross And Chrysostome upon the Hebr. That which we offer is but in remembrance of Christs sacrifice he himself in his own Person made a sacrifice for our sins upon the Cross by whose wounds all our diseases are healed all our sins pardoned and so did never any man or creature but he the benefit whereof is in no mans power to give unto another every man must receive it at Christs hands himself by his own faith and belief we are made one body as many as are partakers of one bread If then this be a representation of Christs sacrifice which sacrifice by the Doctors own confession is not perfect without the cup then must the people either receive both kinds or else they do not sufficiently commemorate Christs sacrifice which they ought to do in respect the Priest doth not nor can offer up a Propitiatory sacrifice for the Reasons aforesaid As this Sacrament has the name of a sacrifice it is to be understood significantly of Christs sacrifice or else as it is in it self a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving if it be significantly a sacrifice the people ought to be partakers of it as it is a perfect sacrifice in both kinds and if it be a sacrifice of praise and laud unto the Lord then the people as well as the Priest are required to and concerned

is a figure of the Testament of Christ which was to be sealed with his blood For his blood is not the Testament but the thing that confirms the new Testament This is so evident a place to disprove the tenents of Romes Church in this particular that her champions are forced to their last refuge of abusing Scripture and therefore they render that text thus This blood is a new Testament in my blood which translation I submit to the judicious Reader whether it be not more strange then any figurative speech Christ saith we must be baptized with the holy Ghost this is a figurative speech So likewise Except a man be born again c. that was a figurative speech intending thereby spiritual regeneration S. Paul saith that in Baptism we cloathe us with Christ and be buried with him Rom. 6. which are figurative speeches of our newness of life and mortification of sin The Paschal Lamb without spot signified Christ the effusion of that blood signified Christ's passion and the sprinkling of the posts with blood whereby the first-born escaped death is a type of those which at the last day shall be saved being sprinkled with the blood of Jesus As in the Old Testament Exod. 12. God said This is the Lords passeover which was not the Lords Passeover but a figure representing the Lords passing by so Christ in the New Testament says of the bread and wine This is my body This is my blood which is not so in substance but in signification A figure hath the name of a thing that is signified thereby as we say a mans image is called a man the figure of a tree a tree or the like So we say Let us go to S. Peter of Millain to S. James in Compestella c. not meaning thereby the things themselves but understanding by the things representive the things represented Even so the bread and wine though Christ call them his body and blood yet they are not verily so but the elementary parts and outward signes of the invisible grace his flesh and blood thereby signified Nor is this a strange interpretation but according to Christs own figurative speech saying Luk. 22. I have much desired to eat this passeover with you Which words none can deny to be figurative God himself used that figurative speech and Jesus the onely Son of that Father to ssure us of his unity with the Godhead breathes out the same Spirit to his Apostles This is my passeover This is my body This is my blood As the shedding of that Lamb's blood was a token of the shedding of Christs blood then to come and forasmuch as the Sacraments of the Old Testament ceased and ended in Christ lest we should through corrup●ion and depravity forget the accomplishment of those Types and not take heed to print in our memories the benefits we receive by Christ Therefore Christ at his last Supper when he took leave of his disciples being shortly to depart out of the world according to the will of the Father did make a new Will He did make a new Will and Testament wherein he bequeathed clear remission of sins which he sealed next day with his blood and instituted this holy Sacrament in remembrance thereof and ordained the same in bread and wine saying This is my body This cup is my blood which is shed for remission of sins Do this in remembrance of me And Saint Paul says 1 Cor. 11. As often as we eat this bread and drink this cup we shew the Lords death till he come Therefore when we come to be made partakers of this heavenly food we should seriously call to minde the wonderful sufferings great goodness and marvelous kindness of Christ he offering himself for our redemption and by a lively faith apply the merits of his Passion to our souls and so we verily receive Christ he to be in us and we in him The Scriptures do sufficiently set forth this truth That when Christ said Hoc est corpus it was a figurative speech and the Church of England holds forth this truth against all adversaries and opposers thereof And that in this she may not seem arrogant to assume a self-interpretation of the Scriptures to maintain this her assertion I will bring in some ancient Fathers to bear witness for her Saint Augustine How to interpret Scrip ure de doctrina Christiana lib. 3. advising us how to interpret Scripture bids us beware how we take literally any thing that is spoken figuratively and figuratively any thing that is spoken literally And he therefore gives this Rule in way of caution If the thing saith he that is spoken be to the furtherance of Charity then it is a proper speech and no figure as when it commands any good or forbids any evil act then it is no figure but if it command any evil thing or forbid that that is good then it is a figurative speech Now this saying of Christ Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood ye have no life in you seems to enjoyn a hainous and vicked thing and therefore upon S. Austin's rule it is a figurative speech But I will not onely conclude it upon that general rule to be so But I will likewise for better clearing this truth ●t down the express opinions of the Fathers in this point The ancient Fathers agree that it was a figurative speech Irenaeus contr Valent. lib. 4. c. 32. ●aith Christ confessed bread which is creature to be his body and the cup to be his blood And in cap. 57. he ●●ith that Christ taking bread of the ●ame sort that ours is of confessed that ●t was his body It was saith he ma●erial bread and therefore a figurative ●peech Cyprian ad Magn. lib. 1. Epist 6. Christ called bread made of many corns and wine pressed out of many grapes his body and blood Cyril in Johan lib. 4. cap. 14. Christ gave to his disciples pieces of bread saying Take eat this is my body And herewith agree Austin de Trinit lib. 3. cap. 4. Theodoret. dialog 1. all concurring that when Christ took bread and wine and spake these words This is my body This is my blood that it was bread and wine which he gave and not any other substance And Origen in Levit. Hom. 7. declareth the eating and drinking of Christs flesh and blood to be figurative therefore saith he understand them as spiritual not as carnal men Tertul. contra Marcion lib. 1. calls bread broken by Christ a figure of his body and wine his blood because saith he in the Old Testament bread and wine were figures of his body and blood And Chrysostome upon Psal 22. saith that Christ ordained the Table of his holy Supper for this purpose that in that Sacrament he should shew unto us bread and wine for a similitude of his body and blood So that all agree it is a figurative speech S. Ambrose upon 1 Cor. 11. saith that in eating and drinking the bread and

the Evangelists who witness with one consent that Christ took the Bread and also or after the same manner he took the Cup we must not say that he took the Bread or the Cup for so we destroy the Sacrament as being of incertainty and having no certain ground either for its institution or the precept for the administring thereof Wherefore for the Doctor here to construe and or is to multiply contradictions and so his reason is become invalid in respect that the general scope of the Scripture is that this Sacrament is to be administred under both kinds therefore it is more safe to construe those few places where Sacramental Bread alone is mentioned without the Cup to be understood of the whole Sacrament rather then in many places to wrest and into or For the mentioning of Bread onely doth not exclude the Cup negatively but rather according to Cyprians speech by the naming of part of the action the whole is to be understood and herewith agreeth Saint Paul 1 Cor. 10.17 And we that are many are one bread and one body because we are all partakers of one bread We must not think that because here Saint Paul names bread onely that therefore the Corinthians did not communicate in the cup for that is against the precedent verse where he saies The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ and the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ Besides in the ensuing Chapter he enjoyns both to be received and that to the people so that where the breaking of Sacramental bread is onely mentioned we are not thereby to exclude the cup for the Hebrew phrase is under the breaking of bread to signifie the whole feast as in the Prophet Esay Frangere esurientis panem is as well to give drink as bread Besides should we admit of any other construction as that when bread is mentioned alone thereby to understand communion in one kind we should in that change Saint Luke in Act. 2. to teach contrary to the practice of Christ and the rest of the Apostles which did both receive and deliver to the people under both kinds which were an impious and presumptuous charge Wherefore let the Church of Rome for shame confess her errors herein and let her not longer wrest mangle and misconstrue Scripture contrary to Christs rules herein contrary to the sense of the Primitive Church and contrary to the judgement and practice of the antient Fathers and her own antient Bishops and that but for self-interest to maintain a new doctrine of her own framing taken up upon a light score and never heard of or believed in the Church for a thousand years after Christ and let her confess the truth with us herein by which means she shall neither alter the sense nor wrest any particular word to maintain her doctrine herein and if she will not for unitie sake and for communion with us yet for avoiding an absurdity against her own principles let her never construe that place of Luke to signifie an entire Sacrament for then she makes the whole Sacrament onely breaking of bread and destroyes Transubstantiation As for the Doctor if he be not herewith satisfied but that he will persist notwithstanding that it must be understood of communion in one kind and furthermore to maintain that opinion will here construe and for or I must tell him that he has hereby wiped off one error which he elswhere fol. 337. taxed our Translators with 1 Cor. 11.27 which if it be mis-translated it makes nothing for communion in one kind but whether we receive the one or the other that we should take heed to receive with due reverence so Heavenly a banquet and it doth further illustrate to us that though we receive the bread worthily yet if we receive the cup unworthily we are guilty of the body and blood which is an argument and indeed an absolute proof that they both make but a perfect Sacrament of the body and blood therefore I encline to think with the Doctor that it is a corruption in our printed Bibles rendring and for or I find it various from the old copies and I will not presume upon the Doctors rule to justifie it however it is something excusable for that in the very same Chapter 26 28 and 29. verses eating the bread and drinking the cup is expressed and not eating the bread or drinking the cup which upon the Doctors rule for avoiding contradiction should be construed or but whether it be taken or or and yet notwithstanding it makes nothing for the Popish communion in one kind The Doctor layes down for the Priests receiving in both kinds Of the sacrifice offered upon the Altar by the Priest because he offers up a sacrifice I will therefore a little consider of that I hope I shall give satisfaction to any reasonable soul that the Priest and the people offer up one and the same sacrifice and if so then by the Doctors rule they are to receive in both kinds because saith he Christs sacrifice upon the Cross is not perfectly represented but by both kinds as it was prefigured in Melchizedek's sacrifice of bread and wine For the better explaining of this point it is to be understood that there are two kinds of sacrifices one is a perpetual sacrifice pacifying Gods wrath whereby mercy and forgiveness of sins is obtained which is onely the death of Christ prefigured by the sacrifices under the Law The other is a sacrifice of laud and thanksgiving which doth not reconcile us unto God but is offered up of such as be already reconciled unto him by faith in him which is the reconciliation for our sins even Christ Jesus By the first Christ offered us unto the Father by the second we offer our selves and all that we have unto him and his Father according as David sayes Psal 50. A sacrifice to God is a contrite heart and Hebr. 13. Alwaies we offer up to God a sacrifice of laud and praise by Jesus Christ and Saint Peter saith of all people that they are A holy Priest-hood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ The Papists object that saying of Saint Paul Heb. 9. Every High-priest is ordained to offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins To prove thereby their sacrifice of the Altar offered up in their Mass which who please to read may plainly discover that that saying is meant of the Priests under the Law who did offer Bullocks and Goats for the sins of the people and therefore in the old Testament such sacrifices are sometimes called Propitiatory sacrifices being indeed but shaddows and types of Christs sacrifice which was to come which was the true and perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world wherefore in the very same Chapter S. Paul saith it were impossible our sins should be taken away by the blood of Oxen and Goats verse 1● By