Selected quad for the lemma: friend_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
friend_n	abraham_n	call_v	father_n	847	5	5.2207	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56750	The three grand corruptions of the Eucharist in the Church of Rome Viz. the adoration of the Host, communion in one kind, sacrifice of the Mass. In three discourses.	Payne, William, 1650-1696.; Payne, William, 1650-1696. Discourse concerning the adoration of the Host. aut; Payne, William, 1650-1696. Discourse of the communion in one kind. aut; Payne, William, 1650-1696. Discourse of the sacrifice of the Mass. aut	1688 (1688)	Wing P911A; ESTC R220353	239,325	320

are all insignificant and to no purpose for if they did mention this either by way of Prophecy or of History yet if it be no where instituted this will not do the business for the Institution ought not to be supposed but clearly proved and made out and if that cannot be every thing else that is to support it as a collateral evidence falls to the ground What will it signifie if Melchisedec did offer Bread and Wine not to Abraham only but to God and as a Priest did sacrifice them rather then make an hospitable entertainment with them is this any foundation for the sacrifice of the Mass If Christ did not institute that at his last Supper with his Disciples Melchisedec I hope did not institute it with Abraham and his Souldiers If the Prophet Malachi speaks never so much of a pure offering yet if Christ did not offer up himself in the Sacrament nor command the Apostles to offer him up there Malachi's Prophesie will not make the Eucharist to be a sacrifice or a pure offering if Christ did not make it so nor will the Priests I suppos desire their power of sacrificing either from Melchisedecs act or Malachi's prediction without Christs Institution it is not only a presumption but a demonstration that those Scriptures which they bring do not really mean or truly speak of any such thing as The sacrifice of the Mass when there is no such thing any where instituted or appointed by Christ and without such an institution there cannot as they confess be any ground for it All their little scattered forces therefore which they rally and pick up here and there out of Scripture and which against their will they press into the service of the Mass-sacrifice are hereby wholly cut off and utterly defeated by having their main strength without which they can do nothing of themselves taken away from them and I shall examine them only to show the weakness of them which they being very sensible of themselves endeavour to make up their want of strength by the greatness of their number and surely never were so many places brought out of Scripture to so little purpose as what they produce for the sacrifice of the Mass First then they go back as far as Genesis for it and it is very strange they should find it there this will make it very primitive and ancient indeed but where-ever they meet with bread and Wine which are things of very great Antiquity they resolve to make a sacrifice of them especially if there be but a Priest by who has the power of Consecrating for they suppose he must presently fall to his office and put on his habit if bread and wine be before him and that he cannot like other men eat and drink them as his ordinary food or entertain his friends and others with them except he not only Religiously bless them by Prayer and Thanksgiving which every good man ought to do and it was the custom even of the Heathens to do this before they ate but he must sacrifice and offer them up to God. This they will needs have Melchisedec do in the 14. of Gen. 18. verse Melchisedec King of Salem brought forth bread and wine and he was the Priest of the most High God. What is there here to show that Melchisedec offered bread and wine as a sacrifice to God the very word in their own vulgar Latin answering to the Hebrew is protulit he brought forth not obtulit he offered and if it were the latter could not he offer bread and wine to Abraham and his Company upon a Table but must it necessarily be to God upon an Altar Abraham with his Three Hundred and Eighteen Trained Servants Ver. 14 15. had been by night pursuing those who had taken away his brother Lot Captive and when they were thus weary and hungry Melchisedec hospitably and kindly entertained them with provision to refresh them and brought forth bread and wine to them thus it lyes in the Sacred History and Context and thus Josephus (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 1. c. 11. relates it and there is not the least mention or intimation of any sacrifice as Cajetan (b) Nihil hic scribitur de sacrificio sed de prolatione seu extractione quam Josephus dicit factam ad reficiendos victores Cajetan in Gen. 14. owns upon the place and so do many of their own Authors whom Possevine (c) Biblioth l. 4. c. 13. the Jesuit takes upon him to correct for it Bellarmine indeed as if he had been by at the entertainment and been one of Abraham's Souldiers tells us they had ate and drank very well before and therefore desires Melchisedec to excuse them for they had no need of his Bread and Wine at that time (d,) Quid igitur opus erat pane vino ijs qui spoliis abundabant paulo ante comederant biberant Bellarm. de Miss l. 1. c. 6. D. and yet in the same place owns that these were given to Abraham and his Companions for food (e,) At nos non negamus data illa in cibum Abrahae sociis sed dicimus fuisse prius Deo oblata consecrata tum data hominibus ut de sacrificio participarent Ib. but that they were first offered to God and then given to them to partake of them as of a sacrifice But why were they given as Food if they had no need of Food Did Melchisedec know they had eaten Or does the Scripture say so Or might not he treat them as a King though they had victuals of their own How does Bellarmine know they were first sacrificed when there is not the least word of that Ay but it is said that he was the Priest of the most high God therefore it is likely he sacrificed why else should that be added It was added because he was so or because as it immediately follows he blessed Abraham Ver. 19.20 and Abraham gave him Tithes of all his spoils this is more likely than because he sacrificed for there is no mention of that as of the other and 't is not said he brought forth bread and wine because he was the Priest of the high God 't is only a conjunctive particle and he was not a causal for It is said also in the same place that he was King of Salem and why might not his entertaining Abraham be as he was a King because he is said there to be a King as well as a Priest and yet I suppose a Priest may be said to treat his Friends as another man without officiating then as a Priest though he be called a Priest Why Bellarmine should cite any Fathers for his Opinion I cannot imagine since the oldest of them are I suppose so much latter and at so great a distance from the times of Melchisedec that they could no more know what Melchisedec did at that time then we can now and they are