Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	aaron_n	according_a	body_n	42	3	4.4746	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00908	A defence of the Catholyke cause contayning a treatise in confutation of sundry vntruthes and slanders, published by the heretykes, as wel in infamous lybels as otherwyse, against all english Catholyks in general, & some in particular, not only concerning matter of state, but also matter of religion: by occasion whereof diuers poynts of the Catholyke faith now in controuersy, are debated and discussed. VVritten by T.F. With an apology, or defence, of his innocency in a fayned conspiracy against her Maiesties person, for the which one Edward Squyre was wrongfully condemned and executed in Nouember ... 1598. wherewith the author and other Catholykes were also falsly charged. Written by him the yeare folowing, and not published vntil now, for the reasons declared in the preface of this treatyse.	Fitzherbert, Thomas, 1552-1640.	1602 (1602)	STC 11016; ESTC S102241	183,394	262

eucharist whereof I haue spoken already but also before when he promised it for that whē soeuer he spoke therof he represented the same to the vnderstanding of the hearers as a body sacrificed dead not speaking of his whole person or of himselfe as liuing but of his flesh of his body of his blood as my flesh is truly meate and my blood is truly drink and the bread which I will geue is my flesh this is my body this is my blood or if he spoke of himselfe or of his person it was with an addition to shew that he was to be eaten as when he sayd he which eateth me liueth for me which kynd of speech made some of his disciples forsake him say●ng it was durus sermo ae hard speeche conceauing therby that they were to eate him dead as other flesh bought in the shambles wheras he spoke in that manner to signify that he shuld be sacrificed before he should be eatē and therefore he euer spoke of himselfe as already killed and dead for that no creature whyles he is liuing is in case to be eaten as S. Gregory Nissen doth note very wel in the place before alledged in which respect Paschasius also sayth that our Lord is killed to the end wee may eate him and Isichius that Christ killed himselfe when he supped with his disciples not because he is truly killed or doth truly dy but because he dyeth mistically that is to say for that his death is mistically and truly represented by the separation of his blood from his body vnder seueral and dyuers formes of bread and wyne for although by reason of his immortality and impassibilytie he cannot dy neyther yet be so deuided but that he remayneth whole vnder both kynds yet for as much as the forme of wyne rather representeth his blood then his body and the forme of bread rather his body thē his blood according to the very woords of our sauiour saying of the one kynd this is my body and of the other this is my blood it followeth I say that by reason of this separation wrought by the force of the woordes of consecration he is exhibited in the Sacrament as dead and so dyeth in mistery as wel to represent his death vpon the crosse as also to offer himselfe in sacrifice to his father for the which it is not of necessity that he truly and realy dy but it suffiseth that he dy in some sort that is to say mistically for although all liuing creatures that are sacrificed are offred to God with the losse of their lyues and so are made true sacrifices yet in such other creatures as are not subiect to death it sufficeth that they be offred to almighty God and receiue withall some notable mutation or change to make the action to be sacrifical and different from a simple oblation for when any thing is offred to God and remayneth stil in his owne kynd forme and nature it is called an oblation so the first fruits the tythes the first begotten or borne of liuing creatures yea and religious persons as leuits and others in the old law were only offred to God for that they were no way changed wheras al things sacrifysed were eyther wholy destroyed or consumed by swoord or fyre or els at least receiued by the actiō of the priest some notable mutation Therfore seeing our sauiour being now eternal immortal and impassible is not subiect to death nor to any destruction or mutation by losse of his lyfe it sufficeth to make him a true sacrifice that he be offred to God with such mutation or change as may stand with his present state and condition as wee see he is offred in this sacrifice wherein the selfe same body that was borne of the blessed virgin Mary and is now in heauen glorified with the proper forme and lineaments of a natural body is by the omnipotency of our sauiours woords pronounced by the priest represented vpon the altar as dead and in formes of bread and wyne his body to be handled broken eaten and his blood to be dronke or shed as the body or blood of any other liuing creature that is killed in sacrifice wherby he is also in some sort cōsumed for that his body being eaten and his blood dronke he looseth the forme and peculiar māner of beeing that he hath in the sacrament which beeing deuynes caul Sacramental in respect of all which admirable mutations S. Augustin doth notably and truly apply to our sauiour in this sacrifice the history of King Dauid when he changed his countenance as the scripture sayth before Abimelech or king Achis for they are both one which he sayth was verifyed in our sauiour Christ when he changed his countenance in the priesthood and sacrifice of Melchisedech geuing his body and blood to be eaten and dronk There was sayth he a sacrifice of the Iewes in beasts according to the order of Aaron and that in mistery and there was not then the sacrifice of the body and blood of our Lord which the faythful know and is dispersed throughout the world and a litle after shewing how Melchisedech brought forth bread and wyne when he blessed Abraham he teacheth that it was a figure of this sacrifice then prosecuting the history how Dauid being taken for a mad man went from Abimelech which signifieth regnum Patris that is to say as he expoundeth it the people of the Iewes he applyeth also the same to our Sauiour saying that whē he told the Iewes that his flesh was meat his blood drinke they took him for a mad man and abandoned him wherevpon he also forsook them changing his countenance in the sacrifice of Melchisedech that is to say leauing all the sacrifices of the order of Aarō and as it were disguysing him-selfe vnder the formes of bread and wyne which was the sacrifice of Melchisedech he passed from the Iewes to the Gentils This is the effect of S. Augustinus discours in that place concerning the mutation or change incident to our Sauiours person in the sacrament of the Eucharist and requisit to the sacrifice whereof I treat wherby it hath the nature of a true sacrifice as I haue declared before which being considered with the circumstances of our sauiours owne woords as wel in the promise as in the institution thereof all signifying that his flesh his body aud his blood was to be eaten dronk as of a creature killed in sacrifice yea that the same was then presently geuen or offred by him to his Father for his disciples who represented the whole Churche and for remission of sinnes besyds his manifest allusion to the promulgation of the old Testament dedicated with the blood of a present sacrifice and lastly the consent of the learned Fathers of the Churche confirming our Gatholyke doctrin in this behalfe no reasonable man can dout but that our Sauiour at his last super did ordeyn the Sacrament

Leo the great sayth amongst the most blessed Apostles there was in similitudine honoris discretio quaedam potestatis a certayne distinction or difference of power in the lykenes or equalitie of honour although the election of them all was a lyke yet it was graunted to one vt caeteris praemineret that is to say that he should haue autoritie ouer the rest whereof he yeildeth a reason in an other place to the end sayth he that from him he meaneth S. Peter as from a certayne head our Lord might power his giftes vpon the whole body and that whosoeuer should be so bold as to depart from the solidity of Peter he might vnderstand him selfe to be no way partaker of the deuine mistery vpon these reasons I say vpon the warrant of our sauiours owne woords the most learned fathers of the Church both Greekes and Latins do acknowledge the same to be buylt vpon S. Peter consequētly teach him to be head of the Churche as of the Greekes Origen S. Athanasius S. Epiphanius S. Basil surnamed the great S. Gregorius Nazianzen S. Cirillus S. Chrisostome Psellus alledged by Theodoretus and Theophilactus and of the Latins S. Ambrose S. Augustin Maximus S. Leo the great S. Hilary and to omit dyuers others the great general councel of Chalcedon held by 630. Fathers Latins and Greekes aboue 1100. yeres agoe in which councel S. Peter is cauled Petra crepido Ecclesiae the rock toppe of the Churche Yet I think no man can be so simple as to ymagin that these Fathers affirming the Church to be buylt vpon S. Peter denied our sauiour Christ to be the first principal foundation therof of whome the blessed Apostle worthely sayth that no man can lay any other foundation then that which is layed already Iesus Christ which place our aduersaries are wont to obiect against this our Catholyk doctrin whereas they may learne not only in the Fathers but also in the scriptures themselues that there are dyuers foundations of the Churche though some be more principal then other our sauiour Christ the first and cheefe ground-work of the whole buylding as also in a Kingdome or common welth there are diuers heads though subordinate one to an other all subiect to one head all which may be called foundations in the polityke buylding because the same leaneth and resteth vpon them and is sustayned by them though not by all alyke or in equal degree To this purpose wee read in the Apocalipse that the walles of the citty that is to say the Church are sayd to haue twelue foundations in them the names of the 12. Apostles of the lambe and agayne in saynt Paule to the Ephesians you are sayth he Citizens of saynts domesticals of God buylt vpon the foūdations of the Apostles and Prophets Therfore S. Augustyn sayth that our sauiour may as wel be cauled fundamentum fundamentorum the foundatiō of foundations a Pastor Pastorū Sanstus Sanctorū the shepherd of sheperds or holly of hollies the reason wherof S. Basil geueth notably for the explication of this matter Though Peter sayth he be a rock yet he is not a rock as Christ is for Christ is the true vnmouable rock of himselfe Peter is vnmouable by Christ the rock for Iesus doth communicat imparte his dignityes not depriuing himselfe of them but retaining them himselfe yet bestowing them vpon others he is the light yet he sayth you are the light he is the Priest yet he maketh Priests he is the rock and made a rock thus far saynt Basil. The same teacheth S. Leo very elegantly explicating the words of our sauiour Tu es Petrus and speaking in our sauiours person thus Thow art Peter that is to say although I am the inuiolable rock the corner stone which vniteth both syds of the buylding the foundation besyds the which no mā can lay any other yet thow art also a rock because thow art consolidat hardened by my strength to the end that those things which ar proper vnto me by my owne power may be to the cōmon with mee by participation Hereby it appeareth that although our sauiour Christ be the cheefe and principal foundation that is to say the head of his churche yet by buylding the same vpon S. Peter he made him also the foundation or head therof next after himselfe and as there are dyuers other heads vnder S. Peter who in respect of theyr subiects may be truly cauled are heads and yet in respect of S. Peter are subiects euen so S. Peter in respect of all the whole church may properly be cauled and truly is the head therof though he be subordinat subiect to Christ as all the rest are both to Christ and him and therfore S. Leo in the place aforesayd sayth that there ar in the people of God many priests and many Pastors all whome Peter doth properly gouerne though Christ do principally gouerne therin Thus much for the first proofe wherein I haue ben more large then I determined and therefore I wil be breefer in the other two The second place wherevpon I ground the supremacy of S. Peter is the words of our sauiour following the former in S. Mathew videlicet I wil geeue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt bynd vpon earth it shal be bound also in heauen and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth it shal be loosed also in heauen By the keyes is signified preheminent power and authority wherevpon grew the commō custume of deliuering to princes the keyes of townes and fortresses when the people therin yeild and submit themselues to their absolute wil power and in the scriptures the woord clauis that is to say a key is often vsed in the same sence as in the Apocalipse to signify the preheminent authority of our sauiour it is sayd of him habet clauens Dauid he hath the key of Dauid and the Prophet Isayas speaking of the supreme ecclesiastical power of a high Priest in the old law I wil geue sayth he the key of Dauid vpon his shoulder and therfore although some of the doctors say sometymes that all the Apostles receiued the keyes hauing respect to some effects thereof yet it is manifest that they receiued not the same in such ample manner and with such prerogatiue as S. Peter to which purpose it is to be noted that albeit our sauiour gaue to all his Apostles authority to remit and retayne sinnes yet he made no mention of geuing the keyes to any but to S. Peter in which respect Optatus Mileuitanus sayth solus Petrus claues accepit only Peter receiued the keyes and Origen vpon the same words of our sauiour doth note that because it behoued that P. Seter should haue aliquid maius some what more then the other Apostles therfore Christ sayd vnto him I

of the Eucharist to serue vs not only for a food and spiritual meate but also for a sacrifice offring the fame him-selfe first to his Father and then geuing commissiō and power to his Disciples to do that which he did to wit to offer and sacrifice the same saying hoc facite in n●eam commemorationē that is to say do make or sacrifice this in remembrance of me for this woord facite as wel in the Syriac Hebrew and Greek as in the Laryn signifieth to sacrifice no lesse then to do or make as in Leuiticus faciet vnum pro peccate he shal sacrifice one of the turtle doues for remissiō of sinne and in the book of Kings faciam bovem alterum I wil sacrifice the other oxe the lyke may be seene in diuers other places of the holy scriptures where the Hebrew Greek woord which doth properly signify facere must needs be vnderstood to do sacrifice in which sence fac●re is also vsed amongst the Latins as cum faciam vttulapro frugthus c. when I shal sacrifice a calfe for my corne c also in Plautus faciam tib● fideliam mulsiplenam I wil sacrifice vnto the a po●ful of sweete wyne and agayne in Cicero Iunoni omnes consules facere necesse est all the consuls must needs sacrifice to Iune But howsoeuer it is it litle importeth for the matter in questiō whether faecere do properly signify to sacrifice or no seing it is euident that all the doctors of the Churche do vnderstād that Christ cōmaunding his Apostles to do that which he did commaunded them to sacrifice S. Denis who was conuerted by S. Paul at Athens declaring the practise of the Churche in his tyme fayth that the Bishop in the tyme of the holy mysteries excuseth himself to almighty God for that he is so bold to sacrifice the host that geueth health or saluation aleadging for his excuse our Sauiours commandment to wit hoc facite do this in my remembrance S. Clement in his Apostolical constitutions speaking to Priests in the name of the Apostles fayth suscitato Domino offerte saecrificium vestrum de quo vobis praecepit per nos hae facite in meam commemorationem on easter day when our Lord is risen offer your sacrifice as he commaunded yow by vs saying do this in my remembrance Martialis who also conuersed with the Apostles sayth that the Christians offred the body and blood of our Sauiour Iesus Christ to lyfe euerlasting because he commaunded them to do it in remembrance of him Iustin the Philosopher and Martyr within 140. yeares after Christ sayth that God who receiueth sacrifice at the hands of none but of Priests did foretel by his Prophet that those sacrifices should be grateful to him which Iesus Christ commaunded to be offred in the Eucharist S. Cyprian sayth our Lord and God Iesus Christe is the cheefe Priest and offred first sacrifice to God the Father and commaunded that the same should be donne in his remembrance S. Chrysostome teaching that the sacrifice which is dayly offred in the Churche ys alwayes one and the self same sacrifice be it offred neuer so oft addeth that which we do is donne in remēbrance of that which was donne by our Sauiour far he sayd do this in remembrance of me I omit for breuityes sake S. Augustin S. Ambrose Primasius Bishop of vtica S. Isidore Haymo and diuers others that testify in lyke manner that our Sauiour saying to his Apostles do this gaue them cōmission and power to sacrifice and thus much for the institution of the masse by our Sauiour THAT THE APOSTLES practysed the commission geuen them by our Sauiours sacrificing or saying Masse them-selues and leauing the vse and practyse therof vnto the Churche and that the ancient Fathers not only in King Lucius tyme but also for the first 500. yeares after Christ teach it to be a true sacrifice and propitiatory for the liuing and for the dead CHAP. XVII NOW then to speake breefly of the practyse of the Apostles and of Gods Churche euer since It being manifest by that which I haue sayd already that our Sauiour himselfe did not only institute offer the sacrifice of his body and blood at his last super but also gaue commission and power to his disciples to do that which he did it cannot be douted but that they executed this power and commission and did not only consecrate and make the body of our sauiour as he did but also sacrificed the same Therefore whereas we read in the Acts of the Apostles that they vsed to assemble themselues together ad frangendum panem to break bread it is doutles to be vnderstood that they offred this sacrifice informe of bread according to the commission cōmaundmēt of our Sauiour that the same was the publike ministery wherein the scripture sayth they were occupied when they were commanded by the holy ghost to segregat Paul and Barnabas whereof it is sayd ministrātibus illis Domino ieiunantibus c. whyles they were ministring to our Lord and fasting c. which being in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify the ministery of sacrifice in which sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are taken in the scripture when they are vsed absolutely and spoken of any publyke and holy ministery wherof wee haue examples as wel in the epistieto the Hebrewes in dyuers places as also in the gospel of S. Luke author of the Acts of the Apostles who speaking of Zacharias the priest and of his ministery or office which was to offer sacrifice calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therfore Erasinus of whose iudgement in lyke cases our aduersaries are wont to make no sma●e account had great reason to translate the foresayd woords 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. sacrifican●bus illu Domino c. as they were sacrifycing to our Lord c. and so cōmon was this sence vnderstanding of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sacrifice that the grecians haue no other proper woord for the sacrifice of the Masse Furdermore that the ministery of the Apostles in breaking bread was a sacrifice it appeareth euidetly by S. Paule who to withdraw the Corinthians from sacrificing to Idols did represent vnto them the sacrifice which he and the Apostles did vse to offer in the breaking of bread making a playne antithesis betwyxt the one sacrifice and the other and comparing the bread which they brake as wel with the lawful sacrifices of the Iewes as also with the vnlawful sacrifices of the gentils Of the first he sayth Behold Israel according to the flesh are not those which eate of the sacrifices partakers of the Altar and agayne speaking of the other flie sayth he from the woorship that is to say the sacrifices of Idols and yeilding a reason thereof the cup sayth he which wee blesse

is it not a communication of the blood of our Lord the bread which wee breake is it not a participation of our Lords body and after more playnly those things which the gentils do sacrifice they sacrifice to deuils and not to God I wold not haue yow to be partakers with deuils yow cannot drinke the cup of our Lord and the cup of deuils yow can not be partakers of the table of our Lord and the table of deuils c. Thus farre the Apostle who as yow see euidently compareth or rather opposeth cup to cup table to table Altar to Altar sacrifice to sacrifice and therfore saynt Ambrose vnderstandeth in this place the table of our Lord to be the Altar faying he which is partaker of the table of Deuils mensae Domini id est altari obstrepit doth oppose himselfe against the table of our Lord that is to say the Altar and saynt ●ilary expoundeth it to be mensam sacrifictorum the table of sacrifices Also S. Chrisostome vpon these woords Calix beuedictionis the cup of blessing and the rest that followeth in the text sayth in the person of Christ if thou desyre blood sayth be do not sprinkle the Altar of Idols with the blood of brute beasts but my altar with my blood S. Augustin in lyke sort interpreteth this place of the sacrifice of the Churche saying that S. Paul teacheth the Corinthians ad qoud sacrificū debeant pertimere to what sacrifice they ought to belong and Haymo who wrote about 800. yeres agoe sayth that calix benedictionis the cup of blessing which S. Paule speaketh of is that cup which is blessed a sacerdo●ibus in Altars of priests in the Altar so that if wee consider the circumstances of S. Paules woords with the interpretation of these learned Fathers it can not be denyed but that he and the other Apostles in the ceremony of breaking bread did not only administer the Sacrament of the eucharist to the people as our aduersaries would haue it but also offer sacrifice Which may sufficiently be cōfirmed as wel by the liturgy or masse of S. Iames the Apostle yet extant agreeing with ours for as much as concerneth the substance of the sacrifice as also by a constitution of the Apostles mentioned by S. Clement saynt Peters disciple wherein they decreed that nothing should be offred super Altare vpon the Altar more then our Lord had commaunded and speaking furder in the same decree of the sunday he signifyeth that they exercysed that day 3. seueral acts of religion that is to say euangelij praedictionem● oblationem sacrificij sacricibs dispensationem the preaching of the gospel oblation of sacrifice and the distribution of the holy meate that is to say the holy eucharist wherby it is euident that the publyke ministery of the Apostles consisted not only in preaching and ministring the Sacrament of the eucharist but also in oblation of sacrifice here to I may ad the testimony of saynt Andrew the Apostle Who being vrged by Egeas the proconsul to sacrifice to the fals God answered that he sacrificed dayly and distributed to the people the flesh of the immaculat lambe as witnesseth the Epistle of the churches of Achaia declaring the story of his passion besyds that Epiphanius a most auncient Father of the Churche doth testify that all the Apostles did sacrifice who writing against the sect of heretykes called Colliridians and reprehending them woorthely for hauing certayne women priests that offred sacrifice to our lady which could not be offred to any but to God alone sayth it was neuer heard of since the world beganne that any woman did sacrifice neither our first mother Eua nor any of the holy women in the old Testament no nor the virgin Mary her selfe nor the 4. daughters of Philip the deacon though they were prophetesses and then hauing named Zacharias father to saynt Iohn for one that offred sacrifice in the old law he addeth that all the 12. Apostles whome he nameth particulerly did sacrifice whereof it were a sufficient argument though there were no other that those Fathers who partly liued with them and receiued of them the Christian fayth and partly succeeded them immediatly do signify not only the vse of the sacrifice in the Churche in theyr tyme but also their constant and most reuerend opinion thereof as it may appeare sufficiently by that which I haue already aleadged out of S. Clement S. Denis S. Martial S. Iustin and S. Ireneus all which do vniformely teach that Christ deliuered this sacrifice to his Apostles and the last of them to wit S. Ireneus scholer to S. Policarp who was scholer to S. Iohn the Euangelist sayth that the Churche receining it of the Apostels did offer it throughout the world in his tyme which as I haue sayd before was in the tyme of K. Lucius and therfore I shal not neede to enlarge my selfe furder in this matter to produce the testimonies of the later fathers partly because I haue already accomplished my principal intention in this treatyse which is to proue that king Lucius could receaue from the Churche of Rome no other but our Gatholyke Roman fayth as wel in this poynt of the sacrifice of the Masse as in all other which wee professe and partly because in handling and explicating the prophecies and figures of the old testament and the actions and woords of our Sauiour and of his Apostles concerning the institution vse and practyse of this sacrifice I haue already aleadged so many playne and euident testimonies of the fathers that it is needles to aleadge any more Seeing it is most manyfest therby that all those of the first 500. yeares both taught our doctrin in this poynt and vnderstood the scriptures concerning the same as wee doe and that they speake not of this sacrifice as our aduersaries wil needs vnderstand them as of an improper sacrifice but in such sort that they euidently shew their opinions of the propriety verity and excellent dignity therof and therfore in S. Denis scholer to S. Paule it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Budaeus translateth sacrificium sacrificiorum the sacrifice of sacrifices In S. Cyprian verum plenum sacrificium a tiue and ful sacrifice which he sayth the priest doth offer in the person of Christ to God the Father In S. Chrisostome sacrificium tremendum horror is plenum caleste summéque venerandum sacrificium a dreadful sacrifice ful of horror a heauenly most reuerend sacrifice In S. Augustin singulare summum verissimum sacrificium cui omnia falsa sacrificia cesserunt the singuler and the most highest and most true sacrifice wherto all the salse sacrifices of the gentils haue geuen place In Eusebius sacrificium Deo plenum a sacrifice ful of God In S. Iohn Damascen tremendum vitale sacrificium a dreadful sacrifice and geuing lyfe In Theodoretus sacrificationem agni deminies the sacrificing of the