Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	baptism_n	sacrament_n	supper_n	22,321	5	9.1392	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56149	The altar dispute, or, A discovrse concerning the severall innovations of the altar wherein is discussed severall of the chiefe grounds and foundations whereon our altar champions have erected their buildings / by H. P.	Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.	1642 (1642)	Wing P393; ESTC R21276	49,491	88

in the Sacrament is onely of spirituall praise and that wherein other Hoste but our soules and bodies are offered unto God And so in our bookes of Homilies pub●●●●ly authorized we are warried not to make a Sacrifice but a memory of the holy Communion And in the booke of Articles it in maintained 〈◊〉 he Popish Lande is a blasphe●●●● figment and per●●●ious imposture and we are not supplyed with any other in 〈◊〉 thereof and yet if our Communion be at all a Sacrifice so properly called how can it differ from the Popish Lande So lastly in the 〈…〉 and inlarged by King James 1603. The two Sacraments are there named and called one of Baptisme the other of the Lords Supper there is no mention made of Altar as if the Communion might fitly still be called the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar as the name in Popish times CHAP. II. Concerning the propriety of the Name THus we see there is no Altar but tropicall and the name cannot be proper where the thing is improper and yet we further say that as the name Altar is lesse proper so it is also lesse antient then Table and in both these respects lesse convenient to be used For antiquity D. Pocklington affirmes that Noah built an Altar and Noah being a Christian his Altar was a Christian Altar and hence it results that the Altar amongst Christians is farre antienter then Table To this we reply that if Noah was not a Jew because not descended of Judah nor of the Mosaicall Religion because he was many hundreds of yeares antienter then Moses by the same reason he was not a Christian being ancestor to Christ himselfe And as for his Religion it does not appeare that hee had therein any nearer relation to Christ then Moses especially in Sacrifices for as Moses had his bloody Sacrifices so had Noah and as Moses in his bloody Sacrifices did observe a distinction of cleane and uncleane creatures so did Noah Wherefore it Noah be no Jew it followes not he was a Christian and if a Christian it follows not his Altar was a Christian Altar and if a Christian Altar it followes not that it is that Christian Altar which we call the Communion Table And surely Saint Ambrose is ill applyed as to this purpose to prove that the Christian is antienter then the Jew as if that because Altars came in with Noah therefore Tables came not in till under the Ceremoniall Law or as if it concerned us to strive about the generall indefinite words of Altar or Table in this dispute of the Communion Table Our dispute is about that Table or other utensill whereupon our Saviour did eate both the old Passover and his new one and this Saint Matthew and Saint Luke call a Table using the same word as is used for that utensill whereon Dives his meate was served in and the Papists deny not the proprlety of this word nor the use of the thing onely Doctor Pocklington affirmes our Saviour to have supped upon the pavement not that he can thereby averre his Altar but that he may impugne our Table If the Sacrament be a true Sacrifice it followes not that Sacrifice ever implyes any Altar but we have disproved it to be a Sacrifice we prove it to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} rather a commemoration of a Sacrifice nay even that Sacrifice which it does commemorate was not simply it was but secundum quid a Sacrifice Wee say our Saviours Passion as to its vertue was the most odoriferous Sacrifice that ever was but as to its manner of oblation it might be as figurative a Sacrifice as the Crosse was an Altar or as the crucifiers were Priests and if Christ did by way of proper Sacrifice offer himselfe for us on the Crosse yet it s no necessary result that he so offers himselfe to us in the Sacrament for the Sacrament if it be any it is but a commemorative Sacrifice at the most but sayes Pocklington he that admits commemorative Sacrifice admite Sacrifice Ergo I answer when we allow a two-fold Sacrifice one of propitiation another of commemration one reall the other representative of the reall onely we intend the 〈◊〉 to be proper the other improper the one truly so-called the other as it represents the true So we difference a painted from a livingman and a 〈◊〉 from a true King for ne●●lict is the picture a 〈◊〉 nor the Actor a King but improperly But sayes M. Mede admitting no true Sacrifice yet the Table is a true Altar for Table and Altar both have the same genus Altar and Table differ as Church and house Altar is a holy Table as Church is a holy house so the difference is specified onely I answer First all Sacrifice is not offered as 〈◊〉 some things are offered neither edible nor potable a Incense and by this it seems that the relative for●●lity of an Altar is not meerely to support sacred repasts as it should if it were onely a sacred Table Secondly this crosses the typicall intention of Sacrifice for in this sense Christ was no proper Sacrifice nor his Crosse as Altar Thirdly in the Jewish Temple there was both a sacred Altar a sacred Table and as they had severall names so they were different in forme and sitted 〈◊〉 severall uses although both their uses were sacred Fourthly if we admit Table to be called Altar in respect of the sacred food there pres●●ed not thereon sacrificed this opposes not our opinion but it regard that holy Table expresses as much as Altar in Master Mede● sense but the word Altar does not alwayes e●presse so much as holy Table in our sense as the vulgar now use it for this reason it is not so fitly used in common speech Fifthly Altar is more 〈◊〉 and uncertaine then the holy Table for as Sacrifice is appliable to all diuine services of Heathens Jewes and Papists so Altar is as generall but our Service here being more eminent and excellent deserves a name as peculiar A King is a man and more hee is truly a man yet his distinct name of King is more fit to be be used for the title of King includes the name of man but the name of man does not include the title of King The Doctors being so egar for the names of Sacrifice and Altar ought to have proved those name● the most honourable but of this they have made no proofe at all for even amongst the Jewes obedience humiliation and internall prostration of the soule was of more acceptation in the sight of God then the flesh of Buls or the fat of a thousand Rams The Passeover also which was both Sacrament and Sacrifice yet was farre more reverent as a Sacrament then as a Sacrifice and they which did keepe that with the inward preparation of an humbled spirit without legall purity were more accepted as appeares by Hezekiahs Passeover then meere legall preparation could make any Besides the Table to our Sacrament