Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	cup_n	drink_v	eat_v	22,933	5	8.1381	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87879	An answer to the Marques of Worcester's last paper; to the late King. Representing in their true posture, and discussing briefly, the main controversies between the English and the Romish Church. Together with some considerations, upon Dr Bayly's parenthetical interlocution; relating to the Churches power in deciding controversies. To these is annext, Smectymnuo-Mastix : or, short animadversions upon Smectymnuus in the point of lyturgie. / By Hamon L'Estrange, Esqr.	L'Estrange, Hamon, 1605-1660.	1651 (1651)	Wing L1187; Wing L1191; Thomason E1218_2; ESTC R202717	68,906	120

being to receive the same answer which we gave to his Intercession of Angels And of Abraham we shall have occasion to speak anon nor shall I insist upon his Intercession of Saints it differing nothing from that of Angels M. We hold that we may pray to them you not we have Scripture for it Luk. 16. 24. Father Abraham have mercy on me and send Lazarus c. Ladies this proof is for you far fetcht and dear bought dead and damned in Hell who would have thought to have taken Dives at his Beads Nor are the place and person more odd than the prayer for it is no Ora pro me Pray for me but Miserere mei Have mercy on me so Saint Abraham was no ordinary Saint the Marques would prevent us in what we should say that this is a Parable and we say so indeed but no matter what we say his Lordship hath ready a grand Inquest of ten Fathers Theophylact Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus Chrysostome Hierome Ambrose Augustine Gregory Euthymius and venerable Bede who give their Verdict that it was a true History these are all good men and true but were they all agreed upon that Verdict Certainly no nay the very Fore-man so ill luck had the Marques hath it not onely {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} this is a Parable but also not as some {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ridiculously and senslesly have thought an History of a thing done Chrysostome calls it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} So doth Euthymius and Ambrose is but at his videtur It seemeth to be an History Tertullian stands mute and onely tells us He thinks Abraham's bosome was not Hell whether an History or Parable But what need we more when Bellarmine maintains the historical part onely till Death and that Theophilact was in the right when he called it a Parable M. But suppose it a Parable every Parable is either true in the Persons named or may be true in some others Not every Parable not this for Bellarmine tells us that Christ when he descended into Hell went into the Conclave of the Fathers where then Abraham was and preached to the souls there that he now had finished the work of Redemption and they must go along with him to Heaven and that afterward in the proper time they should receive their bodies So that clear it is by him that Abraham had not now his body and how he could discourse thus to Dives without his Tongue a member of that body is to me a miracle Job 5. 1. Call now if there be any that will answer thee and to which of the Saints will thou turn Eliphaz bids Job expostulate with not pray to the Saints nor are they dead Saints but living such as from whom Job might expect an answer His Lordship's Authorities are first Dionysius Areopag c. 7. but the prayer there is for the dead not to them Athanasius is such a piece of forgery as Cardinal Baronius himself saith It is a great blemish to the Catholique cause to urge such counterfeits Basil speaketh of devout persons who resorted usually to make their supplications to God at the Monuments of Martyrs not one syllable of praying to the dead Chrysostome Hom. 66. is a Bastard Saint Hieromes Epitaph upon Saint Paul is no better Saint Maximus we know not any such Saint nor Father Bernard is a thousand years after Christ and we grant Invocation of Saints had got footing in the Church by that time M. We hold confirmation necessary you not We hold confirmation as an invocation of grace to confirm and strengthen us in the performance of what we promised in Baptism But not as necessary by divine Ordinance nor as a Sacrament nor that the holy Ghost with the gift of miracles is conferred thereby His Lordships Scriptures are onely Evidences of Fact what was done they contein no precept nor is there any one word of Chrysme or anointing with oyl which is the sine qua non the main ingredient into Popish confirmation and though ancient yet it is not Apostolical by their own confessions M. We hold it sufficient to communicate in one kinde you not Our Church saith The cup of the Lord is not to be deny'd to Lay People And certainly if any one of the Elements may be deny'd it must be the Bread the cup cannot for of the Bread it is onely said Take eat this is my body but of the Cup it is said expresly Drink ye all of this implying plainly all are to communicate of it But if the Marques hath Scripture by that we will and must be governed First then Joh. 6. 15. If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever True in the sense our Saviour spake it who told us v. 63. the words he spake are Spirit and Life implying they are to be spiritually interpreted and how that is he explain'd himself before v. 35. He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst Nor did he speak here of the sacrametal bread and if he did the Church of Rome is clearly cast for vers. 53. he is express enough Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Bloud so there the Cup comes in it cannot be excluded you have no life in you What can the Papists here say that judgement should not be given against them Next the Marques alleadgeth Acts 2. 42. And they continued in breaking of Bread and prayer and tells us here is no mention of the Cup I answer granted but what if we say there is no absolute necessity enforceth us to understand these words of the Eucharist how could the Marques prove it But if the Papists will take it for a courtesie we will not stand with them about it And though the Cup was not there mentioned yet for ought the Marques could tell it might be there for breaking of bread are words large enough to hold it else Eutychus had but a dry and choking repast And why may not breaking of bread include the cup as well as eating comprehendeth drinking Christ sate down with the Disciples to eat the Passeover Luke 22. 15. 16. and yet we find a cup there vers. 17. and the fruit of the vine in it too vers. 18. and no Communion chalice neither His last Text is Luke 24 30 35. where Christ communicated with his Disciples under one kind where he tells us that Augustine Theophylact and Chrysostom expound this place of the blessed Sacrament well wee 'l not quarrel about that neither but this triumvirate of Fathers had not it seems kond their lesson right for they should have told us that Christ communicated under one kind onely Nay had they told us of any such practise in the Primitive Church it had been somewhat but nor they nor any other for the first 500 years I might say 1000 have left us