Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	damnation_n	drink_v	eat_v	10,899	5	8.2264	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19326	Doctrinall and morall observations concerning religion vvherein the author declareth the reasons of his late vn-enforced departure from the Church of Rome, and of his incorporation to the present Church of England : teaching, maintaining and defending the true Christian Catholike and apostolike faith, professed by the ancient primitiue church, most conspicuous in the outward vertues and constant sufferings of many holy bishops and other good Christians, glorious in the crowne of martyrdome / by Iohn Copley ...	Copley, John, 1577-1662.	1612 (1612)	STC 5742; ESTC S299	195,885	256

because so it wanteth an essentiall part thereof Therefore very iustifiable is his Maiesties assertion when reckoning vp the nouelties of the Church of Rome amongst the rest he ranketh the amputation of the one halfe of the Sacrament from the People Praemonit 4 Secondly that the doctrine of the Church of Rome doth crosse Christs institution It also crosseth Christs institution is also most cleere to any iudiciall man for as my Italian master teacheth me That the Eucharist was instituted in the last Supper Tract 4. de sacra c. 1. dico 2. after the washing of feet before the vsuall Supper the first is a matter of faith out of the Gospell and it is defined in Clementine Vnico in the Tridentine Councell where it sayth Ses 13. c. 1. 2. This is the tradition of the auncient Fathers Now then if this be so we must examine whether Christ did institute it vnder both kindes or not for if he did then certainely it is also so to be ministred likewise to the people because hee bid that to be done in remembrance of him which he himselfe did then his meaning not being to institute two Sacraments of the Supper whereof the one for the Priestes should consist of two parts or of two kindes the other for the people but of one I finde Saint Matthew to record Christs institution in this manner As they did eate Iesus tooke the bread Mat. 26. v. 26.27.28.29 and when he had blessed it he brake it and gaue it to the Disciples and said Take eat this is my bodie Also he tooke the Cuppe and when he had giuen thankes he gaue it them saying Drinke ye all of it for this is my bloud of the New Testament that is shed for many for the remission of sinnes I finde aso Saint Marke to set it down thus Mark 14. v. 22. And as they did eate Iesus tooke the bread and when he ahd giuen thankes hee brake it and gaue it to them and said Take eate this is my bodie And also hee tooke the Cuppe and when hee had giuen thankes gaue it to them and they all dranke of it and hee said vnto them This is my bloud of that New Testament which is shed for many S. Luke records it thus Luk. 22.19 20 And he tooke bread and when he had giuen thankes he brake it and gaue to them saying This is my bodie which is giuen for you doe this in remembrance of me Likewise also after supper he tooke the Cup saying This Cup is that new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you 1. Cor. 11. v. 23 24.25.26 27.28.29 And S. Paule most largely explicates the same Institution saying I haue receiued a Precept of the Lord which I also haue deliuered vnto you that the Lord Iesus in the night when he was betrayed tooke bread and when he had giuen thankes he brake it and said Take eat this is my bodie which is broken for you this doe ye in remembrance of me After the same manner also he tooke the Cup when he had supped saying This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud this doe as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me for as often as ye shall eate this Bread and drinke this Cup ye shew the Lords death till he come Wherefore whosoeuer shall eat this Bread and drinke the Cup of the Lord vnworthily shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. Let euery man therefore examine himselfe and so let him eat of this Bread and drinke of this Cup for he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh his owne damnation because he discerneth not the Lords bodie Now out of all these places of S. Mathew S. Marke S. Luke and S. Paule I finde both kindes instituted by Christ and so inseparably intimated with a copulatiue coniunction that whosoeuer separateth them can but most insolently oppose himselfe against Christs institution and the essence of the Sacrament What greater pride can there be than when Christ sayth in expresse words Drinke ye all of this as well as eate the bread than with the Church of Rome to contradict him teaching the people onely to eat the bread and not drinke the wine Or what greater presumption than so rudely to thwart S. Paule who calleth the institution of the Sacrament a Precept which he deliuereth to the people specifying both formes of bread and wine commaunding as well the receiuing of the wine to be drunke in remembrance of Christ as the bread to be eaten and therefore if the one bind lay people the other also doth as strongly oblige them especially since S. Paule in another place sayth thus 1 Cor. 10.16.17 The Cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which we breake is it not the communion of the bodie of Christ for we that are may are one bread and one bodie because we doe partake of one bread and one Chalice The Church of Rome taking away the participation of the Chalice in ministring the Sacrament to lay people onely vnder the forme of bread maketh S. Paule to speake false who ioyneth both formes together with a coniunction copulatiue shewing that we are many one bodie because wee participate of both making vs all one And it is here to be noted how the Bibles printed amongst our aduersaries doe varie about this Text and may be suspected that they haue played Legier du maine with the Bible as well in their last corrected Latine as in the Greeke concerning this Text for in them both of one Chalice is left out and yet in an olde Manuscript which I haue now in my hands and in another Bible printed at Paris in the yeare of our Lord 1583 the text is That omnes quidem de vno pane de vno calice participamus We all partake of one bread and of one Chalice Whereby it is more than probably to be feared some notorious imposture hath beene committed in leauing out the Chalice in the latest vulgar editions So that now all these places of Scripture being iudicially weighed the amputation of one part of the Sacrament seemeth not onely to controll Christs owne institution but also his absolute commandement 5 Besides that it is a meere noueltie It is also a noueltie Lib. de Eccles obseruat c. 19. p. 388. Thom. in 1. Cor. 11. lect 5. 6. Aeneas Sil. Hist Bohem. c. 52. Bellar. de Euehalib 4. cap. 26. not grounded vpon antiquitie is most apparant to all that rightly examine the matter for at the first the people receiued the cup as well as the bread afterward sayth Micrologus the Romane Order commandeth the wine also to be consecrated that the people may fully communicate and this was approued by many learned Writers Yet in time the Councell of Constance See 13. ff item ipsae forbad it and then all of the Church of Rome began to change

offered for the liuing and the dead for their sinnes punishments satisfactions and other necessities let him bee accursed Which curse albeit it carrieth a terrour with it to such as are not enlightned so that they can discerne the erroneous doctrine for which it accurseth and that carrieth not rather in minde the feare of Gods maledication than any of man saying Cursed is hee that putteth his trust in man and taketh man for his defence and his heart goeth from the Lord as the followers of the Church of Rome doe who relie only vpon the Popes authoritie who may be as sinnefull a man as any other thinking themselues secure if his authoritie be their defence and the warrant of their beliefe yet could I not stand in dread of his curse when once I found this Sacrifice of the Masse as it is now taught by the Church of Rome not to haue sufficient warrant by Gods word nor by the ancient Church teaching any such doctrine concerning it as the present Church of Rome teacheth 2. The Masse was not instituted by Christ For first I obserued that this Sacrifice which the Church of Rome teacheth to bee a propitiatorie Sacrifice and such a one as may be offered for sinnes as well of the liuing as of the dead is not any thing agreeable to the institution of our LORD IESVS there is not so much as a word spoken by CHRIST of any offering or oblation to bee made but only commandement giuen to eate and drinke and to doe that in remembrance of him his wordes only importing the institution of a Sacrament and no Sacrifice Neither did hee so much as vtter a word that hee offered himselfe at the last Supper for Cornelius Musso a Bishop so famous for his learning Bib lioth Sanct. lib. 4. Suar. tom 3. d. 74 §. 2. as Sixtus Senensis writeth that hee was a Preacher at twelue yeares old and all Italie ranne after him did defend that Christ at his last Supper offered no Sacrifice at all whereupon I framed this argument Note this argument The Priest in the Commemoration of the last Supper is not to doe other thing in substance then what Christ did but Christ as Musso held offered to Sacrifice at all ergo the Priest in commemoration of Christs last Supper is not to offer vp any Sacrifice at all Behold then here it followeth by necessarie consequence vpon Mussoes Assertion that the Sacrifice of the Masse is not to bee offered at all It is cleare as Musso saith that hee offered not himselfe to his Father at his last Supper for then should hee not haue perfected his Sacrifice with one oblation made as the Apostle Saint Paule teacheth Hebr. 7.27 and 9.26.28 but with a double Oblation twice made namely once in his Supper and once vpon the Crosse which were most repugnant to the holy Scripture Againe the Apostle Saint Paul saith 1. Cor. 11. v. 23. sequent I haue receiued of the Lord that which I deliuered vnto you c. and so sheweth the whole manner of CHRISTS institution of the blessed Eucharist who made no mention at all of any Sacrifice which the Apostle considering he boasted that hee had shewed all the Councell of God would not haue omitted Act. 20.27 if the Supper had contayned any meaning of a propitatorie Sacrifice Moreouer Saint Paul writing to the Corinthians bids vs to shew the Lords death not by sacrificing Christ for to Sacrifice and to shew the Lords death are two distinct thinges and the shewing CHRISTS death by the Sacrament is sufficient for the application thereof to our soules for the remission of our sinnes Therefore I could not conceiue any such Sacrifice as the Masse propitiatorie for sins to be instituted by Christ which Sacrifice if it bee of such importance as the Church of Rome teacheth and so principall an act of religion doubtlesse there would haue beene some apparent touch thereof expresly giuen in the holy Scriptures and especially in that place where the Papists pretend it should be instituted Again The Sacrifice of the Masse disableth Christs sacrifice vpon the Crosse 1 Ioh. 22. I haue further obserued that to teach the doctrine of the propitiatorie Sacrifice of the Masse the perfect satisfaction made by Christs Sacrifice vpon the Crosse is made insufficient and inualid For hee being the propitation or reconciliation not only for our sinnes but also for the sinnes of the whole world for the demonstration of which effect vpon the Crosse he cried Ioh. 19.30 finished I can see no neede why a propitiatorie Sacrifice of the Masse should bee offered for sinnes so often since the reconciliation made by Christ is applied by the Sacrament Hebr. 7.27 Besides since Christ did it once when he offered vp himselfe and as S. Paul saith Not that he should offer imselfe often Hebr. 9.25 none being Priests according to the order of Melchisedech but Christ of whom the Scripture saith Hebr. 5.4.5 Tues Sacerdos in aeternū secundū ordinē Melchi it followeth that no other was to offer vp Christ as a propitiatorie Sacrifice for sins but himselfe Moreouer the Sacrifice of Christ hath no neede to bee often reiterated whereby the Priesthood of Christ is opposite to the Priesthood of the old Testament whose sacrifices ought to bee reiterated for Christ needed not daily Hebr. 7.27 as those high Priests to offer vp sacrifice for his owne sinnes and then for the peoples for that did he once when he offered vp himselfe And againe After hee had said This is the testament that I will make with them c. and their sinnes and iniquities will I remember no more Hebr. 10.16.17.18 Where remission of these thinges is there is no more offering for sinne And againe Christ by his owne bloud entred once into the holy place and obtained eternall redemption for vs not such a redemption as is to be reiterated euery day Hebr. 9.12 And againe Not that hee should offer him selfe often as the high Priest entred into the holy place euery yeare with other bloud for then must hee haue often suffered since the foundation of the world but now in the end of the world hath hee appeared once to put away sinne by the Sacrifice of him selfe And as it is appointed vnto men once to die and then commeth the iudgement So Christ was once offered to take away the sinnes of many Againe Hebr. 9.25.26 By the which Will wee are sanctified euen by the offering of the body of IESVS CHRIST once made And againe Hebr. 10.10 Euery Priest appeareth daily ministring and often times offered one manner of Sacrifice which can neuer take away sinnes but this Man after hee had offered one Sacrifice for sinnes sitteth for euer at the right hand of God Hebr. 10.11.12 c. for with one offering hee consecrated for euer them that are sanctified By which places it is cleare there needes no more reiteration