Selected quad for the lemma: prayer_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prayer_n	offer_v	sacrifice_n	thanksgiving_n	3,189	5	10.9292	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A17572	A defence of our arguments against kneeling in the act of receiving the sacramentall elements of bread and wine impugned by Mr. Michelsone	Calderwood, David, 1575-1650.	1620 (1620)	STC 4354; ESTC S120683	45,714	80

the thankesgiving and giving with these words This is my body as Christ gave it For the Papists have a kind of breaking after all the words are finished For belike it is heresie to breake it before they have said Hoc est enim corpus meum The second reason disdainfully rejected by the Doctor is this that kneeling hath brought in a change upon the sacramentall word changing the enunciative forme of the words T●is is my body into a prayer uttered in the act of delivery of the el ments to the communicant The body of our Lord Jesus which was given for thee prese●ve thy body and soule unto life everiasting He bringeth in Perkins approring the m●tter of Doctrine conteined in this prayer So doth Perkins many other heads o● doctrine cōcerning this sacrament But where doth Perkins allow this kneeling or forming any such d●ctrinall poynt in a prayer to displace the comfortable words of the promise conceived by Christ himselfe He sayth that he and his fellowes utter the words of promise before the giving of the ●read and in the act of giving use the prayer But he speaketh without a warrant Mr. ●alloway sayd we shal say Take this as a pledge 〈◊〉 Christs body and that sayd hee will hold out all idolatrous thoughts suppose yee kneele And who appoynted that prayer to be uttered in the act o● giving There is no such ordinance in our K●●k The Doctor who will be conforme to English ●orma●ties before ever he be enioynee is not a rule to others It is strange that the worth●est preachers should be persecuted for kneeling before that all the rest of the formes belonging to it or depending on it b● brought in without the which it cannot bee put in practile It agreeth not with the Scottish forme and the English hath not ye● been prescribed But to come to the Doctor his forme That is ou● question wherefore th● vvords of the promise are not uttered in the act of distributing when the bread is given to the communicant according to the order of the institution a Christ himselfe did but other vvords are put in their place To reheare the vvords o● the institution and the words of promise among the rest may very well se●v● to shew what warrant we have out of the word to minister that holy action but it is not t●e ministration it selfe as Christ ministred that action I wish it were well observed that in the English service-booke the words of the institution are rehearsed in forme of a prayer to God in a contnuall tenor with the prayer begun in other words before just according to the order observed in the Canon of the Masse And so the words are reh●arsed not to the communicants as Christ uttered them to the Apostles but prayerwise to God as the Priest doth when he offereth the sacrifice of the Masse which is a great absurdity and abuse of holy Scripture There the words of promise are uttered in an enunciative forme but to God as if there could be no consecration before the rest of the celebration except these words be pronounced with the prayer I dare be bold to affirme that the sacrifice of the Masse had never entred into the Kirk if this double action one of consecrating with rehearsal of the words of the institution all at once without the rites correspondent to the words another of distributing with other words had not first entred The first turned into sacrificing the second onely remained to be called the sacramental service or communion Defence of our fourth Argument THE communicants ought to distribute the elements to others according to Christs precept Divide it amongst you This distribution cannot consist with kneeling He alledgeth Fenner against this distribution but impertinently for he speaketh nothing against it Beza is so farre from den●ing that precept Luk. 22. 17. to be meant of the communion cup that he are be bold to conj●cture the verses to bee transposed and that this should bee their order 16 19. 20. 17. 18. Luke applieth the protestation that Christ will drink no more of the fruit of the ●●●e to that same cup which he commanded them to divide amongst themselves But that protestation is applied to the communion cup by Matthew and Mark Math. 26. 28. 29. Mark 14. 24. 25. It was therfore the communion cup which Christ commanded to divide He alledgeth against this reason Piscator in Math. 26. 29. saying that it is no absurditie to think that Christ made that protestation twice once of the paschall cup and again of the communion cup. But writing afterwards upon Luke he sayth as being better advised that there is inversion of order to be observed in Luke in so farr as that part of the action which concerneth the wine is set downe vers 17. and 18. before the action concerning the bread For that these words are to be understood of the cup of the Lords supper it is cleare sayth he out of Mark. 14. 24. 25. who subjoyneth immediatly to the words pronounced of the cup of the Lords Supper these words I will drinke no more c. No Evangelist maketh mention twice of this protestation of not drinking more how then can men so boldly conjecture that it was spoken twice once of the Paschal cup and againe of the Eucharistical ' Matthew and Mark make this protestation to be spoken but once and that of the communion cup. Againe if Christ had made this protestation concerning the paschall cup how did he keep his promise if he did drink after the paschall cup of the Eucharisticall cup Hee sayth Musculus doubteth if it may be assirmed that Christ himselfe did eat and drink of the sacramentall bread and wine But he doubteth without reason Doth not Matthew and Mark say that Christ protested ●nene the communion cup that hee would drink no more of the fruit of the wine after that It followeth then that he drank of it When the Schoolmen are to prove that wine is one of the sacramentall elements they cannot find a proof in all the foure Evangelists but in this protestation that hee will drink no more of the fruit of the vine Gabriel B●el groundeth his proofe on this protestation as it is set down by Luke and collecteth that neither the wine of apples nor wine as it is in the berry but as it is potable is the matter of consecration in this sacrament Doth not Musculus himselfe say I thinke there is no man will deny that wine was in the cup. seeing the Lord sayd Math. 26. Luk. 22. that hee would drink no more of the fruit of the wine c. Chrysoltome sayth Ipse quoque bibi● ex eo ne ●●itis illis verbis dicerent Quid ergo sanguinem 〈◊〉 carnem comedimus pertuba●entur He drank also of it lest hearing these words they should say What Doe we then drink blood and 〈◊〉 and so should be troubled And Hierom ●aith that the Lord was

the Supper of the Lord was defiled with some rust but this is the malapertnesse of men which cannot containe it selfe but must ever play and toy foolishly in the mysteries of God Defence of our seventeenth Argument WEE say that in the act of receiving the Saciamentall elements we should meditate and consider the analogie of the signe and the things signified attend with our minds exercise our senses because of the externall Symbols and rituall actions wherabout they are employed and that it is not a fit time of solemne prayer and thankesgiving and consequently that in the ect of receiving wee should not kneele He formeth his second Argument flat contrariwise in this manner In worshipping God with solemne prayer and thankes giving we may lawfully kneele In the act of receiving the Sacrament wee worship GOD with solemne prayer and thankes giving Ergo in the act of receiving the Sacrament we may lawfully kneele We deny the assumption for the reason already alledged to wit that it is not a fit time of solemne prayer and thanks giving when men have their outward senses and members of their bodies outwardly and the powers of their soule inwardly otherwise employed He proveth his assumption both here and in his second Argument after this manner We should meditate on Christs death We cannot remember of his death except we remember also that by his death life commeth unto us we cannot remember of this without remembrance of our own misery The remembrance of our miserie ministreth matter of prayer Therfore the remembrance of Christs death causeth prayer and thanks giving praver that by his death we may have life thanksgiving for the benefit of redemption Ye see the whole force of his reason dependeth upon the duty of remembrance of Christs death Now Becanus the Iesuit saith That divers wayes we may remember of the benefit of redemption which Christ hath conquered to us by his death First in participation of the Sacrament of the Enchartist Next in reading the Gospell where his death and passion is described Thirdly at the sight of an Image which representeth him and his Passion If therfore at the sight of a Crucifixe the Doctor be put in remembrance of Christs death should he blot out so good a thing out of his mind If not how then can he remember of Christs death but he must also remember of his miserie the benefite gotten by his death and so burst forth in that very time and act for so doth he reason into prayer and that kelgiving To say that we are forbidden to performe that duty before a crucifix is to grant that we ought not and lawfully may not bow down whensoever we remember of Christs death And it we may not doe it before a ciucifix by his own grant we say we may not do it when there is any other or the like impediment as there are many For howbeit we remember of Christs death when we are most busied in our worldly affaires yet we must not burst forth into lelemne prayer and thanks-giving When the historie of the Passion is read we are put in remembrance of his death and yet in the act of hearing that Hysto●e read we must not burst forth in solemn prayer and thanksgiving and kneele but he that hath eares to he are ought to heare In the act of receiving the sacramentall elements there is like wise impediments that we may not burst forth in solemne prayer and thanksgiving and kneele in the very act it selte of receiving First the solemne prayer and thanks-giving ●ar not co●sill with our other imployments of the senses and members of the body and powers of the soule Next we cannot adore before a creature how beit consecrated For as we have sayd the elements are not ordained of God to be used in statu acccmmodato ad adorationem to that endtnat wee should pray on our knees to God before them When the crucifix or any other image is condemned in the second commandement all other creatures for the like use are condemned He saith if a man fall down on his knees where the Idoll is praying against the idolatry committed in that place no man seeing him to take offence or if he will turne his face from the Idoll he doeh not unlawfully He doth unlawfully three wayes First in that be kneeleth where he needeth not to kneele for kneeling is not a necessary a 〈…〉 an t on prayer Next in that he cast th 〈…〉 lfe into a temptation wilfully for the Lord hath forbidden worship before Images not onely publique as if it were to eschew scandall but also in private because they are dangero is provocations and enticements to idolany 〈◊〉 a man should go and lye down in the bed with the Hariot and give her the defiance hee sinneth notwithstanding Thirdly in so doing he were but playing the foole and offering but the sacrifice of a soole how beit he had a Doctors hood But wee vvill not insist in this instance of his seeing it is not pertinent to our purpose for vve are novv speaking of a publike and voluntatie vvorship vvithout any protestation contrarie to our fact Against the impediment of our senses and thoughts othervvise employed in the act of receiving he object th● that the minde may comprehend divers things together and that the heart may be touched vvith divers affections at one time There is no man doubteth of this it being taken in a right sense For the soul of man hath sundry povvers and faculties vvhich concurre to the mutuall help of other one povver removing impediments out of the vvay that another povver may vvork the ovvn operation the more easily one power being subordinate to another and the superiour by some influence applying the inferiour to some worke Sundry and divers powers of the soule and Christian graces are working together in our religious exercises But our question is not of one action or exercise but whether the same power of the soule at one time and yet durable work in divers actions and exercises The Schoolemen dispute concerning Christ whether in reaching and giving the bread to the disciples hee did both offer a sacrifice uttering the words of consecration as they call them and reach to them the bread without any distraction of minde They say that not Physica duratione concomitantia metaphysica sed mor●li tantum that he first uttered the words and offered before he gave the bread in their hands and there was two actions one succeeding another according to physicall consideration howbeit morally both made but one action There is in the act of receiving presupposed two actions one of mentall prayer another of communicating that is taking eating drinking Mentall prayer is either a short ejaculation of the soule which endureth for a moment and is called by the Divines transitoria vel jaculatoria oratio or else it is durable and permanent and is called oratio continua As for the first there is no action