Selected quad for the lemma: child_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
child_n	hinder_v	job_n	propitiatory_a	16	3	16.8442	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07192	Of the consecration of the bishops in the Church of England with their succession, iurisdiction, and other things incident to their calling: as also of the ordination of priests and deacons. Fiue bookes: wherein they are cleared from the slanders and odious imputations of Bellarmine, Sanders, Bristow, Harding, Allen, Stapleton, Parsons, Kellison, Eudemon, Becanus, and other romanists: and iustified to containe nothing contrary to the Scriptures, councels, Fathers, or approued examples of primitiue antiquitie. By Francis Mason, Batchelour of Diuinitie, and sometimes fellow of Merton Colledge in Oxeford.	Mason, Francis, 1566?-1621.	1613 (1613)	STC 17597; ESTC S114294	344,300	282

Scripture vnto the ministring of almes vnto the Saints PHIL. THe sacrifice of the Masse may be strongly prooued out of the first to the Corinthians Flee from the seruing of idoles I speake as to wise men Your selues iudge what I say the chalice of benediction which we doe blesse is it not the Communication of the blood of Christ and the bread which we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord For being many wee are one bread one body all that participate of one bread Behold Israel according to the flesh they that eate the hostes are they not partakers of the Altar what then doe I say that that which is immolated vnto idoles is any thing or that the idol is any thing But the things that the heathen doe immolate to diuels they do immolate and not to God And I will not haue you become fellows of the diuels You cannot drinke the chalice of our Lord and the chalice of diuels you cannot be partakers of the Table of our Lord and of the Table of diuels Out of these words are gathered three arguments the first from the comparison of the Lords Table with the altar of the Gentiles where they offered to idoles and with the altar of the Iewes where they offered carnall sacrifice to the true God For thence it followeth that the Lords Table is a kind of altar now an altar is erected to sacrifice and there is no sacrifice without a Priest The like reason may be drawne from the comparison of the Eucharist with their sacrifice and from the partaking the one and the other ORTHOD. The point of the comparison consisteth in this that as those which receiue the Sacraments of Christians doe therein declare themselues to be partakers of the Christian religion so those which vse the sacrifices and ceremonies of Iewes or Gentiles doe thereby signifie that they are partakers of their religion and thereupon the Apostle exhorteth them to refraine from the tables and feasts of idoles least thereby they should haue fellowshipwith the diuels Therefore you cannot conclude hence either sacrifice or altar PHIL. THe altar is plainely mentioned to the Hebrewes Wee haue an altar whereof they haue not power to eate which serue the tabernacle by which altar is meant Christs body in the Eucharist ORTHOD. The Apostle speaketh not of the Eucharist but of the suffering of Christ without the gate and of the sacrifice of praier and thanksgiuing therefore Thomas Aquinas saith well Istud altare c. that is This altar is either the Crosse of Christ on which Christ was offered for vs or else Christ himselfe in whom and by whom wee offer vp our prayers And this is the golden altar of which mention is made in the Apoc. 8. Of this altar therefore they haue not power to eate that is to receiue the fruit of Christs passion and to bee incorporated into him as to the head which serue the tabernacle of legall things for if ye be circumcised Christ profiteth you nothing or they serue the tabernacle of the body which follow carnall delights for to such he profiteth nothing Hitherto Thomas whose authoritie with others perswadeth Bellarmine to dismisse this argument out of the field because saith he there are some Catholickes which vnderstand by the altar the Crosse or Christ himselfe I doe not vrge that place Thus haue you searched the Scriptures and cannot find your sacrifice much lesse can you find that it is properly propitiatory For that honour belongeth onely to the sacrifice of the Crosse. PHIL. Did not Iob who liued vnder the law of nature offer burnt offerings daily for his children Did not God himselfe commaund that the friends of Iob should sacrifice for their sinnes Are there not many sacrifices for sins appointed in Leuiticus Wherefore if the sacrifice of the Crosse did not hinder that these should be propitiatory why should it hinder our sacrifice from being propitiatorie ORTHOD. Though Iob and others did offer sacrifice vnder the law of nature yet they did not offer it by instinct of nature but by the direction of Gods spirit and therefore there is the same reason of those sacrifices and of the other commaunded in the law and all of them were Types of Iesus Christ and are said to take away sinnes not properly but Typically for as the Apostle sayth It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goates should take away sinnes CHAP. VIII Of their argument drawne from the authoritie of the Fathers PHIL. THe meaning of the Scriptures was well knowen to the ancient Fathers who al with one voice acknowledge both Priest Altar oblation and sacrifice ORTHOD. They doe so but not such as you meane For the oblation sacrifice which they defend in the Eucharist is not properly propitiatory nor properly a sacrifice but only a commemoration and a representation of the soueraigne sacrifice PHIL. If the Fathers had meant so then there was no cause why they should speake otherwise of the Eucharist then of Baptisme But they neuer called Baptisme a sacrifice or said that to Baptise is to sacrifice Therefore it is a signe that when they often call the Eucharist a sacrifice they name it so properly ORTHO Doe the Fathers neuer call Baptisme a sacrifice Your learned Bishop Canus confesseth the contrary saying Sedquaeris quid causae plerisque antiquorum fuerit vt Baptismum hostiam appellauerint ideoque dixerint non superesse hostiam pro peccato quia Baptismus repeti non potest Sanè quia in Baptismo Christo commorimur per hoc Sacramentum applicatur nobis hostia crucis ad plenam peccati remissionem hinc illi Baptisma translatitiè hostiam nun cuparunt that is But you demaund what cause had many of the ancient Fathers that they called Baptisme a sacrifice and therefore said that there remained no sacrifice for sinne because Baptisme cannot be repeated Truly because in Baptisme we die together with Christ by this Sacrament the sacrifice of the Crosse is applied vnto vs to the full remission of sinne hence they call Baptisme metaphorically a sacrifice Here is a cleare confession that many Fathers call Baptisme a sacrifice and among these many S. Austin is one Quod holocaustum dominicae passionis eo tempore offert quisque pro peccatis suis quo eiusdem passionis fide dedicatur Christianorum fidelium nomine Baptizatus imbuitur that is which burnt offering of the Lords passion euery one offereth for his owne sinnes at such time as hee is dedicated to GOD by faith in the Passion of Christ and beeing baptised is indued with the Name of faithfull Christians And no maruaile if the Fathers doe call it a Sacrifice seeing they call it the Passion of Christ. Wee are dipped in the Passion of Christ saith Tertullian Baptisme is Christs Passion saith Chrysostome meaning that it is the representation of it So concerning the Eucharist