Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	drink_v	eat_v	show_v	5,113	5	5.5114	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00580	The theater of honour and knight-hood. Or A compendious chronicle and historie of the whole Christian vvorld Containing the originall of all monarchies, kingdomes, and estates, with their emperours, kings, princes, and gouernours; their beginnings, continuance, and successions, to this present time. The first institution of armes, emblazons, kings, heralds, and pursuiuants of armes: with all the ancient and moderne military orders of knight-hood in euery kingdome. Of duelloes or single combates ... Likewise of ioustes, tourneyes, and tournaments, and orders belonging to them. Lastly of funerall pompe, for emperours, kings, princes, and meaner persons, with all the rites and ceremonies fitting for them. VVritten in French, by Andrew Fauine, Parisian: and aduocate in the High Court of Parliament. M.DC.XX.; Le théâtre d'honneur et de chevalerie. English	Favyn, André.; Munday, Anthony, 1553-1633, attributed name.	1623 (1623)	STC 10717; ESTC S121368	185,925	1,158

expresly commandeth all to drinke of the Cup and lest any man might cauill saying that that precept belonged only to Priests Saint Pauls ordinance to the Corinthians testifies That the whole Church ordinarily or in common vsed both kinds In the Saxonik Article 15. All men know that the Lords Supper was so instituted at the first that the whole Sacrament was giuen to the people as it is written Drinke you all of this The custome of the ancient Churches both Greeke and Latine are well knowne therefore we must confesse that the prohibiting of one part thereof is vniust It is vnlawfull to violate the last wil and Testament of men if it be lawfully made why then doe the Bishops violate the Testament of the Sonne of God sealed with his blood In the Bohemian c. 14. Christ said in expresse words Take eate this is my body and in like manner when he gaue them the Cup by it selfe and distinctly said Take Drinke ye all of this this is my blood therefore according to this Commandement the body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ ought to be distributed and receiued by all beleeuers in common In the latter Heluetian confession cap. 21. we dislike these who haue takē away one part of the Sacrament viz. the Cup of the Lord from the faithfull for they grieuouslly offend against the Lords institution who said Drinke ye all of this which hee spake not in so expresse words of the bread The Doctrine and practice of the reformed Churches as it is expressed in these Confessions is solidly and learnedly iustified against the Romish aduersaries by Luther Melancton Caluin Iewel Chemsius Plessis Bilson Riuet Moulin Chamierus Humfrey and others from whose Hiues I haue taken much hony yet not vpon trust nor without trying it but tracing the diligent Bees in the Paradice of God the holy Scripture and the Garden of Ecclesiasticall Writers euen to each flower whence they gathered it CHAP. II. The first Argument drawne from Christs Precept and example in the celebration of this Sacrament WHatsoeuer Christ commanded and did in the first celebration of this Supper ought continually to be obserued and practized in the Church But Christ in the first celebration of the Supper gaue the Cup and commanded it to bee giuen to all there present that before had receiued the bread Therefore the giuing of the Cup to all Communicants at the Supper ought perpetually to bee obserued and practised in the Church The proposition is gathered out of Luk. 22. 19. This doe ye in remembrance of me and 1. Cor. 11. 25. This do ye as oft as you drink in remembrance of me and ver 26. as oft as you eate of this bread and drinke this Cup you shew the Lords death till he come In which words the Apostle euidently implyeth that the Commandement this doe in remembrance of me extends euen to Christs second comming And verily if Christs precepts and actions in the first celebration of this Sacrament were not a law binding the Church to doe the like in all succeeding ages neither the Apostles themselues nor the Church after them should haue had any warrant at all to celebrate the Lords Supper after his death Which to affirme were absurd impietie or as Saint Augustine speakes in a case of farre lesse importance most insolent madnesse The assumption is set down in the very letter totidem verbis Mat. 26. 27. He tooke the Cup and gaue it to them saying Drinke you all of this Mark 14. 23 And he tooke the Cup and when hee had giuen thanks he gaue it them and they all drank of it Certainely I perswade my selfe that our Sauiour expressed the note of vniuersality viz. in deliuering the Cup to all saying Drinke you all of this and not so in giuing the bread of set purpose to preuent that abuse which the Romish Church of late hath brought in by taking away the Cup. As in like manner the Apostle saith of marriage It is honorable in or amongst all men Heb. 13. 4. and he saith not so of virginity or single life although it bee most true that single life or virginity is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is pretious or honorable because the holy Ghost foresaw that some heretikes would denie marriage to bee honourable amongst all and prohibite it to some men viz. the Cleargie Which two texts of Scripture the Romanists lewdly peruert and ridiculously contradict themselues in the interpretation of them extending all to the Laietie in the one and excluding the Cleargie and extending all to the Cleargie in the other and excluding the laietie Marriage is honorable among all say they that is all saue Priests Drink you all of this that is all saue the people In restraining all in both places they make of omnes non omnes and so contradict the text and by expounding all sometimes of the people not Priests sometimes of Priests and not people they contradict themselues For the restriction of all in this place to Priests administring onely I forbeare the further refuting of it because all the arguments that follow in generall ouerthrow it and in particular and expressly it is refelled in the Conference annexed hereunto This whole argument is confirmed by the testimonie of Pope Iulius set downe in the Canon Law and therefore deliuered ex Cathedra De consecrat dist 2. There hee proues that bread and wine onely ought to be giuen in the Sacrament and not milke because Christ the master of Truth when he commended the Sacrament vnto his Disciples at his last Sup●…er gaue milke to none but bread the cup only The contrary practice viz. of them that giue milke in the Sacrament how repugnant it is to the Euangelicall and Apostolicall Doctrine and custome of the Church will easily bee proued from the fountaine of truth from whom the ordination of these mysteries did proceed The Pope in this place drawes an argument from Christs institution and practice at his last Supper both affirmatiuely and negatiuely Christ gaue bread and wine to his Disciples therefore wee ought so to doe he gaue not milke therefore wee ought not Christ is the Fountaine of truth he is the Master of truth hee is the Author of the Sacrament therefore inferreth the Pope and in this particular infallibly nothing must bee done in the administration of this Sacrament otherwise then Christ did and commanded at his last Supper The Romanists cannot confirme the Popes argument but they must needs confirme ours in this point they cannot infirme or weaken ours but they must needes weaken his and not his onely but that renowned Doctor and glorious Martyr Saint Cyprians also who fighteth with the same weapon against the heretiques called Aquarij wherewith we doe against the papists No man may vnder colour of new or humane constitutions depart from that which Christ our Master did and taught and a little

the blood nor the blood without the body so we reply that the Sacrifice is entire also in one kinde If the doctrine of cōcomitancie take place in the Sacrament it must needs take place also in the sacrifice if in the people receiuing the bread represents and exhibits whole Christ it must needs do also in the Priests cōsecrating As Plinie writes of the Bees that they are often entangled in their owne honie and waxe so are our aduersaries caught fast and entangled in their owne fancies viz. the necessity of consecrating both kinds in the sacrifice of the Masse and their doctrine of Concomitancie viz. that whole Christs body and blood is contained in each kind by it selfe Thus as the bees hony stoppe the little pipe which serueth them in stead of a mouth so our aduersaries owne Tenents stop their owne mouth CHAP. VIII The seuenth Argument drawne from the nature and condicion of a will or legacie NO legacie bequeathed by the last will and testament confirmed by the death of the testator ought to bee withheld from any legatarie that is person to whom it is bequeathed The Cup in the Eucharist is a legacie bequeathed by Christs last will and testament to all true beleeuers capable thereof Therefore the Cup in the Eucharist ought not to be withheld from any true beleeuer capable thereof The proposition is the Apostles Gal. 3. 15. A mans testiment if it be confirmed no man disanulleth or addeth thereunto and Heb. 9. 7. A ●…estament is of force after men are dead The assumption is part of the words of Christs institution Luk. 22. 20. This cup is the new Testament in my blood Christ calleth it his Testament or last legacie as Aquinas par 3. qu. 73. art 50. truly noteth Because those things which are spoken last especially by friends departing doe stick faster in the memorie by reason that the affections are then most inflamed to our friends and those things wherewith we are more affected make a deeper impression in the mind This whole argument is confirmed by Iansenius who meeting with an answer that seemes to be made to this argument directly impugneth it The answer giuen by Bellar. and others is The legacie bequeathed is not bread nor wine but the body and blood of our Lord both which are giuen vnder one kind as well as vnder both the difference is that they which drinke of the Cup receiue the legacie as it were in two paiments they who doe not drinke receiue the same legacy in one paiment This answer is substantially refuted by Iansenius in Liturge lib. 4. and 7. and thereby the former argument very much strengthned First saith he the answer were to some purpose if Christ by will had disposed onely of the things signified in the Sacrament but Christ in his legacie had respect not onely to the thing signified but also to the signe for the manifestation of his Passion and representation of his death Secondly hee acutely and truly obserueth that the will of the testator might be satisfied in giuing the whole legacie at once or twise if it were of the nature of monie which may bee payd in one great piece or in many small amounting to the same value But it is not so in the Sacrament saith he the thing signified by the Sacrament cannot by the discretion of the Church be deuided into more formes nor be cōtracted in one It is not in the powre of the Church to make the body alone to be vnder the forme of bread nor the blood alone vnder the forme of wine nor both of them together vnder one forme or kinde Therefore as when a man bequeatheth to any by his wil one thousand pound in coyne and one thousand pound in ancient plate of such a making he that paieth the whole legacie either in coyne onely or in plate onely violates the will because though he may giue the valew yet hee giues not the thing in specie bequethed so although it should be granted which yet is not that the Priest giueth to the people the body blood of Christ in the bread yet hee violates the will of the testator because he giueth it not so as it may be drunke or in the forme of wine Whence I conclude that what the Apostle saith No man offereth to the will of a man The Romanists offer to the last will and testament of God our Lord and therefore are guiltie not onely of greuious sacriledge but also of grand fraud and impietie in violating the Testament of our Sauiour and deceiuing the people of a most pretious legacie bequeathed by him vnto them CHAP. IX The eight Argument drawne from the end of the Sacrament THis Sacrament ought in such wise to be receiued by al Communicants that thereby the death of Christ may be represented and shewed forth But without partaking of the Cup it cannot bee so receiued that thereby Christs death may be represented and shewed forth Therefore without pertaking of the Cup it ought not to be receiued by any Communicants The proposition is the Apostles 1. Cor. 11. 28. As often as you eate this bread and drinke this Cup you shew forth the Lords death till he come againe The assumption is euident to sense and reason to sense for the breaking of bread representeth in no wise the effusiō of bloud to reason for blood which is contained in the body and vaines no way sheweth the killing or bloodie death of the partie but the blood if it be at all in the bread which we denie it can be there no otherwise as themselues confesse then by concomitancie as contained in not seuered from the body as inclosed in not shed out of the veines Therefore if it should be granted to our aduersaries that the blood might be receiued in the bread by it selfe yet by such receiuing Christs death by the effusion of his blood for vs could in no wise be represented or shewed forth which yet is acknowledged to be the principall end of the celebration of this Sacrament This whole argument is confirmed by ●…bus Reihing who ingeniously acknowledgeth that in the Encheridion which he wrote when he was a Iesuite against the doctrine of the reformed Churches he cōcealed this obiection of the Protestants because hee despaired euer to giue a satisfactorie answer thereunto It may be that wits if they be put vpon the rack may finde out euasions for any argument but a true solution on which a man may settle his conscience no Papist can euer giue For if the Priest be bound to consecrate and receiue the wine a part because otherwise hee should not represent the effusion of Christs blood by the same reason all Communicants that receiue the Sacrament ought to take the wine apart being mystically Christs blood as well as the Priests because they in their eating and drinking are commanded to shew forth and declare Christs death as the Apostle teacheth vs. Neither can it be said

that this manner of receiuing to shew forth Christs death was necessary onely till such time as the Church in the Councell of Constance had otherwise ordained for the Apostles Canon extendeth to Christs second comming As oft saith hee as you eate this Bread and drinke this Cup you shall shew forth Christs death till he come againe Therefore till his second d●…ng euen to the end of the world this Iniunction is of force CHAP. X. The tenth Argument drawne from the example of Saint Paul and the Corinthians THat which Saint Paul deliuered from Christ to the Corinthians touching the administration of the Eucharist ought perpetually to bee obserued in the Church But S. Paul from Christ deliuered to the Corinthians the communicating of the faithfull in both kinds Therefore the communicating of the faithfull in both kinds ought perpetually to be obserued in the administration of the Eucharist in the Church The Proposition is vncontroleabl●… because an example of the Apostle and the Primitiue Churches hauing warrant from Christs word is a safe president to all succeeding Churches The Assumption is contained in the 1. Cor. 11. from verse the 23. to the 29. I receiued of the Lord that which I deliuered vnto you c. After this preface hee relateth this institution of the Sacrament in both kinds vers 24 25. and from the 26. to the 29. hee teacheth in what manner they ought to communicate in both kinds and how they ought to fit and prepare themselues thereunto S. Pauls authority writing by diuine inspiration ought to sway with all religious Christians how much more when it is backed and seconded with some Command Precept Order or at least Warrant from Christ himselfe That which I deliuered vnto you saith he I receiued from the Lord and therefore you may safely follow what not I but the Lord hath prescribed This whole Argument is confirmed by Becanus who confesseth that the Apostle deliuered the Communion in both kinds I confesse that both kinds were instituted by Christ I confesse that both were deliuered by the Apostle Tollet vpon the sixth of Iohn saith There is no question of it It was an ancient custome obserued in the Church from the times of the Apostles to communicate in both kinds In this assertion there is no controuersie at all No controuersie at all indeed for it is the Protestants plea generally and the Romanists themselues admit of it but yet come in with a strange non obstante See the Councell of Constance sess 13. The Synod declareth decrees and defines that although Christ after supper instituted and administred to his Disciples this venerable Sacrament in both kinds viz. of bread and wine and though this Sacrament were receiued in both kinds in the Primitiue Church Hoc tamen non obstante notwithstanding all this the Councell giues order to the Contrary The Prince by his Prerogatiue sometimes in his Proclamations appoints and commands in some particular Acts to bee done contrary to some former Statute or Act but wee neuer reade of a non obstante against the Kings Prerogatiue how much lesse against the expresse Command and Law of the King of Kings Wherfore this Councel deserueth to be branded for euer either with the infamous name of non obstantiense Concilium which Luther giues it or In-constantiense for breaking their publike faith giuen to Iohn Hus and Ierome of Prage and burning those blessed Martyrs because they were not able to confute them CHAP. XI The eleuenth Argument drawne from the vniforme and constant practice of the Catholike Church in all ages THe words vsed in the institution Drink you all of this ought to be expounded according to the vniforme and constant practise of the Catholike Christian Church But the constant and vniforme practise of the Catholike Church extendeth them to the Laytie as well as to the Clergy Therefore the words of the institution extend to the Laiety as well as to the Clergy The Proposition was assented vnto by Master Euerard in the Conference held with him neither thinke I any Christian will sticke at it who seriously weigheth Christs promises to his Church to leade her by his Spirit into all truth to be with her vnto the end of the world to build her vpon a rocke against which hell gates should neuer preuaile The Assumption can no otherwise so certainely be prooued as by induction and particular instances in euery Age which God willing shall be brought and made good against the aduersaries exceptions in the Sections following SECT I. Testimonies of the practise of the Christian Church in the first Age. From Christs Ascension to the first 100. yeeres following AFter the writings of the blessed Apostle Saint Paul whose testimonie in the ninth argument is discussed I alleadge for the practise of the Church in this first age Dionysius Areopagita Martialis Lemouicensis Clemens Romanus and Ignatius Antiochenus For albeit I assent thus farre to our learned Critickes that these Authors are not altogether currant there is some drosse in Ignatius more in Martialis and most of all in Clemens and Dionysius is vndoubtedly post-natus 300. yeeres at lest yonger then his age is set in the Romane register yet for the reasons following I thought fit to produce these Authors and ranke them in the first age First because our aduersaries vsually so ranke them and alleage them against vs for fathers of the first age and surely if their testimonies bee good and ancient when they seeme to make against vs they are to bee accounted as good and ancient when they make for vs. Secondly because we cannot make authors but must take such as we finde these are the only authors that are extant out of whom testimonies may be alleadged for this first age Therefore as the sage Senatour of Capua when the people vpon a iust distaste giuen by the Magistrates had a purpose at once to casheere them all aduised them Before you remoue these choose fitter in their places and when diuers were named vnto them and they could like of none in the end hee perswaded them to keepe the old officers till they could agree to name better in their roomes so I would desire our Critikes to name vs more approued authors in this age then these are and if they can name none then to let these hold their places and the estimation they haue had for many hundred yeeres Thirdly because I hold it no good Topick to argue à parte ad totum affirmatiuely in this manner There are some false passages or corruptions in an author therefore the author is spurious and of no credit If we may thus fillip off ancient Writers wee shall haue but a few left If there are as no doubt there bee diuers dead boughes superfluous stemmes in these Writers of so long standing let our Criticks prune them off not cut the trees downe by the roots Poliat lima non exterat saith Fabius let the pluimer smooth the timber

1580. SAlmeron Iesuit Col. 1902. 1590. Suarez Iesuit Venetijs 1597. 950. Steph. Eduensis Bib. pat tom 10. Col. 1618. T. 200. TErtullianus Antwerp 1584. 440. Theodoretus Col. 1612. 1430. Thomas Waldensis Venetijs 1571. Thom. Aquin. vide A. Thom. Mort. vide M. 1070. Theophilact Basil. 1525. 1580. Tolet. Card. Col. 1569. 1590. Theodo Beza Geneuae 1598. 390. Tripartita historia Basil. 1528. V. 1572. VAdianus Aphoris Euch. 1536. 1600. Vasquez Antwerp 1621. 1240. Vincentius Histor. Venetijs 1591. W. 1430. WAldensis vide T. 849. Walafridus Strabo Bib. pat tom 9. Col. 1618. 1380. Widford contra Wiclif Dauen 1535. Edit ab Orthuino Gratio Z. 1105. ZAcharias Chrysopol Bib. pat tom 12. Col. 1618. FINIS I intreate the Gentle Reader before the reading hereof to correct these few faults in some copies which alter the sense the lesser escapes are annexed at the end Pag. 21. lin 22. adde his body 24. l. 23. for they reade l. 36. l. 15. adde to be spurious and therefore ought 44. l. 7. and therefore they cannot be se●…ed from the Communion 67. l. 15 r. infundatur 107. l. penult r. for it is that which w●… 121. l. penult r. now for na●… 128. l. 7 r. both for one 146. l. 28. r. and for or 147. l. 15. r. 190. for 90. 176. l. 13. r. repealed 2●…0 l. 17. r. no error 226. l. 6. r. to me for some 230. l. 25. dele Etym. fil dextr 271. l. 9. r. Bishops at Carthage 278. l. 〈◊〉 r. she for he 298. l 11. adde quoth M. Featly l. 23. r. then for this 302. l. 19. r. Testament of blood or blood a Testament THE GRAND SACRILEGE OF THE CHVRCH OF ROME CHAP. I. The state of the question touching the necessitie of Communicating in both kinds PLinie writeth of the Camels that they like not cleare water but vsually foule and trouble the streame wherein they are to drinke Such is the manner of our muddie Popish writers who are sent to vs from Rome and Rhemes laden like Camels with Babylonish merchandize they trouble the waters of strife and for the most part confound the states of all the questions which they enter into or mainely contend for and as in other Controuersies so in this of entire Communicating they begin their doubling and falsifying at the very setting downe of the poynt of difference betweene vs. Bellarmine and Eccius state the question thus whether it be necessary for all men to Communicate in both kinds Hosius and Tapperus adde to saluation as if we affirmed that Communicating in both kinds were simply necessary to saluation this is not the true hinge vpon which this question turneth For wee doubt not but that the children of the faithfull especially dying baptized as also that abstemij such as cannot drinke wine and other beleeuers that are preuented by death before they participate of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper if they prepare themselues for it and desire it may be saued without actuall Communicating in both or either kinde The wilfull contempt not the ineuitable defect of the Sacrament is damnable We conceiue no more necessitie of drinking of the cuppe of blessing then of eating the sacramentall bread which is not absolutely necessary to saluation no not to those which are in riper yeeres The spirituall eating of Christs blessed body and blood is simply and absolutely necessary to saluation but not the sacramentall without which many blessed Martyrs and Saints haue been saued The tearme necessary is seldome or neuer vsed by Protestants in this argument or if they vse it they meane necessary ratione praecepti not medij They enquire not how necessary a meanes communicating in both kinds is to saluation but how necessary a command Christ hath laid vpon all Communicants to receiue the Sacrament in both kinds They should haue propounded the question thus Whether the people are not bound by Christs precept to Communicate in both kinds or if they will needs retaine the word necessary in vnfoulding this controuersie whether it be not as necessary for the people to drinke of the Cup as to eate of the Bread or whether it be not as necessary in regard of Christs institution that the people communicate in both kinds as that the Priest the minister or as they speake the Conficient or maker of this sacrament Or whether the administring of this sacrament in both kindes to the people and preists also none Conficients be not so necessary that it cannot bee otherwise administred without sinne and violation of our Lords most holy Institution The Romish tenent to which all Papists vnder paine of a curse are bound to subscribe is plainely and expressely set downe in the Canons of three Councels at Constance Basil and Trent In the Councell of Constance sess 13. This Synod doth decree and declare concerning this matter that processe be directed to the most reuerend Fathers in Christ the Lord Patriarkes Primates Archbishops and Bishops and their vicars in spirituals wheresoeuer by them appoynted In which processe by the authoritie of the holy Councell let them be inioyned and commanded effectually to punish those that obserue not this Decree viz. Who exhort the people to Communicate in both kinds or teach that they ought so to doe In the Councell of Basile sess 30. This Synod doth decree and declare that the faithfull Laicks or Clarks communicants and not conficients are not bound by our Lords command to receiue the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist vnder both formes or kindes viz. of Bread and Wine In the Councell of Trent sess 21. c. 1. The Synod declareth and teacheth that Laicks and Clarks non conficient are by no diuine precept bound to receiue this most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds and if any say that all and euery of the faithfull by Gods command ought to receiue the Sacrament in both kinds let them be accursed The doctrine of the Reformed Churches cannot be more certainely gathered then out of the harmony of their orthodoxall confessions which were penned by most iudicious Diuines at the first and are at this day subscribed by those that are admitted to any degree of function in each particular Church To begin with the Church of England to whose Articles of Religion all Graduats and Ministers of the Word professe their assent and consent euen by interposing an oath In the 30. Article thus we reade The cup of the Lord is not to bee denyed to the Lay people for both the parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs ordinance and commandement ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike In the Confession of Auspurg Article 2. both parts of the Sacraments are giuen to the Laiety in the Lords Supper because the Sacrament was instituted not for a part of the Church onely viz. the Priests but for the rest of the Church also and truly Christ saith Math. 26. Drink you all of this where he