Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A31347
|
A Catholick pill to purge popery with a preparatory preface, obviating the growing malignity of popery against Catholick Christianity / by a true son of the Catholick apostolick church.
|
True son of the Catholick apostolick church.
|
1677
(1677)
|
Wing C1495; ESTC R15262
|
39,661
|
102
|
the Sacrament belongeth unto Christ sitting in Heaven and is an inward worship of the heart or lifting up of the mind being stirred up with the outward signs Pope Honorius the third in the year 1220. was the first that ever instituted the adoration of the Sacrament And after him Vrban the fourth ordained a Feast in honor of the body of Christ Perkins 2 Vol. 564. Attersol on the Sacraments 388 389. Fourthly they turn the Sacrament into a sacrifice for the quick and the dead abolishing the fruit and remembrance of the death of Christ disannulling his Priesthood giving him to his Father whereas the Father hath given him to us c. ib. p. 309. Fifthly they maintain Transubstantiation These are their very words If any man shall say that there remaineth the substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament after the words of consecration or shall deny that the whole substance of Bread and Wine is changed and converted into the body and blood of Christ the forms and shews only of Bread and Wine remaining which singular and miraculous conversion the Church calleth Transubstantiation let him be accursed Con. Trid. Sess 13. Can. 2. This their Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a very fable to mock fools withal and it overturneth both the nature and use of the Sacraments pag. 45 46. pag. 365. to 369. If there were a miraculous conversion as they say there is of the Bread and Wine it would appear to the outward senses For all true miracles are wrought openly cleerly and evidently to mens senses John 6.26 But the Bread and Wine by the judgment of all the senses remaineth and appeareth to be the same in substance which it was before of the same quality quantity colour taste handling smelling vertue and nourishment there is not any one sense or all the senses together that can judge otherwise of it then it did before If a man should be called in when the Bread and Wine is set on the Table and bidden to consider well what he there seeth smelleth and tasteth and then is willed to go forth and to come in again after the Consecration is ended by the Priest and to do the like and then is asked what he thinketh of it he no doubt will answer unless fear of persecution make him to conceal the truth I see feel smell and taste the same wafer-cake and wine that I did before I can perceive no natural and substantial change therein And therefore it followeth that there is no miracle wrought and consequently no Transubstantiation at all The difference that is is in the end and use only Before consecration it was common Bread and Wine ordained for the nourishing of our bodies After consecration it becometh holy Bread and Wine sanctified by the Lord not so much to feed the body as the soul C. Did not the Ancient Fathers hold this Doctrine of Transubstantiation M. They knew nothing hereof for at least Eight hundred years after Christ Afterwards begun the disputations of Transubstantiation but not approved as an Article of Faith The Church for a whole thousand years taught no other then spiritual receiving of Christ In the year One thousand two hundred and fifteen Transubstantiation was decreed and determined in the Council of Lateran under Pope Innâ—cent The third and made a main matter of Faith Perk. 2 Vol. 558 559. C. What say you then of their Transubstantiated or consecrated host as it is called or the bread in the box carried in procession and worshipped M. Surely it is nothing else but a wheaten or breaden god or rather an Idol nothing inferior to Aarons Calf or Jeroboams Calves or the Nehustan and piece of Brass that Ezechias brake in pieces nay as vile and detestable as an Idol among the Heathen And for a conclusion of their doctrine of Transubstantiation I will here set down a witty conceit which one shewed me not long since I have kept the matter but changed the Meeter to make it somewhat the sweeter The Priests do make Christs body and blood Hereof none must once doubt They eat they drink they box him up They bear him all about DIALOGUE 7. C. I am satisfied touching the first point namely that the Papists are not of sound Faith but how do you prove that they are not of good life seeing they do so many good works M. I prove it thâ—â— Where the Doctrine is corrupt the life â—annot be good but their Doctrine as yea have heard is most corrupt therefore then life cannot be good A true saith is the ground of a good life and without which it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 yea whatsoever is not of Faith is sin Rom. 14 23. A true saith they have not and therefore their works cannot be good and such as may please God That they have not a true and sound Faith hath bâ—â—n shewed in many particulars and it further appeareth also in this that they do even wilfully reject the means whereby it is wrought namely the preaching hearing and reading the Word of God They have not neither will they have the Scriptures to be soundly preached read and heard in their own tongue That they cannot abide to have them in their own Language appeareth by this one example One Panier a Town clark of London in the time of King Henry the Eighth hearing that the Scriptures should be put into English he spake to this effect and confirmed it with an Oath viz. that if he knew that the Scriptures should be put into English and that the King would have them to be read in the Church rather then he would live so long to see it he would cut his own throat But as Hall saith who heard him speak it he was not so good as his word for instead of cutting his throat he hanged himself C. What is the cause that they cannot abide to have the Scriptures in â—heir own Language M. S. John gives the reason For every one that doth evil hateth the light neither cometh to it lest his deeds should be reproved and discovered John 3.20 If the Owl flieth abroad by day the bâ—dâ—â—â— and by discern him follow him and â—all upon him and therefore he flies abroad in the night and then he is quiet If the Scriptures should be suffered to be expounded and read of all Nations in their own Language thâ—n that Owl of Rome the Pope I mean with all his fooleries and abominations would be discerned and discovered and then the world would hate him follow after him and persecute him even as the small birds do the Owl and therefore they cannot abide the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue but love darkness rather then light because their deeds are evil C. What say you then to their good works as building of Churches giving of alms c M. These and such like works required in the Law of God in themselves are good and to be practised of all but to them they are as the Fathers called the
traditions before the Scriptures they lay aside the Scriptures accounting and calling them dumb Judges A nose of Wax The black Gospel Inken divinity c. Piggins Contr. 3. de Eccl. Hierarch lib. 3. cap. 3. A certain Popish Doctor reasoning with M. Tindal was not ashamed to say that we were better to be without Gods Law then the Popes They likewise set up Images to be Lay-mens books and so in all this they deny by consequence his Propheticall office Christ is also a Priest and that for ever after the order of Melchisedec Heb. 7.24 And in this his Office he hath none to succeed him They acknowledge not this but maintain still an outward and corporall Priesthood to offer up an outward Sacrifice even Christ himself Rhem. on Heb. chap. 7.7 Sect. 7.8 C. If this were true why then the Priest were become a Mediator between God and Christ the which is most absurd to think that any creature should be such a one M. It is indeed most absurd and yet in the very Canon of the Mass they intimate this much when they request God to accept their gifts and offerings namely Christ himself offered as he did the Sacrifices of Abel and Noah And which is more absurd then this yea blasphemy for any to affirm they by then former doctrine do make the Priest to be more worthy in some respect then Christs for the person that doth offer a sacrifice is of more worth and honour then the thing which he offereth but the Priest as they say offered up Christ to God his Father therefore the Priest that offered him is of more worth and honour than Christ whom he ostereth As Christ is a Priest so He alone and that but once for all offered himself and by his own offering once offered hath made a full and perfect satisfaction for all our sins Heb. 9.12 14 26 10 14 18. They teach that in the Mass there is dayly a Sacrifice offered for the sins both of the quick and the dead and so they make Christs Sacrifice not to be the perfect and onely Sacrifice of the New Testament but set up another in the stead thereof C. They say that their sacrifice is not a new sacrifice or another from Christs but that it is the same M. The Author to the Hebrews teacheth that Christs sacrifice neither may nor ought to be reiterated and repeated for as it is but one so it was but once offered And this word Once he useth five several times Heb. 7.27 9 12 26 28 30. C. They say that Christ indeed was offered but once after a bloâ—dy manner but he is often offered after an unbloody manner M. This distinction of theirs hath no warrant out of Gods Word nay rather it is directly against the Word for Heb. 9.22 it is said Almost all things are by the Law purged with blood and without shedding of blood is no remission From whence we may thus reason Without shedding of bloud is no remission but in the Mass is not shedding of bloud therefore no remission And therefore it is no sacrifice for sin C. Though this their distinction be not to be found in the Scriptures yet it is in the writings of the Fathers M. The Fathers indeed make mention of unbloudy Sacrifices but they hereby understand not outward and bodily Sacrifices for sin but the Spirituall Sacrifices of Christians and they so call them in comparing them with the bloudy sacrifices of the Law and with Christs bloudy Sacrifice C. The Papists do not say that the Sacrifice of the Mass is an expiatorie but an applicatorie Sacrifice that is it serves not properly to make any satisfaction to God but rather to apply unto us the satisfaction of Christ already made M. Their doctrine is that it is a Sacrifice propitiatory that is available to obtaine ex opere operato by the very work wrought remission and pardon of all their sins yea that it is available to obtain all other benefits as peace health and such like Concil Trid. Sess 2.2 can 3. Bellar. lib 1. de Miss cap. 25. lib 2. cap. 3. But let it be as you say that they account it but an applicatory sacrifice yet this maketh nothing for them The Sacrifices of the Law did serve to apply the vertue of Christs Cross and yet the Apostle excludeth them by this reason that where there is remission of sins there is no more Sacrifice Heb. 10.18 Wherefore if the Apostles reason be good it concludeth also against their Sacrifice applicatory Again the Apostle teacheth that therefore the Sacrifices of the Law are abolished by the death of Christ because they were but shadowes of good things to come and could not make the offerers perfect c. Heb. 10.1 2 3. And therefore this kind of applying sacrifice which they fain themselves hath ceased We need not now a Sacrifice for the application of Christ death for Christ to that end hath appointed the preaching of the Word and hath instituted Sacraments whereby his death with all the benefits thereof are most fruitfully applied unto us Gal 3.1 1 Cor. 11.26 Again this their applying sacrifice is against the nature of a Sacrament in which God gives Christ 〈◊〉 us whereas in a sacrifice God receives from man and man gives somthing to God C. The ancients Fathers used to call the Supper of the Lord a Sacrifice it should seem therefore that there is some sacrifice offered therein to God M. It is true that they called it so not that Christ is therein offered a Sacrifice to God but in other respects First because that therein there was an offering and giving of Alms Bread Wine c. which are a spirituall Sacrifice Secondly they called the Sacrament a Sacrifice not properly but figuratively because there was therein a representation of that Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross and because it is a commemoration of Christs body which he offered for us and of his bloud which he shed for us Thirdly It is called a Sacrifice because it is an application of the Sacrifice offered upon the Cross unto our selves Fourthly It is so called because of the sacrifice of prayers and thanksgivings and because in the Lords Supper we offered our selves unto God to be consecrated unto him and serve him in body and soul C. What is then your opinion of the Popish Mass M. It is an abridgement of all Superstition and Idolatry there is in it adoration directed to bread there is as they say the body of Christ offered really in a sacrifice of propitiation which which was never offered but once with shedding of blood There is adoration of stocks and stones invocation of dead men saying of Masses to the honour of Saints and Angels worshipping of dead mens bones and such like abominations C. If the Masse be such an Idoll and so contrary to Christs sacrifice whence had it then its first beginning M. The Mass had this originall First the Lords Supper was celebrated in most