Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	body_n	bread_n	transubstantiation_n	7,578	5	11.1962	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33548	Jacob's vow, or, Man's felicity and duty in two parts / by John Cockburn ...	Cockburn, John, 1652-1729.	1696 (1696)	Wing C4813; ESTC R10808	214,296	486

as the Papists have gone And certainly nothing can be brought in defence of the Papists which may not as well be alledged for the Heathens Nay except some few logical distinctions which prove very frivolous all the specious pretexts which the Papists make for justifying their Practice are to be found in the Apologies of the Heathens Do the Papists say that their Worship terminats not in the Image it self but is carried by it to what is thereby represented the Heathens said the same Do the Papists say that they use Images only to remember them of the Invisible objects of their Worship So did the Heathen as appears from Maximus Tyrius and some others Are the Heathens taxed with a gross conceit that the Gods inhabited their Images and that some divinity resided in them The Papists entertain the same fancy of theirs at least a great part of the Vulgar do else what means the high esteem of one Image of the same Person above another Why are tedious Pilgrimages undertaken to visit the Images of the Virgin or some other Saint in such and such places when the Images of the same Saints are every where How comes it that miracles the gifts of healing c. Are ascribed to Images if they do not think that there be something of Divinity in them Therefore the Papists opinions and practices anent Images are one and the same with the Heathens for which they are accounted Idolaters in Scripture and consequently all subtilties of the Roman Doctors will not free their Church from this horrid and provoking crime And as both reason and Scripture declare against them so they cannot plead here the practice of the Ancient Church for nothing is more manifest then that the Primitive Church abstained from the very appearance of this Idolatry and Superstition so far were they from practising it witness that known Fact of Epiphanius Bishop of Salamine in Cyprus in tearing a Linnen cloath whereon the Image of Christ was painted which he found in the Church lest it should be an occasion of Idolatry to the People this was about the end of the fourth Century And about the sixth Serenus Bishop of Massile brake to pieces all the Images of CHRIST and Saints which were in the City fearing the People who were then Declining from the Purity of the Christian Religion should be drawn to worship them And that the worship of them was not at that time Publickly allowed nor brought into the Church appears clearly from Gregory the first his Letter to the said Bishop wherein he hath these words that thou didst forbid Images to be Worshipped we praise altogether but that thou brakest them we blame who would be fu●…ther instructed in the Judgement of the Fathers in this point of Image-Worship let them read the English Homilies where also they will clearly see the great Disagrement betwixt the present Church of Rome and the Primitive Church for hundreds of years so little Reason have they to plead Antiquity But though all should be admitted which the Papists say for their Vindication in worshipping Angels Saints and Images yet this would not free them altogether from Idolatry so long as they Worship the Host or Consecrated Bread For though there were no other Reason to tax them with this Crime yet this were sufficient which we come now in the last place to speak to And the rather because they go not about to excuse this nor do they collour it with subtile Glosses as in former Instances they do not cry out that they are wrong'd and calumniat when they are said to worship the Host for they publickly allow it and the Council of Trent hath pronounced an Anathema upon all who do not think the same Worship due to GOD ought to be payed to this Sacramental Bread That whereon the worship of the Host is founded is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or a total Conversion of the Bread into the Body and Blood of the Lord IESUS CHRIST and therefore if this Doctrine be taken away or shew'd unsufficient it will clearly appear that they are guilty of Idolatry as some of themselves plainly acknowledge Now as to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it cannot be expected that we should here treat of it fully and particularly for this would carrie us too far from the design of this Present Treatise and make it swell too bigg All we shall say at present is that there is no Evidence for it no Ground to believe it and consequently no Reason for establishing this Worship which they make to follow upon it If we examine the several ways by which we come to know and to be assured of any thing it will easily appear that there is no Evidence for Transubstantiation no Ground to believe that the Host is the real Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST All things are Manifest to us either by Sense or Reason or Revelation and what appears by none of these is a groundless conceit a Fantastick Opinion which ought not be made the Foundation of any Religious observance and such will the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be found to be For first if we examine our Senses and believe their Testimonie there is no Transubstantiation but the Bread continues Bread after consecration the Figure Shape Cllour smell and Taste are the same were before and if it be keept any while it moulds and corrupts as Bread so that to the appearance of Sense there is nothing but Bread And if we have recourse to Reason it will not contradict but confirm the Testimony of our Sense And farther shew what an absurdity it is to think otherwayes because it would quite destroy the Nature and Properties of Bodies if the Body and Blood of IESUS CHRIST were in the Host For then it would follow that one body might be in Diverse places at once that Matter might be without Extension that the Accidents Effects and Properties of a Body may remain when the Body it self is destroyed and such like absurdities Thus Transubstantiation is founded neither upon Sense nor Reason but is contrare to both And therefore if there be any such thing it must appear by Revelation but it will appear as little this way as any other for there is no Revelation to be trusted but what is set down in the Scripture and they are altogether silent What ever was the occasion of this Doctrine sure the Scripture was not for it is not plainly asserted nor is it to be deduced from clear or Positive Truths Nay the Scripture gives so little ground to fancie this that on the contrarie it speak so of this Sacrament as may assure us there is no such thing as the Papists dream for it calls it Bread both before and after its Consecration and the usuall Phrase for the celebration of this Sacrament is in Scripture the breaking of Bread which would have been a very mean expression if the Bread were turned to the Body of IESUS CHRIST The pretext for Transubstantiation from Scripture

pay the same Adoration when it is no Sacrament as when it is for without any scruple they worship alwayes and every where the Bread which is pretended to be Consecration when it is certain sometimes nay oftimes it is not Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST because of the want of those necessary conditions which infer that change And when it is but simple Bread will it take off the guilt of Idolatry to say I worship thee if thou art CHRIST Which is as if a Woman should pretend to excuse her Adultery by saying when she admitted a stranger I do this if thou art mine Husband A woman is not honest and faithfull if she embrace another upon light pretences and appearances she should be alwayes certain that he is her real Husband to whom she payes the duty of a wife in like manner none are faithfull to God who throw away the worship due to him only upon uncertain objects He is a jealous GOD as jealous of his glory as any earthly Husband is of his honour and therefore will never be pleased with us if we worship rashly when we are not sure that it is him we worship Thus though it were granted that the Bread and Wine should be turned into the Body and Bloud of Iesus Christ yet seing it is so uncertain when it is de facto thus turned it is much safer not to worship then to worship because there is no crime in not worshipping but by worshipping we may run the hazard of Idolatry No King would find fault with one that were blind or half blind for not falling down and paying homage to him when he were Ignorant of his presence But if such a one upon presumption of the King's presence should prostrat himself before the empty Chair of State or mistake a Courteour for the King and accoast him with all the Titles of Soveraignity and pay him all the respect proper to Kings both he should render himself ridiculous in the sight of all and also what he did would be altogether vain and unprofitable for it would find no acceptance with the King nay would very readily displease and incense him because it would imply that the Majesty of the King were as much to be seen in others as in himself The case is the same in the Sacrament which any one may easily apply But lastly we shall suppose in general that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is true and also in particular that the Sacrament it self is duely consecrat so that the Bread and Wine is actually transubstantiated into the Body and Bloud of Iesus Christ yet it will not from hence follow that the Sacrament is to be adored for which there is neither precept nor example in all Scripture Our Saviour did not enjoyn it himself nor yet the Apostles after him neither did they look upon themselves as oblidged to this for we read that at the first institution of the Sacrament they received it in the same manner they did their other common Meals And we cannot conclude that the Eucharist should or may be adored because it is said this is my Body even understanding the words literally for if this reason hold good it would follow that all things might be adored The body of Iesus Christ is only the object of adoration because of its union with the God-head wherefore if we may worship the Sacrament because it contains that which is united to the divine nature we may and also ought to worship every other thing where the essence of God is and therefore every Stone and Tree and Animal all Animat and Inanimat Creatures should be worshipped for God is in them all But to worship God in and by the Creature is flat Idolatry God is not to be worshipped with a particular reverence to any thing but either when it is expresly commanded or when he sheweth there visible rayes of Majesty and Glory and even then we are not to worship the thing it self but God who sheweth himself thus present at it as the Israelites worshipped not the Ark but toward the Ark and as Moses worshipped God who manifested himself in the burning bush but not the bush it self But where God or Christ is not present by such visible rayes of Majesty there worship should not be payed we are sure Christ dwelleth in all the faithfull but I hope none will say that every believer should be worshipped so though Christ should be really present in the Sacrament yet it will not follow that the Elements whereof it is constitute should be adored no more then the Manger wherein Christ lay or the Cloaths which covered his Body and therefore the Papists who adore the Sacrament it self that which they see feel and taste with their bodily senses they adore the creature with the Creator and commit as great absurdity that is to say as gross Idolatry as they who should have ador'd Christ's garments as well as his person Thus whatever way we consider the Sacrament and the words of its institution whither we take them Figuratively as certainly they should or even Literally as the Papists would be at it is clear that the Sacrament is no object of adoration and they who religious adore it do service to that which by nature is no God which is down right Idolatry And as the Papists are most unreasonable in looking upon the Sacrament as a due object of Adoration and by entertaining no less esteem of it then they do of JESUS CHRIST himself so they commit gross absurdity and are guilty of unaccountable stupidity in eating chewing and digesting and consequently letting forth to the draught what they have such a high Opinion of to believe it to be no less then the GOD whom they should adore and yet at the same time to treat it thus seems most disagreeable and inconsistant For this is both to elevat and to depress it to raise it as high as is possible and at the same time to debase it as much as can be Adoration is the highest honour which can be payed but it speaks out the greatest contempt of a thing to eat and devour it Wherefore I think it would be very agreeable to the tenets of the Romish Church that the Pope should interpose his Authority to discharge people to treat the Lord Iesus Christ as they do common food which is to put upon him the greatest indignity 'T is true Christ hath said take eat this but that needs be no hinderance to the Pope to enjoya the contrary who pretends to have power to alter and dispence with Divine Commands Christ said of the Cup too drink ye all of it and yet this hath not hindred the Pope to take it away from the People and there cannot be alledg'd greater inconveniences in giving the Cup then in giving the Bread to be eaten and chew'd If the People saw the Host only in the Priests hands when it is elevat their respect and esteem thereto might be