Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	worship_n	worship_v	worth_a	22	3	7.9891	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34012	Missa triumphans, or, The triumph of the mass wherein all the sophistical and wily arguments of Mr de Rodon against that thrice venerable sacrifice in his funestuous tract by him called, The funeral of the Mass, are fully, formally, and clearly answered : together with an appendix by way of answer to the translators preface / by F.P.M.O.P. Hib.	Collins, William, 17th cent.; F. P. M. O. P.	1675 (1675)	Wing C5389; ESTC R5065	231,046	593

and because the existence of the sacramental species retains its inclination to its proper subjects and has anaptitudinal inherence in it it follows evidently that Transubstantiation which is the causer of all this neither destroys the nature of Accidents nor of Sacraments neither Let this then suffice for his sixth arrow and its first reply Now to his second reply Rodon 8. Secondly the Council of Trent in sess 13. commands that the Sacrament of the Eucharist shall be adored with Latria which according to our adversaries is the sovereigne worship due to God only but the Accidents of the bread and wine ought not to be adored because they are creatures and that God alone must be adored Therefore the accidents of bread and wine are not the Sacrament of the Eucharist Answ. To this second reply we answer and obey the holy Councils commands and we adore the most blessed Sacrament with the adoration of Latria which is the highest soveraigne worship due to God only And to what he inferrs viz. that the accidents of bread and wine because they are creatures ought not to be adored so I answer and distinguish that proposition thus with an absolute Adoration I confess with a relative adoration I deny for we give a relative adoration of Latria not only unto the Sacramental species but unto the holy cross also and yet we deny it to be Idolatry because the Adoration redounds wholy upon God but if we should give unto the Cross or any other creature an absolute adoration of Latria that is if we should adore them absolutely as they are in themselves without any relation or reference unto God then indeed I confess it would be Idolatry But far is that from our intention when we adore them or any other pictures or Reliques however our adversaries are pleased to interpret and force our intentions Nay more then that we give but a relative Adoration of Latria even unto the body bloud and soul of Christ inasmuch as they are but creatures and yet we hold them to be more and better then the accidents of bread and wine in the Sacrament nevertheless we afford both them and the Sacramental species too an absolute Adoration of Latria inasmuch as they are united hypostatically to the Divinity and yet deny it is Idolatry to do it But since the Mounsieur and his Translator do impeach us with Idolatry concerning the Adoration of Latria we give to our Sacrament as also concerning our worshiping of Images wherefore may we not also pose them and those of their party concerning their communion bread and wine wherefore I say may not we ask them whether they afford any spiritual worship adoration or reverence to their communion bread and wine after they are consecrated by them or no If they answer no then what respect have they for their Sacrament or communion more then they have for the other ordinary bread and wine which they dayly eat and drink aud why may not they carouse with their communion wine and drink to one another with it as they do ordinarily with the other wine when they drink together in a Tavern or why may not they throw a bit of their communion bread to a dog as they use to do when they are at their common meales for if they have no more spiritual reverence or worship for the one more then they have for the other there is no reason why they may not use them both alike If this be their principle and tenet concerning their Sacrament or communion and if they have no more adoration or worship for it then they have for their other ordinary bread which they often throw to dogs I would have them consider to what a pass they have brought one of the two Sacraments they only own of the seven which the Church doth hold Christ himself did institute and which he called that of his last supper among other of his divine words he said Nolite sanctum dare canibus give not that which is holy to the dogs But if they have no more worship or respect for their communion bread then they have for their ordinary other bread whereof they give some to their dogs I know not what their consecration signifies if it hallows the bread then the bread must be holy and to any holy thing a reverence veneration or worship is due if it doth not hallow the bread then the bread is as it was before and consequently it may be given to dogs as other bread is often thrown to them and what would else forsooth follow from this doctrine but that their communion-bread may lawfully be given to dogs it follows also that if bread can be consecrated and hallowed that water may be consecrated also and then they will be forced to acknowledg some vertue or force in our holy water But if their answer be affirmative and they give a spiritual worship and adoration to their Sacrament or communion this adoration or worship can be no less then a Relative Latria for they worship their communion-bread because it is a sign or Sacrament of Christs broken body and spilt bloud upon the Cross and consequently they adore it in relation to Christ or if they adore and worship it not in order to Christ but as it is in it self then they give it an absolute worship which is a far grosser kind of Idolatry then that they attach us with for they believe their Sacrament to be nothing else but bare bread and wine and consequently nothing else but meer creatures but we believe our Sacrament to be the real body and bloud of Christ with his divinity and therefore we adore our Sacrament upon far better grounds then they do theirs Moreover if they give a Relative adoration of Latria to their Sacrament and may lawfully do it because it is a sign or it signifies Christ why may not we also give a relative adoration to our crucifixes and Images because they are signes of Christ and of his Saints whom they represent or if they call us Idolaters for for doing this why may not we call them Idolaters for adoring their communion-bread In a word they must either give it no adoration worship or reverence at all no more then they give to their unconsecrated bread and consequently they may as well give it to their dogs as they do their other bread or if they give it any adoration worship or Reverence it must be some kinde of a Latriacal adoration either Relative or absolute for they must adore it because it signifies Christs passion or they must adore it as it is in it self without any Relation to Christ which if they do they fall into a grosser Idolatry then we do Rodon 9. Thirdly a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent defines it in sess 6. and 13. But in the Eucharist the body and bloud of Christ are not visible therefore in the Eucharist the body and bloud of Christ are not

which are of themselves adorable do not oblige us to exteriour worship in the water of Baptism why should the Manhood of Iesus Christ which is not of it self adorable oblige us to external adoration though it were in the host it being there only as they say invisibly In a word they must shew the disparitie and tell us the reason why we are not obliged to adore Iesus Christ with external worship in the water of Baptism though he be really there present in respect of all that which is adorable in him viz. in respect of his Godhead his divine Person and his divine Attributes and yet we are obliged to worship Iesus Christ in the host with an external worship though nothing renders him more adorable there then in the water of Baptism Answ. Mr. de Rodon you are so far from having proved what you said in your first Proposition that I have produced in answer to your weak proofs there not only solid reasons but also many evident texts of scripture to the contrary which undermines the whole structure or foundation you build upon And in my answer to your second Proposition I likewise by shewing the disparity of Christs being in the Sacrament and in the water of Baptism viz. that he is in the water of Baptism only with a common general presence as he is in all creatures but he is in the Sacrament with a particular and proper personal presence I have I say broken your second ground so that this third argument or Proposition of yours is built only upon Quicksands therefore I le●… any rational man iudge how firmly it can stand But you say that his Manhood which is pretended to be there invisibly is not there sensibly present What then doth your consequence therefore follow I deny that for it is sufficient we believe it is there the eye of our understanding supported by divine saith being a surer ground and foundation to rely on then the fickle weak testimony of our carnal eye though holpen also by one of Mr. de Rodons rayes or beams which may prove diabolical Illusions especially concerning an object of so high a nature as this is of Therefore though the learned Jesuit S. Rigants answers to your arguments and replies be in themselves true sound and orthodox yet we want them not here for you lost your self quite in choosing your ground which is no better as I tould you then quicksand as any body of understanding may easily see and for that cause leaving your frivolous and impertinent replyes against the Jesuits answers I come to your additionate Proposition which in your own opinion is very considerable but in mine not worth a rush as I hope here to demonstrate But first we must hear it out Rodon 4. To the three fore-going Propositions I add this Argument which is very considerable In lawful adoration it is requisite that ●…e that adores be well assured that what he adores is the true God else he may be justly reproched as Iesus Christ reproched the woman of Samaria Ye worship ye know not what But the Romanists can never be assured according to their own maximes that the host which they worship is the true God and they have alwayes cause to suspect that they worship a morsel of bread instead of the Redeemer of the world because according to their own doctrine the real presence of Christs body in the host depends on lawful consecration and lawful consecration depends on the quality of the Priest and on the pronouncing of the words of consecration and on his intention in pronouncing them for there is no consecration they say when either he that celebrates Mass is no Priest or doth not pronounce the words that are essentially requisite to consecration viz. this is my body or doth not pronounce them with intention to conscerate And consequently in these cases the host remains meer bread But it is impossible certainly to know these three things for as for the quality of the Priest he must have been Baptized and he that baptised him must have observed the essential form of Baptism and have had intention to baptise him Again he must have received ordination from a true Bishop and the Bishop must have observed the true form of Ordination and have had intention to make him a Priest and to make this Bishop a true Bishop he must have been baptised in due form and with the requisit intention and must have received Ordination in due form and with the requisite intention from other Bishops and they again for the making them true Bishops must have received also Baptism and ordination in due form and with the requisite intention from other true Bishops and these from others and so back to the Apostles But who can be assured that from the Apostles to a Bishop or Priest now adays there hath been no fayling either in the essential form of Baptism or Ordination or in the requisite intention As for the pronouncing the words requisit to consecration none but the Priest can know whether he pronounceth them or not because in the celebration of the Mass those words are pronounced so softly that no person present can hear them And as for the intention it is evident that no man but himself can know it Besides it is known that some Priests are Magicians as Lewis Gossredi and some other wicked Priests who do neither consecrate in due form nor with the requisite intention especially such as believe nothing of what they profess yea diverse Monks and Priests that have been converted to our Religion have assured us that for a long time before their conversion they did abhor the Idolatry that was practised in the adoration of the host Iudge then if such persons as those had any intention to consecrate in the celebration of the Mass. Answ. In Mr. de Rodons opinion and I believe in his translators too this is a very considerable argument But in my opinion and I think in the opinion of any learned or understanding Christian Reader it will prove to be not only inconsiderable and of no value but also pernicious to all mankind for it everts all laws both divine and humane and destroys Christian society which I prove thus If this argument were of any force or worth no Christian could know himself to be a Christian no man could know any other man to be a man the father should not know his son nor the mother her child and we should be in as bad a condition after the Evangelical law as the heathens Turks and Jews are But all this is absurd and destructive not only to Christian society but also to human kind and to the divine law The major as to its first part viz. that no body could know himself or any body else to be a Christian is evident and clear for no body according to the Mounsieurs assertion can tell whether he be Baptized or no and Baptism is the only thing that makes a man a