Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	blood_n	bread_n	cup_n	4,095	5	9.9348	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59790	An answer to the request to Protestants, to produce plain Scriptures directly authorizing these tenets	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1687 (1687)	Wing S3264; ESTC R16978	12,957	22

AN ANSWER TO THE REQUEST TO PROTESTANTS To produce Plain Scriptures directly Authorizing these Tenets LICENSED December 16. 1686. LONDON Printed for Tho. Basset at the George near St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCLXXXVII An Answer to the Request to Protestants a To produce Plain Scriptures directly Authorizing these their Tenets a Ans. WE do indeed make the Scripture the Rule of our Faith because we believe God gave us the Scripture to be our Rule and we know not where to meet with a better and therefore we do not quarrel at this Request to produce plain Scripture proofs for what we believe but we may justly quarrel at the fallacious or unskilful way of stating it as if we pretended to own no Doctrines but what are contained in the express Words of Scripture and therefore to understand this matter we must consider the several kinds of Doctrines professed in the Church of England and what kind of proof from Scripture they are capable of 1st The positive Articles of Faith such as are contained in the Creed and expresly taught in Scripture we prove from plain and express Testimonies of Scripture and are ready to give our proofs of them when they are demanded But besides these 2ly we have a great many Negative Articles opposed to the Corruptions and Innovations of the Church of Rome Now to believe a Negative is only to believe that such a Doctrine is not taught in Scripture and it would be a very wise Request to desire us to prove by plain and express Scripture that such a Doctrine is not taught in Scripture We believe it is not there because we cannot find it in Scripture and those who pretend it is there cannot shew it there which is proof enough and all that the thing is capable of 3ly There are other Doctrines which it may be are not in a strict Sense Articles of Faith but great and useful Truths which cannot be proved by express Words of Scripture but by immediate and necessary Consequence and it is ridiculous in these Cases to demand a direct Proof if by that he means the express words of Scripture for we never pretended to that in such matters but think it very reasonable to believe an evident Consequence as well as express Words Since our Saviour proved the Resurrection it self by Consequence Matth. 22. 32. Having premised this I shall examine what it is he would have proved in which also he has betrayed great want either of skill or honesty as will appear from particulars I. Scripture is clear in all Necessaries to every Sober Enquirer A. He begins well with demanding a Scripture proof That the Scripture is clear in all Necessaries as if we Protestants wanted a Scripture proof that the Sun shines when we see it Can there be any better proof that the Scripture is clear and plain than its own plainness And therefore every plain Text proves its own plainness If this Proposition Scripture is clear in all Necessaries to every Sober Enquirer were contained in express Words in Scripture yet if we could not find it plain we should rather question whether those Words are plain than believe the Scripture to be plain when we do not find it so But if I find the Scripture plain the plainness of the Scripture proves it self and needs no other proof And yet this is one of those Propositions which may be proved by plain and necessary Consequence from the Scripture For if the word of God be a Light unto our Feet and a Lamp unto our Paths then it must be clear if Light be clear Psal. 119. 105. If it be able to make men wise unto Salvation 1. Tim. 3. 15. then it must be plain and intelligible in all things necessary to Salvation II. The Secular Prince hath all Spiritual Jurisdiction and Authority immediately from and under God. A. What Authority the Church of England grants to Kings in matters of Religion which he here calls all Spiritual Jurisdiction and Authority we are taught in the 37th Article of Religion The Kings Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England and other his Dominions unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all causes doth appertain and is not and ought not to be subject to any foreign Jurisdiction Which is further explained That we give not our Princes the Ministring of God's Word or of the Scraments but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers Which signifies no more than that the King is supreme in his own Dominions and therefore there is no Power neither Secular nor Ecclesiastick above him for if there were he were not Supreme Must we then prove by express Scripture that the King is Supreme Do men want Scripture to prove That Supreme Power is Supreme Thus some men are always in the Extremes either the Scripture signifies nothing or it must be every thing Grammar and Dictionary and Logick and Statute-book and all but can they prove by express Scripture that the King has the Supreme power in Civil causes Then I will prove That he has the Supreme power in Ecclesiastical causes and I think Rom. 13. 1. Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers is a sufficient proof of both III. Justification by Faith alone viz. a Persuasion that we are justified is a wholesome Doctrine A. Our Church does teach That Justification by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine and very full of comfort Article II. but she does not teach That justifying Faith is a persuasion that we are justified and sure we are not bound to prove that by Scripture which we do not believe IV. The Substance of Bread and Wine remains after what it was before Sacerdotal Consecration A. Our Church teaches That Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ Art. 28. But she does not teach That the Bread and Wine remain after what they were before Sacerdotal Consecration Their substance is the same that is they are Bread and Wine still but by virtue of Christ's Institution after Consecration they are not meer Bread and Wine but a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death and to such as rightly worthily and by faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. The substance of Bread and Wine is the same but the Institution gives it such a new relation and use as is equivalent to changing its nature and makes it the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ. And this the words of Institution are

an express proof of This is my Body for if it be not his Natural Body as sense and reason tell us it cannot be then it must be only his Sacramental Body or his Body by Institution Christ was visibly present with his Apostles in his own Natural Body when he instituted this Sacrament and therefore they could not understand and our Saviour could never intend they should believe that the Bread which he blessed and brake was his Natural Body which they saw before their eyes that they ate their Lord when they are the Consecrated Bread that they swallowed him down into their stomachs and yet all this while saw him and conversed with him as they did at other times The Bread is the Body of Christ but it is his broken Body which it could not be at the Institution of this Sacrament for Christ was not then Crucified his Natural Body was not yet broken and therefore the broken bread though it was his Sacramental could not be his Natural Body his Blood was not then shed and therefore though the Wine was his Blood of the New Testament it could not be his Natural Blood which is shed for the remission of sins unless his Natural Body was broken and his Blood shed before he was crucified Now I take that to be the express sense of Scripture which is the only sense that can be made of it for a sense in which it is impossible is none at all V. Our Lord's Presence in or with the Eucharist is meerly gracious and influential and if more only to the Faithful A. There is no such Proposition as this taught by the Church of England that I know of we own the influences of the Divine Grace to accompany the external administration of the Lord's Supper and this I suppose they will not put us to prove We own the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ that is the Consecrated Elements to be really present upon the Altar and verily and indeed eaten of the Faithful for so our Saviour expresly tells us This is my Body and This is my Blood and this is somewhat more than to say that our Lord's Presence in or with the Eucharist is meerly gracious and influential for so he is present in all other Religious Duties but here he is so present that his Body and Blood with all the benefits of his Death and Passion are exhibited to worthy Receivers as much as they could have been had we eat his Natural flesh and drank his blood And therefore whatever difference they would allow between Christ's gracious and influential presence in the Eucharist and eating his Natural flesh and blood had that been possible the same we allow between his gracious Presence and eating his Sacramental Body which is to all the ends and purposes of a Sacrament the same by his own Institution with his Natural flesh and blood for the carnal feeding on Christ's flesh is not a Sacramental eating of him But if by more he means that Christ is corporally present in the Eucharist that his natural Flesh and Blood is contained under the Species of Bread and Wine this we deny and it being a Negative Article it is ridiculous as I observed before to demand express Scripture to prove that it is not in the Scripture let those who affirm it prove by express Scripture that it is there for this is my Body and this is my Blood will not do it We own that it is the Body and Blood of Christ as well as they and therefore they must prove that it is Christ's natural Body and Blood and it is well for them that they have something else than Scripture to trust to VI. Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of our Saviour under the Species of Bread and Wine is Idolatry A. Nor is there any such Proposition as this taught in the Church of England We teach indeed that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist remains Bread and Wine after Consecration and that to adore Bread and Wine is Idolatry as Romanists themselves confess and is easily proved from Scripture if to give Divine Worship to Creatures be Idolatry To adore our Saviour is not Idolatry but to adore Bread and Wine for our Saviour may be as much Idolatry as to worship the Sun for God. But this Author puts a fallacy upon his Readers by an explanatory Parenthesis Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of our Saviour under the Species of Bread and Wine as if they only worshipped our Saviour under the Species of Bread and Wine whereas they teach that the Species themselves whatever they be to be sure not Christ himself are to be worshipped together with Christ and therefore according to their own Doctrine they must worship something which is not Christ. And let them consider what name to give this VII All Christians whenever they communicate are oblig'd to receive in both Kinds A. And why does he not ask us to prove That all Christians whenever they communicate are obliged to receive the bread For there is the same Institution for the Wine that there is for the Bread. There is no other rule in matters of Institution but to observe the Institution and since the Sacrament was instituted in both kinds and neither Christ nor his Apostles have told us that it is sufficient to receive in one kind we think this reason enough to assert that all Christians when they do communicate must communicate in both kinds And indeed this Sacrament is not compleat without it for if we consider it as a spiritual Feast Wine as well as Bread to drink as well as to eat is essential to a Feast if we consider the End of the Institution to be a commemoration of the Death of Christ and the expiation of his Blood how can we commemorate Sacramentally the expiation of his Blood without drinking his Blood which is shed for the remission of sins For to eat his Blood together with his Flesh as they pretend does not represent his broken Body and his Blood shed but his whole Body with Flesh and Blood together which contradicts the very Institution of this Supper And if we partake of no benefits in the Sacrament but what we Sacramentally commemorate I would desire this Author to tell me how those who do not drink the Blood of Christ this blood of the New Testament obtain the remission of their sins A very material thing for those to consider who would be sure of their Salvation VIII Chastity deliberately vow'd may be inoffensively violated A. This is no Doctrine of our Church nor are Protestants now concerned in it though some of the Monks and Nuns at the beginning of the Reformation were There was no such thing known as vowing Chastity as that signifies a Vow against Marriage neither under the Law nor in the times of Christ and his Apostles and therefore we cannot expect in Scripture an express decision of this matter but must argue from the nature and obligation of Vows