Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	blood_n	body_n	bread_n	35,000	5	8.1520	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A60577	A discourse against transubstantiation. By William Salmon professor of Physick, living at the Blew-balcony by the Ditch-side near Holbourn-Bridge, London	Salmon, William, 1644-1713.	1690 (1690)	Wing S424; ESTC R218616	3,747	9

A DISCOURSE AGAINST Transubstantiation By WILLIAM SALMON Professor of Physick living at the Blew-balcony by the Ditch-side near Holbourn-Bridge London LONDON Printed for Richard Baldwin 1690. A DISCOURSE AGAINST Transubstantiation c. Pro. MY first Argument is drawn from the veracity and faithfulness of God from thence affirming That the Bread and Wine after the words of Consecration are no God but an Idol Inorder to the proving of this you must grant me two Propositions Papist Let 's hear your Propositions Pro. I affirm that God is true just faithful keeps promise and cannot lye or contradict himself this is the first proposition Papist I grant it it is impiety to say the contrary Prot. The second Proposition is That the Bread and Wine are no God before the words of Consecration viz. That it is not that very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered without the Gates of Jerusalem Papist You say right For if it was that before the words of Consecration there would be no need for the Priest to consecrate it and make it that What I pray do you infer from thence Prot. I infer this that the Bread and Wine before Consecration are no God nor any thing like a God but another thing than God Papist I grant it it is another thing and not God Prot. Now you have destroyed your own Tenet for by the granting these two Propositions you have overturned the Omnipotency of your Idol or breaden God Papist Which way I pray you with all your Wit Prot. You have granted by the second Proposition that the Bread and Wine were no God before the words of Consecration but another thing than God And by the first Proposition That God is true just faithful keeps promise and cannot lye or contradict himself now the Lord himself has said Isa 42.8 I am the Lord that is my name I will not give my glory to another nor my praise to Graven Images You have granted the Bread and Wine to be another thing than God before the Words of Consecration and he has promised that he will not give his Glory to another or any thing besides himself which he must do in the highest and largest sense if he makes any created Being either himself or equal to himself Whereby against the contents of the first Proposition you charge God unjustly with falshood lying injustice breach of promise and the greatest contradiction which is the highest of Indignities you can put upon the great Creator and Fabricator of all things and the greatest impiety which can be acted on your part Papist Enough of your first Argument what is the second Prot. It arises from the Grammatical Construction of the Words hoc est corpus meum This is my body it is this That a Noun Substantive of the masculine or feminine Gender if not exprest but understood except only the word Thing is never denoted by a neuter Article or Adjective In order to the proving of this you must grant me these two Propositions Papist What are they in the Name of the Host Prot. My first Proposition is this That all Adjectives must agree with their Substantives in Number Case and Gender whether expressed or understood except in the word Thing Papist That is true for it is a common and plain Grammatical Rule Prot. My second Proposition is this That where-ever a Neuter Article or Adjective is found without it's Substantive exprest except it be put substantively it is always to be construed with a Neuter Substantive understood or the word Thing otherwise it will be pure Non-sense Papist This is true Grammar or else I understand nothing of Greek or Latine but what is this to Divinity Prot. You know the words which you use in Consecration are in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin hoc est corpus meum in English This is my Body Where if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Panis Bread be understood to be construed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc it is pure Nonsence by the second Proposition like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc panis a Masculine and a Neuter together and against a common and plain Grammar rule by the first Proposition which to maintain shews a deficiency in Scholarship and first Rudiments of Learning Papist This is a Quibble but proceed to your third Argument Prot. My third Argument is taken from the nature and definition of a Sacrament which we will fetch from your own Popish Authors not from Protestants And because we will not trouble the unlearned with Bellarmine and other abstruse Doctors of the Romish Church not intelligible with the Vulgar we will take our Text no higher than either the Doway Catechism Or that late Abstract of it Printed by Henry Hills the Kings Printer Papist Let us hear this your mighty Argument Prot. The first proposition is this That the sign of a thing and the thing it self are two different things Or that the sign of a thing and the thing signified are no more the same than the Type and the Antitype Or the Sign of the Kings-head in Holborn and the Kings Head it self which in the great solemnity of the Coronation at Westminster was adorned with the Royal Diadem Papist You are very much in the right or else I am in the wrong Prot. I grant both and therefore we will proceed Papist What is the second Proposition Prot. It is this That a Sacrament in general is a visible sign of an invisible Grace instituted by Christ for our Sanctification This is the definition of a Sacrament as it is taken word for word out of the Doway Catechism and other of your own approved Authors Papist It is so For you have taken it word for word out of Henry Hills his Abstract of the said Doway Catechism very lately Printed and given about the Streets of the City and so I shall not deny it for I verily believe you have it in your Pocket to prove it and to disprove me if I should gain say it But had it not been for that silly little Book I should have put you to the proof of it Prot. So you may yet if you please but then you should see that I would as easily prove this definition of a Sacrament out of Bellarmin and other Popish Authors as now I do it out of the Doway Catechism Pap. Hereticks can turn the best things to an ill use and like Spiders draw damnable Poysons out of Antidotes but let 's hear how you will lay your Propositions together Prot. By the second Proposition you grant me That a Sacrament is no more than a Visible sign and by the first Proposition you grant that the sign and the thing signified cannot be one and the same thing but two different things From whence I infer That if the Sacrament be but a sign of Christ's Body offered up and broken for us then it cannot be the thing viz. Christs body it self but

differs as much from the Body of Christ as the Type does from the Antitype Or a shadow from the Substance And from hence it appears that whilst you worship that for a God which is no God you worship an Idol and by that Act become Idolaters Papist This Argument seems to be close and cunningly laid and may do us much harm in time if not overthrown But proceed to another Argument Prot. My fourth and last Argument which I will use in this place is taken from the nature of a Body compared with a Place with relation to Time Papist Sure this must be some wonderful discourse Prot. I 'le manage it as wonderfully if I can My first Proposition is this One and the same body in one and the same place at one and the same time cannot be two distinct bodies of equal magnitude and shape and both singly and together be one and the same Body in the same place and the same time Papist This is true One and the same Sow in one and the same Place at one and the same Time cannot be two distinct Sows of equal magnitude and shape and both singly and together be just equal to and be the same Sow in the same space of Place at the very same time I know no body can contend for a thing so unreasonable which our Senses alone are able to convince us of as manifestly false Prot. I am glad you will grant something My second Proposition is this That the Body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ at his last Supper when he held the Bread in his Hand afterward the Words of Consecration did not take up the same space of Place at the same time which the Bread did after the Consecration which he held in his Hand and between his Fingers Papist What Inference do you draw from bence Prot. Since by the second Proposition the real and true body of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary did not subsist in the same space of Place and in the same time which the bread after the words of Consecration did And since by the first proposition tha● body which does not take up the same space of Place at the same time cannot be the same body it follows that the bread after the words of Consecration was no more that very same body that was born of the Virgin Mary than it was before the said words of Consecration were spoken from whence I conclude that worshipping it viz. the Bread or Host as you call it you worship a damnable Idol and no God Papist But we expound the Eucharist or Sacrament otherwise Prot. No you do not For in Henry Hills his Abstract of the Doway Catechism Pag. 48 you say I● is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ true God and tru● Man whole Christ under the likeness and outward shape o● Bread the true and real presence of his divine and 〈◊〉 nature and not significatively only as Hereticks woul● have it Which whether any thing can be more bla●phemous I leave to the Rational and Prudent Man t● judge From this Argument Christ must have ha●● two Bodies at one and the same time each of whi●● was whole Christ of the same magnitude and y●● both but one and the same Body which two Bod●●● were also in two different places which two places we●● but one and the same space of Place and at several as different times which were also but one and the sam● time This is pure and exalted Non-sense in the Abstract William Salmon FINIS