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	holy_a	11,079	5	5.1892	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93282	The true church of Christ exposed to the view of all sober Christians, from the Word of God, sound reason, and the ancient fathers / by James Salgado, a Spaniard, a converted priest.	Salgado, James, fl. 1680.	1681 (1681)	Wing S384; ESTC R42935	23,389	69

from a custom frequent among them in the Celecration of this Sacrament The reason why they affirm it is because they hold that Infants departing without Baptism cannot be saved but go into the Limbus Infantum a kind of Hole prepared to put Children into where they suffer paenam damni but not paenam seasus that is they are deprived of the Beatifick Vision of God though they are not under any sensible torment If then their Election which is unchangeable and their being under the Covenant of Grace which belongeth to them as well as to their Parents be not sufficient to save them because they were not baptized surely Baptism which maketh them capable to demand Heaven must by a physical vertue work those Graces whereby they may attain unto Salvation 2. They hold that none can be saved without the Bosom of the Church and that none can be reputed Members of the Church except such as have been baptized Moreover their Custom is to admit of the Baptism of Women providing the Form be observed in case of necessity which shews how absolutely necessary they esteem Baptism unto Salvation Having proved the Charge I shall demonstrate the Errour And first it is as certain That all Infants departing without Baptism are not deprived of the beatifick Vision as that David was saved who after death was to go to his Child that died without Circumcision 1 Sam. 12.18 23. in place whereof Baptism succeeded as appears from Coll. 2.11 12. And as certain as that the promise of Eternal Life doth belong to Infants which Argument is of the same force against the Anabaptists that deny the Seal to Infants to whom the promise belongs for which reason Peter did willingly confer Baptism upon some Converts Act. 2.38 39 as against the Papsts that deny Eternal Life to Children dying without Baptism although they be under the promise and Covenant of Grace for he that is under the Covenant of Grace or the Promises is in Christ and he that is in Christ will certainly be saved Therefore Children being under the Covenant of Grace and the Promise of Life will certainly be saved Acts 2.39 Eph. 2.12 But they object this Scripture Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Joh. 3. ● whence they conclude that none can be saved without Baptism But I answer that nothing else is meant by this water and spirit but the holy Ghost himself who is compared to water because he washeth away our sins There is another expression like unto this in Mat. 3.11 He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire that is the Holy Ghost shall purge you as fire doth Gold seven times refined So that these Expressions are Metaphorical and Figurative Virgil hath the like expression Pateris libamus auro We drink out of Cups and Gold that is out of Golden Cups so to be baptized with the Spirit and with fire is nothing else but to be baptized with a fiery Spirit and the same way are Christ's words concerning water and spirit to be understood wherefore what he saith here figuratively by way of Hendiadis he expressed in the third Verse in proper words except a man be born again he can not see the Kingdom of God So that it clearly appears from Christs own exposition that here is understood spiritual Regeneration and not the external washing with water in Baptism 2. We utterly deny that Baptism by women is valid and not to be reiterated They can only alledge the example of Zipporah that Circumcised her Son whence they argue that a Woman may as lawfully Baptize as Circumcise I shall not give the answer that is usual amongst some Divines viz. that Zipporah sinned in so doing for God never blesseth men for any sin as such but he did bless Moses for this action of Zipporah But I answer thus that Circumcision in the Old Testament was indifferently administred by any person by reason it was not so strictly joyned with the Ministerial Office of Preaching as Baptism is in the New Testament Go and teach all Nations baptizing them c. Mat. 28.19 So that now it is unlawful for any to administer Baptism but such as are ordained for the Ministery Now we shall proceed to speak of the other Sacrament without regarding the rest of their five Sacraments that have no ground in the Scriptures nor the Fathers which is the Lords Supper According to sound Doctrine the Lords Supper is nothing else but a visible sign of an invisible Grace wherein by receiving of Bread and Wine is signified our receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ as a Seal of the Covenant of Crace tending to our Salvation We deny not that the Body and Blood of Christ is really present in this holy Sacrament but we deny 1. That it is corporally present because it is circumscriptive and in Heaven and therefore cannot be every where 2. We deny that the Lords Supper is a Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead which point I shall chiefly insist upon As to the first the Papists do very much urge their Transubstantiation by which they understand nothing else but the Corporal presence of the Body and Blood of our Saviour under the appearance and accidents of Bread and Wine imagining that the substance of the Bread and Wine is turned to the first nothing out of which it was created and the accidents only do remain which affect our senses of sight feeling and taste The falshood and absurdity of this imagination I thus demonstrate 1. Neither the Word nor the thing is to be found in Scripture for after the Consecration it is called the Bread of which we are partakers 1 Cor. 10.17 Now if the Bread were annihilated how could we be partakers of it And moreover no Papist will allow that it be called Bread after Consecration which yet we see the Scripture doth 2. The Word it self is new and was never heard of before the Lateran Council when Berengarius was forced to recant the Truth and fall into a most abominable Errour namely that Christs Body is bruised by the Teeth and let down into the Belly c. 3. The Word is no way adapted to the thing yea Creation may be as well called Annihilation as this may be called Transubstantiation for Transubstantiation is nothing else but a mutation or turning of one substance into another as in Cana of Galilee Wine was turned into Water but the Papists say that in this case one substance is not turned into another but that the one namely the Bread and Wine is annihilated and the other namely the Body and Blood of Christ is induced under the appearance and accidents of Bread and Wine although they have a thousand distinctions here about the introducing of the Body and Blood of Christ under these accidents which I shall pass over so that it ought rather to be called an Annihilation of one substance and Introduction

of another but an absurd name is fit enough for such an absurd thing Conveniunt rebus nominal saepe suis 4. The thing which is distributed in the Sacrament is called by the Ancients a Sign and a Figure of Christs Body Now nothing can be a Sign or a Figure of it self therefore Christ cannot be Corporally present Augustine saith The Lord was pleased to say this is my Body when he gave but the figure of his Body And most of the Ancient Fathers do understand the words c. Also the Scriptures call it A Seal of the Righteousness of Faith as we said before now the Seal cannot be the thing it self It were too tedious to consider all the arguments of the Papists against the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning the Lords Supper only this one I cannot pass by which I have read in an Anonymous Jesuit whereby he endeavours to invalidate our last reason against Transubstantiation by giving this instance that David might have been a sign of himself as sighting with Goliah if he had presented himself to the peoples view upon a Theater But I answer 1. David had not been in that case a sign of himself but of the actions he performed in the Combat 2. If David had been sowed up in a Sack or laid himself down upon the Theater covered with an Asses skin as they say Christ's Body is covered with the accidents of Bread and Wine so that he could not be seen I do not understand how he could have been a sign of himself or his actions either I shall omit to observe that the Sacrament was instituted in Commemoration of the Man Christ a that Commemoration is only of absent persons as likewise many of their Exceptions against us for brevities sake Only I shall shortly demonstrate the other Proposition viz. that the Lords Supper is not a Sacrifice for the sins of the Living and the Dead by this general argument Where there is no Priest no Altar no proper Host there can be no proper Sacrifice for sin But in the New Testament there is none of these beside Christ himself Therefore c. The Major is most certain for Relatives are mutual and the one presupposeth the other therefore where there is a proper Sacrifice there must be an Altar a Priest and an Hoast properly so called So Bellarmin himself saith That Altars use not to be Erected unless for Sacrifices properly so called de Miss Lib. 1. Cap. 16. And elsewhere without an Altar can be no Sacrifice de Cult San. l. 3. c. 4. Now to prove the Minor there is no material Altar to be found in the Scriptures as one to be used in the New Testament Christ who instituted this Sacrament Celebrated the same on the Table Luk. 22.21 The Apostle Paul calls it the Lords Table 1 Cor. 10.21 But there is no mention made of an Altar which had been certainly done if an Altar had been in use Hence the great Bellarmin says de Miss l. 1. c. 17. The Apostles did not use the Names of Priesthood Sacrifice Altar as knowing well there could be none after the material Sacrifices were Sealed up But the Papists object Heb. 13.10 We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the Tabernacle I answer This Text speaketh of an improper figurative invisible Altar but we deny onely a proper and material Altar for that the words are figurative evidently appears because no Body can eat of a material Altar And moreover the Sacrifice that the Apostle would have to be offered up upon it doth plainly discover what kind of Altar he means By him therefore let us offer the Sacrifice of Praise to God continually that is the fruit of our Lips giving Thanks to his Name The Ancient Fathers also do agree with us None of these is visible neither the Priest nor the Sacrifice nor the Altar Ambrose in Epist ad Heb. I think that the Altar is nothing else but the Body of the Lord Bernard in Serm. 4. Nazianzen calls it the Altar which is above Orat. 24. And finally the Papists themselves are forced to confess that here is meant an improper Altar I do not urge the place it self Bell. de Miss l. 1. c. 14. as also Thomas Anselmus and many others 2. Nor is there any proper Sacrifice in the New Testament For Daniel prophesieth That the Sacrifice and Oblation shall cease And we see this Prophesie fulfilled The Apostle Paul saith Nor yet that he should offer himself often but now once in the end of the World Heb. 9.26 Every Priest standeth daily ministring and offering but this man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sins for ever sat down on the right hand of God Heb. 10.12 where the Apostle evidently asserteth that Christ offered himself but once and doth not offer himself nor can he be so offered again Yea the Apostle urgeth the sufficiency of Sacrifice by these two Arguments 1. Because he offered himself but once and did not repeat his Sacrifice as insufficient 2 Because having perfected his Work he sat down on the right hand of God for ever But the Priests did always stand which signifyed that they had not yet compleated their Work but must lay their hands once more to it before they might sit down and rest from their work Therefore the Papists devising daily Sacrifices of Christ after that one Sacrifice doth derogate from its sufficiency and makes Christ lyable to the Ministry of standing who is already set down for ever at the right hand of God This was also the reason why God destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple after Christs Mediatory Office was fulfilled as to one part of his Priesthood namely his Sacrifice that there might be no more material Sacrifices that being the place to which they were confined The Papists urge the Custom of the Ancients and the expressions of the Fathers who speak very often of Sacrifices But it is clear that the Fathers meant no other th●n Sacrifica Eucharistica Sacrifices of a Thanksgiving which were commonly performed at the Lords Supper which with Prayers and Alms are indeed a living Sacrifice holy and acceptable to God Rom. 12.1 Hence Clemens Alexandrinus saith that a righteous Soul is a holy Altar and holy Prayer is the Incense Lactantius saith two things are to be offered a Gift and a Sacrifice both incorporcal integrity of mind is the gift Prayer and Psalms are the Sacrifice Augustin calls our heart an Altar Humility and Praise a Sacrifice and Charity the Fire So ronimus Ambrosius and others As for the Priest there is none besides Christ for he is a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedek and Levitical Priests they cannot be being that Order is ceased Thus having proved that there is no Altar Priest nor Hoast besides Christ himself who is our Sacrifice our Priest and our Altar Epiphan lib. 2. com 1. hoeres I conclude that there is now no proper Sacrifice for the sins of