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	jesus_n	12,126	5	6.1739	4	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 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

the Intercessions of Christ and his Prayers to God only desiring some Blessings of God as he does of his Frinds on Earth The sum of what we teach about this matter is this That we must worship none but God and therefore must not pray to Saints and Angels as our Saviour teaches Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve That there is but one Mediator between God and Man the Man Christ Jesus and therefore we must not make more Mediators to our selves nor put our trust in the Intercession of Saints and Angels Thus far we have plain Scripture proof And then we think common Sense teaches us the rest That it is an Injury to an only Mediator to set up other Mediators with him That good Men on Earth are not Mediators but Supplicants which is no encroachment of Christ's Mediatorship and that Saints in Heaven according to the Church of Rome pray as Mediators and Intercestors who appear in the Presence of God for us and this is not reconcilable with Christ's only Mediatorship in Heaven XII Honouring the Cross the Reliques and Representations of our Lord and his Saints with that degree of Reverence as we do the Gospels commonly kiss'd and sworn by Altar and other Sacred Utensils is Idolatry A. This is a very reasonable Request to require us to prove that by Scriture which we do not believe Papists indeed would excuse that Worship which they pay to the Cross to Reliques and Images by saying that it is no more than that Reverence which we allow to the Gospels and Religious Utensils which is no more than an external Respect but do those who charge them with Idolatry in worshipping the Cross and Reliques and Images charge them only with giving some external Respects to them or with giving them formal acts of Worship and Adoration As both the Decrees of their Councils and the visible Practice of their Church proves And if he would have this proved to be Idolatry he may meet with some Protestants who will be ready to oblige him XIII The Pope is Antichrist A. This indeed has been affirmed by some Protestants but is no Article of our Church and therefore we are not bound to prove it but when we have a mind to it No man ever pretended that there is any such Proposition in Scripture as that the Pope of Rome is Antichrist but some think that the Characters of Antichrist and the Man of Sin are much more applicable to him than the Universal Headship and Infallibility XIV Every Prayer us'd in Divine Offices must be in a Language vulgar and intelligible to every Auditor A. Why he should put us upon proving this from Scripture I cannot tell when he knows that St. Paul has a whole Chapter to prove it 1 Cor. 14. unless he has some reserve in expressing it by every Prayer For that indeed St. Paul does not say in Words but his Reason saies it For if the Reason he assigns against Prayers in an unknown Tongue extend to all Prayers then it proves that every publick Prayer should be in a Language understood by the People But what is this to the Church of Rome who has all publick Offices in an unknown Tongue Yes if they could prove it lawful ever to pray in an unknown Tongue they would presently prove it lawful always to do so and thus St. Pauls discourse against praying in an unknown Tongue is confuted for want of saying that we must never pray in an unknown Tongue But whether it be not more reasonable to conclude from St. Pauls discourse against praying in an unknown Tongue that we must never do so than from his not saying that we must never pray in an unknown Tongue that we may always do so let any man judg who has not renounced his own understanding XV. A Company of Christians voluntarily separating from all other Christian Societies condemning their Doctrines and Rites destitute also of any visible Correspondence with them in the Eucharist in any Religious Assemblies or Solemn Devotions can notwithstanding this perverse intire and manifest Separation be a mystical Member of Christ in Catholick Unity and a Charitable Part of the Catholick Church A. If he applies this to us it is manifestly false for tho' we do not communicate with the Church of Rome in her corrupt Worship yet there are many Christian Churches with which we can and do communicate and separate our selves no farther from any society of Christians than they separate themselves from the Primitive and Apostolick Churches But to gratifie him Suppose that all the Communions of Christendom were corrupted in their Worship so that we could not safely communicate with any one of them but our own yet if the Church of England be a true Apostolick Church in Faith and Worship and Government and separates from others only upon account of such corruptions as will justifie such a separation what should hinder her from being a mystical member of Christ in Catholick unity and a charitable part of the Catholick Church The true Apostolick Faith and Worship does certainly make us the mystical members of Christ's Body or else I desire to know what does Catholick Vnity is not violated by a just separation and dangerous corruptions in Faith and Worship are a just cause of separation Come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing and I will receive you 2 Cor. 6. 17. and where there are such corruptions so fatal and dangerous to mens souls how far soever such corruptions have spread it is a greater act of charity to separate than to communicate with them as it is greater charity to reprove men for their sins and forsake their company than to joyn with them in a wicked confederacy This is the true state of the case and this we can prove either from the express words of Scripture or from easie and necessary consequences and this shows that it is possible that a company of Christians not voluntarily but necessarily separating from all other Christian Societies condemning their corrupt Doctrines and Rites destitute also of any visible correspondence with them in the Eucharist in any Religious Assemblies or solemn Devotions upon account of such corruptions can notwithstanding this not perverse but just and necessary separation be a mystical member of Christ in Catholick unity and a charitablt part of the Catholick Church which is not meerly the present Church of one age but the whole Church from the times of Christ and his Apostles to the end of the world For could we suppose at any time all the Communions of Christendom to be corrupt but one that one uncorrupt Church must forsake the communion of all others and yet it would be a member of Christ and a charitable part of the Catholick Church unless it be only numbers not the purity of Faith and Worship which makes the Catholick Church XVI The whole Clergy of the Catholick Church may