Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	damnation_n	drink_v	eat_v	10,899	5	8.2264	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66189	An exposition of the doctrine of the Church of England in the several articles proposed by Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, in his Exposition of the doctrine of the Catholick Church to which is prefix'd a particular account of Monsieur de Meaux's book.	Wake, William, 1657-1737.	1686 (1686)	Wing W243; ESTC R25162	71,836	127

thanks for it and by faith and repentance apply to our selves the Merits of it Thus whilst we receive these Holy signs which he has instituted for our Memorial we need no real descent of the Son of God from Heaven no new Crucifying of the Lord of Glory to raise in our Souls those just resentments we ought to have of so excellent a Blessing But as a Child cannot but recollect the kindness and affection of a dear Father as often as he beholds the Monument where his dead Body lies interred So we much more cannot chuse but excite our Love to our blessed Redeemer as often as we see before our eyes these Sacred Elements under which he is vailed Nor is it necessary for this that this Mystick Tomb as Monsieur de Meaux phrases it should any more be changed into the very real Body of our Saviour to raise this remembrance than that natural One into the dead Corps of the Father to recall the tender Affections of his Child at the sight of it In a word As we will not now move any Argument from the nature of this remembrance to oppose that substantial change which we have before combated on more solid grounds so we suppose muchless ought Monsieur de Meaux from the sole opinion of that more lively remembrance which he imagines the actual eating of the very Flesh of Christ would raise in us then only to do it in a figure to conclude him to be substantially there It is evident that they who believe this change and they who believe it not receive him entirely alike They see and taste and feel the same thing It is Faith alone which works in both and makes the one believing him spiritually present to remember him with the same love to honour him with the same reverence and embrace him with the same hope as the other who thinks him corporeally but yet after a manner altogether unperceivable contain'd under the sacred Elements that are presented to him ARTICLE XVIII The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning this Holy Sacrament THe sum of our belief as to the nature of this holy Sacrament is this We esteem it designed by Christ to be a perpetual memorial of his suffering for us That so often as we eat of this Bread and Drink of this Cup 1 Cor. 11.26 we might shew forth the Lords Death till his coming We believe that in this Communion we do not only remember but effectually partake our Blessed Saviour and all the benefits of his passion Insomuch that to such as rightly See our 28. Article and worthily and with Faith receive the same the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ and likewise the Cup of the blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ For the manner of this Participation We believe that the Body and Blood of Christ See the same Article are given taken and eaten in this Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner and that the means whereby this is done is Faith We believe that the wicked and such as are void of Faith The same Article tho they may visibly and carnally press with their teeth as St. Augustin saith the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ yet are no way partakers of Christ but rather as St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 11. eat and drink their own damnation not discerning the Lords body In a word The same Article We believe that Transubstantiation or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of Christs Body and Blood can never be proved by Holy Scripture but is repugnant thereunto contrary to the intention of our Blessed Saviour and to the nature of this Holy Sacrament and has given cause to many great abuses As in the following Article we shall have occasion more particularly to shew This is our Faith of this holy Eucharist And in this Faith we are confirmed not only by those unanswerable proofs which our Writers have given and some of which we have before touch'd upon but also from those irreconcilable differences which this Error has thrown the Writers of the Church of Rome into In effect we find every party exposing the falseness and impossibility of every ones Hypothesis but his own Their greatest men confess the uncertainty of their own proofs That there is not in Scripture any formal proof of Transubstantiation So ‖ Lomb. 4. sent dist 10. Lombard * Scotus 4. dist 2. q. 11. Scotus and many others That there is not any that without the declaration of the Church would be able to evince it * Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 13. ss secundo dicit Where be cites many others of the same Opinion So Cardinal Bellarmine himself confesses That had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the words the other might with as good warrant have been received So says ⸫ In 3. D. Th. q. 75. art 1. Cardinal Cajetan That if the words of Consecration refer to the Bread which is changed by them then they must be taken in our sense So the generality of that Communion confess In a word ‖ See Scotus cited by Bellar. l. 3. de Euch. c. 23. ss Unum tamen So also Gabriel cited by Suarez T. 3. disp 50. sect 1. So Lombard l. 4. sent dist 11. lit A. That this Doctrine was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 year after Christ and that had not that and the Council of Tent since interposed it would not have been so to this very day And here who can chuse but admire the Power of Truth That after so many Outcries against us for Opposing a Doctrine which they would make the World believe it is as clear as if it were written with a Ray of the Sun after so many Anathema's against us for Hereticks and Schismaticks and ten thousand repetitions of their great Scriptum est This is my Body they should at last be forced to confess That they are not cannot nor are ever like to be agreed in the Explication of them That they contain nothing in them necessary to prove this change That had not the Church declared its self for the Litteral meaning the Figurative interpretation might with as good Reason have been received That for 1200 years this Doctrine was no matter of Faith and but for the Council of Lateran had not been then In short that if the words of Institution refer to the Bread then are we doubtless in the right and if they do not how will they ever prove the change which they pretend is made of the Bread into the Body of Christ by them Certainly confessions such as these ought to awake every Papist careful of his own Salvation into an unprejudiced Examination at least of these things To consider what Foundation there really is for this Doctrine and what desperate Consequences unknown to Antiquity contrary to the formal words

not only a scandal but a horrour for their Religion Monsieur de Meaux had certainly reason to say that this is the Chiefest and most important of all our controvesies and wherein we are at the farthest distance from one another And would to God they had only offended us by these Errours and had not exposed our common Name to the reproach of the very Heathen who have been confirmed by them in their Idolatry and thought it more rational to adore a Stock or a Stone than with the Christians to Worship this moment what they Eat the very next But Monsieur de Meaux thinks we have no reason to appear so obstinate against them who declare our selves so favourably towards the Lutherans who yet are involved in the same Error T is true we believe the Lutherans mistaken in their Literal interpretation of this Holy Sacrament But we are perswaded they are infinitely less so and less dangerously than the Papists They confess that there is no change made in the Substance of the Sacred Elements They believe that the Bread and Wine continue in their proper Natures and that Christs Body is present only when he is received They adore not the Holy Eucharist They found no Propitiatory Sacrifices upon it They say no Masses for the sins and satisfactions for the wants and necessities of the Dead and the Living They deny not the Cup to the People their Errour in one word whatsoever it be is only a matter of simple belief has no ill consequences attending it nor do they damn us for not receiving it Let the Church of Rome do all this Let them raze their Anathema's out of their Councils and banish their Masses and Adorations out of their Churches Let them no longer scandalize us with any unwarrantable practices nor desire to enslave our Consciences by submitting them to their own inventions and though we shall still think Transubstantiation to be the greater Error yet will we receive them with the same charity we do the Lutherans We will pray to God to give them a better understanding but will not drive them from our Communion for matters of simple belief and which are only to themselves tho' they be wrong But till then in vain do's Monsieur de Meaux exhort us to consider the ways of providence to bring us to a Union which God knows we could be glad to have on any terms but the loss of truth In the mean time if the Church of Rome in good earnest thinks that as we tolerate the foundation of all these Errours the Corporeal presence in the Lutherans so we ought to bear the consequences of it in them Let them at least do what the Lutherans have done let them embrace our Communion let them leave off to persecute us where they have power and damn us where they have not let them receive us as Brethren not Lord it over us as our Masters This will make us hope that they are sincere when they conjure us to be at peace with them and they may justly then accuse us of partiality if we continue to repute them as Enemies when they will be thus content to love and receive and deal with us as friends ARTICLE XXIII Of Communicating only under one kind THis is the last of those consequences that give us a just detestation for that great Errour of the Corporeal presence on which they are founded It is so plainly contrary to the express command of our Blessed Saviour that we are perswaded it has pleased God to suffer them to fall into it on purpose to correct that vanity whereby they have so proudly aspired to an Opinion of Infallibility That whilst they Lord it over mens Consciences and will not so much as give them leave to ask them a Reason of what they do they might here at last be surprised in an Error which the most vulgar Eye is able to discern The Church of England conformably to all Antiquity declares See our 30th Article That the Cup ought not to be deny'd to the Lay-people forasmuch as both parts of the Lords Sacrament by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike For indeed Did not he who said of the Bread Take Eat this is my Body say also of the Wine with the same expressness Drink ye all of this for this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins Did not he who commanded them Do this in Remembrance of Me for the Bread even according to their own Construction Take and Consecrate and give to Others as I have done to you command them for the Cup in like manner Do this i. e. consecrate and give it to Others as I have done to you in remembrance of Me We confess That the Grace of God is not tied to the outward signs Yet we think withal that without taking the outward and visible signs we can have no pretence to the inward and spiritual Grace of that holy Sacrament which deriving all its Effect from our Saviour's Promise we can have no security that it shall have any good one to them who do not receive it according to his Institution Had Christ esteemed it sufficient for us to receive the Blood in the body we suppose he would not have consecrated the Cup afterwards But if it was our Saviour's pleasure that to commemorate the more lively his Passion we should take his Blood as it was spilt for our Redemption separate from his Body we think it an unwarrantable presumption for us to make our selves wiser than God and say that it is sufficient to participate of Both in One. Monsieur de Meaux has received so full an Answer upon this point from the Reply made to his Treatise written purposely on this Subject that he will have no cause to complain of us for not repeating here what has been so fully and so successfully handled there Only as to that Negligence of these latter Ages which he is pleased to alledge as the reason of this change We must needs say that God be thanked we cannot observe any such Negligence of this holy Communion in our Churches where yet this holy Sacrament is administred to as large Congregations and with as great frequency as any where among Them Both our Priests and the People give and receive it with that Care and Reverence that we find as little grounds for any such pretence as there is reason in it were it never so true to justifie so great and unwarrantable a Change PART III. OF THE CHURCH ARTICLE XXIV Of the Word Written and Unwritten OUR Blessed Saviour having founded his Church upon the Word which He preached we confess that the unwritten Word as to that Gospel which he preached was the first Rule of Christians But God Almighty foreseeing how liable such a Rule must have been to infinite Inconveniencies thought fit to have that Word which was first spoken by Mouth afterwards