Selected quad for the lemma: opinion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
opinion_n	body_n	bread_n	transubstantiation_n	642	5	10.9009	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33548	Jacob's vow, or, Man's felicity and duty in two parts / by John Cockburn ...	Cockburn, John, 1652-1729.	1696 (1696)	Wing C4813; ESTC R10808	214,296	486

as the Papists have gone And certainly nothing can be brought in defence of the Papists which may not as well be alledged for the Heathens Nay except some few logical distinctions which prove very frivolous all the specious pretexts which the Papists make for justifying their Practice are to be found in the Apologies of the Heathens Do the Papists say that their Worship terminats not in the Image it self but is carried by it to what is thereby represented the Heathens said the same Do the Papists say that they use Images only to remember them of the Invisible objects of their Worship So did the Heathen as appears from Maximus Tyrius and some others Are the Heathens taxed with a gross conceit that the Gods inhabited their Images and that some divinity resided in them The Papists entertain the same fancy of theirs at least a great part of the Vulgar do else what means the high esteem of one Image of the same Person above another Why are tedious Pilgrimages undertaken to visit the Images of the Virgin or some other Saint in such and such places when the Images of the same Saints are every where How comes it that miracles the gifts of healing c. Are ascribed to Images if they do not think that there be something of Divinity in them Therefore the Papists opinions and practices anent Images are one and the same with the Heathens for which they are accounted Idolaters in Scripture and consequently all subtilties of the Roman Doctors will not free their Church from this horrid and provoking crime And as both reason and Scripture declare against them so they cannot plead here the practice of the Ancient Church for nothing is more manifest then that the Primitive Church abstained from the very appearance of this Idolatry and Superstition so far were they from practising it witness that known Fact of Epiphanius Bishop of Salamine in Cyprus in tearing a Linnen cloath whereon the Image of Christ was painted which he found in the Church lest it should be an occasion of Idolatry to the People this was about the end of the fourth Century And about the sixth Serenus Bishop of Massile brake to pieces all the Images of CHRIST and Saints which were in the City fearing the People who were then Declining from the Purity of the Christian Religion should be drawn to worship them And that the worship of them was not at that time Publickly allowed nor brought into the Church appears clearly from Gregory the first his Letter to the said Bishop wherein he hath these words that thou didst forbid Images to be Worshipped we praise altogether but that thou brakest them we blame who would be fu●…ther instructed in the Judgement of the Fathers in this point of Image-Worship let them read the English Homilies where also they will clearly see the great Disagrement betwixt the present Church of Rome and the Primitive Church for hundreds of years so little Reason have they to plead Antiquity But though all should be admitted which the Papists say for their Vindication in worshipping Angels Saints and Images yet this would not free them altogether from Idolatry so long as they Worship the Host or Consecrated Bread For though there were no other Reason to tax them with this Crime yet this were sufficient which we come now in the last place to speak to And the rather because they go not about to excuse this nor do they collour it with subtile Glosses as in former Instances they do not cry out that they are wrong'd and calumniat when they are said to worship the Host for they publickly allow it and the Council of Trent hath pronounced an Anathema upon all who do not think the same Worship due to GOD ought to be payed to this Sacramental Bread That whereon the worship of the Host is founded is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or a total Conversion of the Bread into the Body and Blood of the Lord IESUS CHRIST and therefore if this Doctrine be taken away or shew'd unsufficient it will clearly appear that they are guilty of Idolatry as some of themselves plainly acknowledge Now as to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it cannot be expected that we should here treat of it fully and particularly for this would carrie us too far from the design of this Present Treatise and make it swell too bigg All we shall say at present is that there is no Evidence for it no Ground to believe it and consequently no Reason for establishing this Worship which they make to follow upon it If we examine the several ways by which we come to know and to be assured of any thing it will easily appear that there is no Evidence for Transubstantiation no Ground to believe that the Host is the real Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST All things are Manifest to us either by Sense or Reason or Revelation and what appears by none of these is a groundless conceit a Fantastick Opinion which ought not be made the Foundation of any Religious observance and such will the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be found to be For first if we examine our Senses and believe their Testimonie there is no Transubstantiation but the Bread continues Bread after consecration the Figure Shape Cllour smell and Taste are the same were before and if it be keept any while it moulds and corrupts as Bread so that to the appearance of Sense there is nothing but Bread And if we have recourse to Reason it will not contradict but confirm the Testimony of our Sense And farther shew what an absurdity it is to think otherwayes because it would quite destroy the Nature and Properties of Bodies if the Body and Blood of IESUS CHRIST were in the Host For then it would follow that one body might be in Diverse places at once that Matter might be without Extension that the Accidents Effects and Properties of a Body may remain when the Body it self is destroyed and such like absurdities Thus Transubstantiation is founded neither upon Sense nor Reason but is contrare to both And therefore if there be any such thing it must appear by Revelation but it will appear as little this way as any other for there is no Revelation to be trusted but what is set down in the Scripture and they are altogether silent What ever was the occasion of this Doctrine sure the Scripture was not for it is not plainly asserted nor is it to be deduced from clear or Positive Truths Nay the Scripture gives so little ground to fancie this that on the contrarie it speak so of this Sacrament as may assure us there is no such thing as the Papists dream for it calls it Bread both before and after its Consecration and the usuall Phrase for the celebration of this Sacrament is in Scripture the breaking of Bread which would have been a very mean expression if the Bread were turned to the Body of IESUS CHRIST The pretext for Transubstantiation from Scripture

are these words this is my Body which in Truth when considered are no Pretext at all because none but such as are Prepossest with the Fancy could understand that to be the Meaning of them such a Mystery and Miracle as Transubstantiation is had need to have been asserted more plainly and clearly that is to say in Terms which do more necessarly import it The Disciples who used frequently to trouble our LORD about the meaning of His Words and to raise Scruples when he spoke of things far more Credible it is not likely that they would have let this go if they had understood him as the Papists do if they had so taken him up as to think that he said what He Reached and what they Received and Eat was not real Bread but that same real Body which was before their eyes they would no doubt enquired farther into the matter and asked how such a thing could be But having a little before in the Celebration of the Passover heard our LORD say of the unleavened Bread according to the Iewish custom this is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt they could not understand the Bread now distribut to be his Body otherways then the unleavened Bread was the Bread which their Fathers eat in Egypt to wit not the same reallie but only the Symbol or Memorial thereof Thus it appears that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a meer groundless Conceit favoured neither by Sense nor by Reason nor Scripture but flatly opposed by all of them And so though the Bread in the Sacrament be Consecrat to an Holy use and though it serve for Holy ends and Purposes yet as to its Nature and Substance it is still Bread and therefore who worship it worship not GOD but a Creature and a dumb Senseless Creature of it self too which is as gross Idolatry as any can be Neither will it excuse them that they think it to be him who is their GOD for then all Idolatry should be excusable he who Worships the Sun should be excused if he fancied a Deitie therein Mens Opinions will not alter the Nature of things nor make that Justifiable which is of it self Damnable otherways the greatest Crimes may prove no Crimes Nor will it acquit the Papists of Idolatry in worshipping the Host that they intend therein to worship JESUS CHRIST seing their Worship is directed immediatly to another thing otherwayes the Israelites who worshipped the Golden calf might upon the same account be freed of Idolatry And yet the Papists in worshipping the Sacramental Bread are more gross then the Israelites in worshipping the Golden calf For they made not the Calf their GOD neither did they terminat their worship in the Calf it self but used it only as the means of conveying their Worship to the true GOD. Whereas the Papists believe the Bread in the Sacrament to be the very LORD IESUS CHRIST himself and do terminat their Worship in the very Sacrament it self Then which I hardly think there can be a grosser instance of Idolatry produced from among the Heathens whither Ancient or Modern If saith Coster a Popish-Writter the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be not true the Idolatry of the Heathens in Worshipping some Golden or Silver statue or any Image of their Gods or the Laplanders Worshipping a red cloath or the Egyptians an Animal is more excusable then that of Christians Worshiping a bit of bread And another of them saith that if there be nothing but bread in the Eucharist they are all Idolaters Thus they confess that it is the Supposition of Transubstantiation only which can vindicat them from the grossest Idolatry but that there is no such thing to be supposed we have already proved and they who will needs believe a thing not only without all ground but contrarie to all Evidence of Sense Reason and Scripture their Errour is wilfull and neither is it to be excused nor the Practises which they build thereupon to be Extenuated And it will be to little purpose here to have recourse to the Fathers for the Defence of this Opinion for first we are not obliedged to believe any of them contrary to Sense Reason and Scripture And secondly it hath been frequently shewed that they say no such thing for untill about the Eight or Ninth Century this Opinion did not creep into the Church it only entered in with the Worship of Images for which among several others see a late discourse of Transubstantiation But though there were ground for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that CHRIST should be really in the Sacrament as the Papists imagine yet according to their Principles it is scarce possible yea I may say altogether impossible to know certainly or to have any assurance when the Bread is truly Transubstantiated or that CHRIST is Really in the Sacrament and therefore who Adore it run alwayes the Hazard of committing the grossest Idolatry which is the most Heinous of Crimes According to the Principles of the Romish Church there can be no Transubstantiation if the Elements be not prepared of due matter viz. The Bread of true Wheat and the Wine of ripe Grapes and neither of them any wayes spoiled or corrupted if the Priest who Celebrats be not a true Priest that is to say Rightly ordained and according to them a great many things are requisite to make ones Ordination valid and it is not possible to know when they are wanting or when they are present but thought he should be a True Priest yet if he intend not seriously the Consecration of the Sacrament or doth not pronounce the words or doth not pronounce them right but doth either mangle or transpose them in all these cases there is no Transubstantiation neither is there any difference betwixt the Elements of Bread and Wine which seems to be consecrat and common Bread and Wine And therefore it is impossible to know when the Bread is Transubstantiated or when not when CHRIST is really present and when he is absent for it is one to an hundred but some one or other of these necessarie conditions of a right Consecration is wanting and therefore also who adore the Sacrament can never be certain that they adore JESUS CHRIST really but instead of him may be paying Divine worship to a meer creature to lifeless Bread and Wine which may perplex the minds and consciences of such as seriously consider the heinousness of the crime of Idolatry To evade this Difficultie they tell us that the Adoration of the Sacrament is always with the supposition of Christ's presence that they adore the Bread upon this condition that it is the Body of IESUS CHRIST But this is a sillie evasion and will never free their Church of Idolatry for it is only Doctours or the Learned who may use these subtilties as for the Vulgar they do not make any such supposition nor do they worship the Sacrament with any such salvo And besides both the One and the Other