Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	father_n	truth_n	worship_v	16,055	5	9.8540	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56750	The three grand corruptions of the Eucharist in the Church of Rome Viz. the adoration of the Host, communion in one kind, sacrifice of the Mass. In three discourses.	Payne, William, 1650-1696.; Payne, William, 1650-1696. Discourse concerning the adoration of the Host. aut; Payne, William, 1650-1696. Discourse of the communion in one kind. aut; Payne, William, 1650-1696. Discourse of the sacrifice of the Mass. aut	1688 (1688)	Wing P911A; ESTC R220353	239,325	320

probably to be a sacrificing priest but that he was to offer the sacrifice of the Mass I leave those who bring this place for it to prove for without doubt this was fulfilled long before Christ in Samuel who succeeded Eli and in Zadoc who came in the room of Abiathar who was of the Family of Eli and who was thrust out by Solomon from being priest unto the Lord that he might fulfil the word of the Lord which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shilo 1 Kings 2.27 as the Scripture observes and to make this figurative or prophetical of the Christian priesthoods succeeding the Aaronical is great strength of fancy but a very weak argument however for the sacrifice of the Mass unless that were the work of the Christian priesthood which is hard to be made out The Second is that out of the 72 Psalm at the 16. v. There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the Mountains This handful of Corn is by such Rabbinical men as Galatinus made into a cake or Placenta and that must needs be the wafer cake which being upon the top of the Mountains must be heaved and elevated over the head of the priests This is such an Argument for the sacrifice of the Mass as were sufficient to convert the Vicar of Putney who by the help of Galatinus can prove Transubstantiation out of the Rabbies and had the good fortune to be brought into the true Church not by Father P. or Father G. but by Rabbi Solomon and those two other ancient Rabbies of his Midras Coheleth which writ such a Commentary upon Ecclesiastes that they are the very Commentary it self 'T is strange as he says † Preface in Conse susveterum that the Hebrew Writers should long before Christs time have such notions but 't is more strange that some people since Christs time should have no better Arguments for the great principles of their Religion but the wind as he goes on bloweth where it listeth and some men have such a Wind Mill in their Crowns that any thing will turn it Whatever Feasts of sweet Meats and dainties the Jews expected as foretold by this Psalm in the days of the Messiah and were willing to mean by this handful of Corn on the top of the Mountains they never dreamt of the sacrifice of the Mass The next is that of the Proverbs 9. chap. 2d verse Wisdom hath killed her beasts she hath mingled her wine she hath also furnished her table but I am sure she never made this Argument for the sacrifice of the Mass I will improve this place if they please for the proof of other things as of priests Celibacy because in the next words 't is said Wisdom hath sent out her maidens verse 4. of the Church of Romes being the house that was built by wisdom because 't is said in the first verse She hath hewn out her seven pillars which are as undoubtedly the seven Hills of Rome as this Allegorical Banquet is the sacrifice of the Mass Our Adversaries sure could not be very serious and in good earnest when they produced such places as these and therefore they must excuse us for not being so in answering them I shall mention but one more which if it be not as ridiculous yet is as impertinent as the other and that is out of Daniel chapter 8. verse 11. where it is said the dayly sacrifice was taken away by a great prince that is there prophetically described It is plain that by the dayly sacrifice there is meant that of the Jews and by the prince who should take it away Antiochus who did literally perform this by destroying the Jewist Worship and horribly prophaning the Temple if by him was allegorically and prophetically meant the Christian Antichrist if I may so speak spoken of by St. Paul 2 Thess 2. and by St. John Rev. 13. described as a beast having seven heads and ten horns as Bellarmine will have it † chap. 9. de Mis l. 1. then whether this mark belongs not to him that sets up the sacrifice of the Mass and destroys as far as he has power and takes away all the purer Worship of Christ and has a great many other characters upon him that look very suspitious will be a great question for which I dare say there are a great many more probabilities then that by the dayly sacrifice here is meant the sacrifice of the Mass I come now to the New Testament where if there be any proofs for the sacrifice of the Mass it is more likely to find them then in the Old yet they produce twice as many such as they are out of that than this and like some other people are more beholden to dark Types and obscure prophesies of the Old Testament to make out their principles then to the clear light of the Gospel and to any plain places in the New and yet if any such doctrine as this were to be received by Christians and if any such wonderful and essential part of Worship were appointed by Christ or taught and practised by the Apostles we should surely have it more plainly set down in the New Testament then they are able to show it The first place they urge from thence belongs no more to the sacrifice of the Mass then the first Commandment does in the Decalogue and they had as good have quoted our Saviours words to the Devil Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and so have proved from thence that God ought to be Worshipt by the sacrifice of the Mass as those to the Woman of Samaria which Bellarmine † de Miss l. 1. c. 11. brings to this purpose out of John 4.21 23. The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father for the hour cometh and now is when the true Worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth From whence he infers that they must Worship him by sacrifice and that this must be the sacrifice of the Mass and that this is to Worship him in spirit and truth If this be not all evidence and demonstration there is none in Euclid and if we may not here cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mass is found we are blind and obstinate but I see very little more for it here then from the other places I named but rather something against it for to Worship God in Spirit and Truth and that because he is a Spirit as our Saviour there adds verse 24. is not to Worship him by an external visible Typical sacrifice as the Mass is and as those of the Jews were but by a more pure and spiritual Worship of praise and thanksgiving and prayer such as that of Christians is to be as more suitable to the spiritual nature of God and these spiritual sacrifices of Christians are not to be tyed to one place as those more gross and carnal ones of the Jews

have Consecrated the Eucharist in such a Tempest in an unconsecrated place and at Sea where according to Cassander ‖ Lyturgic c. 34. Haec Missa sicca i. e. sine consecratione communicatione etiam navalis seu nautica dicitur eò quòd in loco fluctuante vacillante ut in mari flaminibus quibus in locis plenam missam celebrandam non putant In libello ordinis Missae secundum usum Romanae Ecclesiae they are not permitted to use Consecration nor to have the full Mass but onely what he calls the Missa sicca and the Missa Navalis and it is plain Baronius with whose Authority I am now urging de Meaux is of the mind that the faithful did carry the two Species in their Vessel for he says so expresly in so many words * In Navi portasse Navigantes Christi Corpus Sanguinem Baron Annal. an 404. n. 32. There is no getting off the plain and evident Authority of these two great men for receiving the Eucharist in both kinds Monsieur de Meaux though he heaves a little yet cannot but sink under it and it makes him confess That these passages may very well prove that the Bloud was not refused to the faithful to carry with them if they required it but can never prove that they could keep it any long time since that Nature it self opposes it So that if Nature be not against keeping the Wine Custom and Authority it seems are for it and I dare say that Nature will suffer the Wine to be kept as long as the Bread however they who are such friends to Miracles and have them so ready at every turn especially in the Sacrament have no reason methinks to be so afraid of Nature Monsieur de Meaux passes next to the Public Communion in the Church Of Public Communion in the Church And if he can prove that to have been in one kind he has gained his main point however unsuccessfully he has come off with the rest though we see all his other pretences are too weak to be defended and we have destroyed I think all his out-works yet if he can but maintain this great fort he saves the Capitol and preserves the Romish Cause He has used I confess all imaginable stratagems to do it and has endeavoured to make up his want of strength with subtlety and intrigue He will not pretend it was a constant custom to have the Public Communion in one kind but that it was free for Christians to receive either both Species or one only in the Church it self and in their solemn Assemblies and that they did this on some particular days and occasions as in the Latine Church on Good-Friday and almost all Lent in the Greek Now though we have made it out that the whole Catholic Church did generally in their Public Communions use both kinds yet if they left it free to Christians to receive one or both as they pleased or to receive sometimes both and sometimes one this if it can be proved will shew that they thought Communion in one might be lawful and sufficient and that it was not necessary to be in both Let us therefore see what evidence there is for any such thing for it looks very strangely that the Church in all its Lyturgies in all the accounts of celebrating the Communion should always use both kinds to all that partook of the Sacrament and yet leave it free to Christians to receive it in one if they pleased and that on some few days they should give the same Sacrament in a quite different manner then they used at all other times this if it be true must be very odd and unaccountable and unless there be very full and evident proof of it we may certainly conclude it to be false What cloud of witnesses then does de Meaux bring to justifie this what names of credit and authority does he produce for it Why not one not so much as a single testimony against the universal suffrage of the whole Church and of the most learned of our Adversaries who all agree in this truth That the Public Communion was in both kinds for above a thousand years Is there any one Writer in all the Ten nay Twelve Centuries who plainly contradicts it any one between the Apostles and Thomas Aquinas who says it was the Custom of the Catholic Church or any part of it to Communicate onely in one kind Nay can de Meaux shew any particular persons or any sort of Christians that ever were in the World before the thirteenth Age that were against both kinds and received onely in one except the Manichees a sort of vile and abominable Hereticks who are the onely Instances in Antiquity for Communion in one kind These men believing Christ not to have really shed his Blood but onely in phantasm and appearance would not take the Sacrament of his Bloud and by the same reason neither should they have taken that of his Body and thinking Wine not to be the Creature of God the Father of Christ but of the Devil or some evil Principle or bad Spirit and so calling it the Gall of the Dragon they had a general abhorrence from it and so would not receive it in the Sacrament Pope Leo heard that several of these were at Rome and that to cover their infidelity and skulk more securely Cum ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum Communione se temperant ut interdum tutiùs lateant ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt Sanguinem autem Redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant Quod ideo vestram volumus scire sanctitatem ut vobis hujusmodi homines his manisestentur indiciis quorum deprehema fuerit sacrilega simulatio notati proditi à sanctorum societate sacerdotali auctoritate pellantur Leo Sermo 4 de Quadrag they came to the public Assemblies and were present at the very Sacrament but yet they did so order themselves at the Communion that so they might the more safely hide themselves and be undiscovered They take with their unworthy mouth the Body of Christ but they refused to drink his Blood this he gave notice of to his Roman Congregation that so these men might be made manifest to them by these marks and tokens that their sacrilegious disimulation being apprehended they might be markt and discovered and so expelled or excommunicated from the society of the Faithful by the Priestly Authority Now how can all this which shews plainly that the Communion at Rome was in both kinds be turned to the advantage of Communion in one this requires the slight and the dexterity of Monsieur de Meaux and 't is one of the most artificial fetches that ever were It is the onely argument which he has to prove that the Public Communion was not in both kinds This remark upon the words of Pope Leo and upon the Decree of Gelasius which