Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	true_a	worship_v	worshipper_n	3,990	5	12.1152	5	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

that he would seem not to require that Honour which we ought to give him under a more publick appearance God we know is present in all his Creatures but yet we are not to Worship him as present in any of them unless where he makes a sensible Manifestation of himself and appears by his Shechinah or his Glory as to Moses in the burning Bush and to others in like manners and it would be very strange to make the Bread in the Eucharist a Shechinah of God which appears without any Alteration just as it was before it was made such and especially to make it such a continuing Shechinah as the Papists do that Christ is present in it not only in the action and solemn Celebration but extra usum as they speak and permanenter even after the whole Solemnity and Use is over that he should continue there as a praesens Numen as Boileau expresly calls it a de Eucharistiae Adorat p. 140. and be showed and carried about and honoured as such and dwell in the Species as long as they continue as truly as he dwelt in the Flesh before that was crucified this is strange and monstrous even to those who think Christ is present in the Sacrament but not so as the Papists believe nor so as to be worshipped I mean the Lutherans But to bring the matter to a closer issue the Papists themselves are forced to confess that if the Bread remain after Consecration and be still Bread and be not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ that they are then Idolaters So Fisher against Oecclampadius l. 1. c. 2. in express words So Coster in his Enchiridion de Euch. c. 8. In tali errore atque Idololatria qualis in orbe terrarum nunquam vel visus vel auditus fuit Tolerabilior est enim error eorum qui pro Deo colunt Statuam auream aut argenteam aut alterius materiae imaginem quomodo Gentiles Deos suos venerabantur vel panum rubrum in hastam elevatum quod narratur de Lappis vel viva animalia ut quondam Aegyptii quam eorum qui frustum panis Coster Ench. c. 8. S. 10. Longe potiori ratione excusandi essent infideles Idololatrae qui Statuas adoraverunt Ib. If the true Body of Christ be not present in the Sacrament then they are left in such an Error and Idolatry as was never seen or heard for that of the Heathens would be more tolerable who Worship a golden or silver Statue for God or any other Image or even a red Cloth as the Laplanders are said to do or living Animals as the Egyptians than of those who worship a piece of Bread. And again Those Infidel Idolaters would be more excusable who worshipt their Statues To whom I shall add Bellarmine a Sacramentarii omnes negant Sacramentum Adorandum Idololatriam appellant ejusmodi Adorationem neque id mirum videri debet cum ipsi non credant Christum reipsa esse praesentem panem Eucharistiae reipsa nihil esse nisi panem ex furno Bellarm. de Euch. l. 4. c. 29. who saies It does not seem strange that they call the Adoration of the Sacrament Idolatry who do not believe that Christ is there truly present but that the Bread is still true Bread. If then the Bread do still remain Bread in the Host and the Elements in the Eucharist are not substantially changed into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ then it is confest Idolatry and it is not strange according to Bellarmine that it should be so and then sure it will be true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bread-worship too if that be Bread which they Worship and be not the natural Body of Christ that which is there present that they adore and if that be only Bread then they adore Bread. And here I should enter that controversie which has given rise to most of their abominable Abuses and Errors about the Eucharist the making both a God of it and also a true Sacrifice of this God instead of a Sacrament which Christ intended it and that is their Doctrine of Transubstantiation but a great man has spared me this trouble by his late excellent Discourse against it to which I shall wholly refer this part of our present Controversie and shall take it for granted as any one must who reads that that unless in Boileau's Phrase a Homo opiniosus cui tenacitas Erroris sensum communem abstulit Boil p. 159. he be such a Bigot whose tenaciousness of his Error has quite bereaved him of common Sense which is an unlucky Character of his own Friends that Doctrine is false and therefore that the charge of Idolatry in this matter is by their own Confession true But there are some more cautious and wary men amongst them who out of very just and reasonable Fears and Suspicions that Transubstantion should not prove true and that they may happen to be mistaken in that have thought of another way to cover and excuse their Idolatry and that is not from the Truth but meerly from the Belief of Transubstantiation As long say they as we believe Transubstantiation to be true and do really think that the Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood and so Worship the Sacrament upon that account tho we should be mistaken in this our belief yet as long as we think that Christ is there present and design only to Worship him and not the Bread which we believe to be done away this were enough to free us from the charge of Idolatry To which because it is the greatest and the best Plea they have and they that make it have some misgivings I doubt not that Transustantiation will not hold I shall therefore give a full Answer to it in the following Particulars 1. All Idolatry does proceed from a mistaken belief and a false supposal of the mind which being gross and unreasonable will not at all excuse those who are guilty of it there were never any Idolaters but might plead the excuse of a mistake and that not much more culpable and notorious one would think than the mistake of those who think a bit of Bread or a Wafer is turn'd by a few words into a God. They all thought however blindly and foolishly that whatever it was they worshipt ought to be worshipt upon some account or other that it was a true and fit Object and that Adoration rightly belong'd to it Idolatry tho it be a great Sin and a great injury and affront to God yet arises not so much from the malice of the will as the blindness and darkness of the understanding there were hardly ever any such Idolaters as maliciously and designedly intended to affront the true God by worshipping false Gods or Creatures as if a Subject should pass by his Prince out of ill will and a purpose to affront and defie him and give the Reverence and

and erronious yet they are useless and insignificant for they do not prove but onely suppose the Churches practice and if the practice be not true as it is plain it is not then what signifie those principles which are wholly grounded upon a wrong supposal and are onely designed to make out that which never was Those principles are like framing an Hypothesis to give an account of the reason of some strange and extraordinary thing which thing upon enquiry proves false and mistaken and so they are but like the Virtuoso's solution of a Phoenominon which nothwithstanding all his Philosophic fancy and fine Hypothesis never was in Nature Monsieur de Meaux must better prove to us the Practice of the Church for Communion in one kind then he has yet done before he establishes such Principles by which such a Practise may be made out for whatever the Principles be as long as the Practice is false the Principles will not make it true And since I have so largely proved that Communion in both kinds was the Practice of the Primitive and the whole Catholick Church for above Twelve hundred years and have disproved all the instances of de Meaux to the contrary so that no manner of question can be made of the truth of this matter of fact unless where as de Meaux says Passion makes prevaricated persons undertake and believe any thing * P. 164. I have sufficiently answered that part of de Meaux's Book wherein the strength of the whole lies and that which is the ground and foundation of all the rest being destroyed the other falls of its self I might therefore spare my self the trouble of Examining the Principles which de Meaux layes down as the Reasons of the Churches practice for if the Practice of the Church be against him the reasons of that Practice will be so too and I may turn those upon him as I have done the other His third Principle which is the most considerable and which alone he says carries along with it the decision of this question † P. 194. namely That the Law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual Practice this is wholly for us who are assured that we have the constant and perpetual Practice of the Church for so many Ages for the Communion in both kinds and therefore though the Law of Christ which is so clear in it self that it needs nothing to explain it be the main thing upon which the decision of this matter depends yet the Tradition and Practice of the Church is a farther confirmation of the Law to us and we shall be willing to joyn with de Meaux in whatever he can say for Tradition provided it be so certain and general and authentic as we have proved it to be for Communion in both kinds and provided that it do not destroy a plain Law of Christ nor make void the Commandment of God which we can never believe that an universal Tradition of the Catholic Church ever will do What a vain and empty flourish some are used to make with a name of Tradition and the Church I have shewn in this question of the Communion in one kind in the managing of which I have as de Meaux speaks Attacked our enemies in their own Fortress ‖ P. 254. and taken this Goliah weapon out of their hands and though the disarming de Meaux of that in which his whole strength lies is entirely to overcome him yet since some of the reasons he lays down to justifie his pretended Tradition may without that considered meerly by themselves carry a seeming plausibleness if not real strength in them to defend the Communion in one kind from those apparent difficulties under which as he owns it labours and which he would willingly take off from it I shall in the last place consider all those principles and arguments from Reason which are laid down by him to this purpose His first principle is this That in the administration of the Sacraments we are obliged to do not all that which Jesus Christ hath done but onely that which is essential to them This we allow and this principle as he says Is without contest No Church nor no Christians did ever think themselves obliged to all those circumstances with which Christ celebrated the blessed Eucharist at its first Institution and as to Baptism Christ himself did not perform but onely command that Sacrament I cannot think that Monsieur Jurieux should propose this for a rule as de Meaux charges him * P. 349. To do universally all that Jesus Christ did in such sort that we should regard all circumstances he observed as being of absolute necessity What to do it onely at night and after supper and in an upper room and the like This could never enter into any mans head of common understanding much less into so learned a mans as Monsieur Jurieux They who are so zealous for unleavened Bread because Christ probably used it for there are disputes about it at his Paschal Supper though if he did it was onely by accident yet do not think fit to enquire what was the particular sort of Wine which he blessed and gave his Disciples nor think themselves obliged to celebrate only in that which yet they might do with as much reason and though the putting Water into the Wine which was very ancient and used very likely by the Jews and others in those hot Countrys is not remarked in the first Institution yet I know none that make any great scruple at it As to the posture of receiving which has been the most controverted yet the stiffest Contenders in that have not thought it necessary to keep exactly to the same in which Christ gave and the Apostles received at first which was discumbency if these circumstances indeed had been commanded as a great many of the like nature were very precisely to the Jews in their eating the Passover then they ought to have been observed in obedience to the Divine Law but the Command of Christ Do this does not in the least extend to these but onely to the Sacramental Action of blessing Bread and eating it blessing Wine and drinking it in remembrance of Christ For that was the thing which Christ did and which he commanded them to do and the very same thing may be done with quite other circumstances then those with which he did it with other words for we know not what were the words with which Christ blest the Bread or the Wine with other company more or less then twelve men in another posture then that of lying and in another place and time and the like he that does not plainly see those to be circumstances and cannot easily distinguish them from the thing it self which Christ did and commanded to be done must not know what it is to eat and to drink unless it be with his own family in such a room of his own house and at such an hour of the day 't