Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	blood_n	body_n	consecrate_v	3,119	5	9.9831	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A60577	A discourse against transubstantiation. By William Salmon professor of Physick, living at the Blew-balcony by the Ditch-side near Holbourn-Bridge, London	Salmon, William, 1644-1713.	1690 (1690)	Wing S424; ESTC R218616	3,747	9

A DISCOURSE AGAINST Transubstantiation By WILLIAM SALMON Professor of Physick living at the Blew-balcony by the Ditch-side near Holbourn-Bridge London LONDON Printed for Richard Baldwin 1690. A DISCOURSE AGAINST Transubstantiation c. Pro. MY first Argument is drawn from the veracity and faithfulness of God from thence affirming That the Bread and Wine after the words of Consecration are no God but an Idol Inorder to the proving of this you must grant me two Propositions Papist Let 's hear your Propositions Pro. I affirm that God is true just faithful keeps promise and cannot lye or contradict himself this is the first proposition Papist I grant it it is impiety to say the contrary Prot. The second Proposition is That the Bread and Wine are no God before the words of Consecration viz. That it is not that very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered without the Gates of Jerusalem Papist You say right For if it was that before the words of Consecration there would be no need for the Priest to consecrate it and make it that What I pray do you infer from thence Prot. I infer this that the Bread and Wine before Consecration are no God nor any thing like a God but another thing than God Papist I grant it it is another thing and not God Prot. Now you have destroyed your own Tenet for by the granting these two Propositions you have overturned the Omnipotency of your Idol or breaden God Papist Which way I pray you with all your Wit Prot. You have granted by the second Proposition that the Bread and Wine were no God before the words of Consecration but another thing than God And by the first Proposition That God is true just faithful keeps promise and cannot lye or contradict himself now the Lord himself has said Isa 42.8 I am the Lord that is my name I will not give my glory to another nor my praise to Graven Images You have granted the Bread and Wine to be another thing than God before the Words of Consecration and he has promised that he will not give his Glory to another or any thing besides himself which he must do in the highest and largest sense if he makes any created Being either himself or equal to himself Whereby against the contents of the first Proposition you charge God unjustly with falshood lying injustice breach of promise and the greatest contradiction which is the highest of Indignities you can put upon the great Creator and Fabricator of all things and the greatest impiety which can be acted on your part Papist Enough of your first Argument what is the second Prot. It arises from the Grammatical Construction of the Words hoc est corpus meum This is my body it is this That a Noun Substantive of the masculine or feminine Gender if not exprest but understood except only the word Thing is never denoted by a neuter Article or Adjective In order to the proving of this you must grant me these two Propositions Papist What are they in the Name of the Host Prot. My first Proposition is this That all Adjectives must agree with their Substantives in Number Case and Gender whether expressed or understood except in the word Thing Papist That is true for it is a common and plain Grammatical Rule Prot. My second Proposition is this That where-ever a Neuter Article or Adjective is found without it's Substantive exprest except it be put substantively it is always to be construed with a Neuter Substantive understood or the word Thing otherwise it will be pure Non-sense Papist This is true Grammar or else I understand nothing of Greek or Latine but what is this to Divinity Prot. You know the words which you use in Consecration are in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Latin hoc est corpus meum in English This is my Body Where if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Panis Bread be understood to be construed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc it is pure Nonsence by the second Proposition like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc panis a Masculine and a Neuter together and against a common and plain Grammar rule by the first Proposition which to maintain shews a deficiency in Scholarship and first Rudiments of Learning Papist This is a Quibble but proceed to your third Argument Prot. My third Argument is taken from the nature and definition of a Sacrament which we will fetch from your own Popish Authors not from Protestants And because we will not trouble the unlearned with Bellarmine and other abstruse Doctors of the Romish Church not intelligible with the Vulgar we will take our Text no higher than either the Doway Catechism Or that late Abstract of it Printed by Henry Hills the Kings Printer Papist Let us hear this your mighty Argument Prot. The first proposition is this That the sign of a thing and the thing it self are two different things Or that the sign of a thing and the thing signified are no more the same than the Type and the Antitype Or the Sign of the Kings-head in Holborn and the Kings Head it self which in the great solemnity of the Coronation at Westminster was adorned with the Royal Diadem Papist You are very much in the right or else I am in the wrong Prot. I grant both and therefore we will proceed Papist What is the second Proposition Prot. It is this That a Sacrament in general is a visible sign of an invisible Grace instituted by Christ for our Sanctification This is the definition of a Sacrament as it is taken word for word out of the Doway Catechism and other of your own approved Authors Papist It is so For you have taken it word for word out of Henry Hills his Abstract of the said Doway Catechism very lately Printed and given about the Streets of the City and so I shall not deny it for I verily believe you have it in your Pocket to prove it and to disprove me if I should gain say it But had it not been for that silly little Book I should have put you to the proof of it Prot. So you may yet if you please but then you should see that I would as easily prove this definition of a Sacrament out of Bellarmin and other Popish Authors as now I do it out of the Doway Catechism Pap. Hereticks can turn the best things to an ill use and like Spiders draw damnable Poysons out of Antidotes but let 's hear how you will lay your Propositions together Prot. By the second Proposition you grant me That a Sacrament is no more than a Visible sign and by the first Proposition you grant that the sign and the thing signified cannot be one and the same thing but two different things From whence I infer That if the Sacrament be but a sign of Christ's Body offered up and broken for us then it cannot be the thing viz. Christs body it self but