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	eucharist_n	2,932	5	10.6147	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66243	A plain defence of the Protestant religion, fitted to the meanest capacity being a full confutation of the net for the fishers of men, published by two gentlemen lately gone over to the Church of Rome. Wherein is evidently made appear, that their departure from the Protestant religion was without cause of reason. Written for publick good by L. E. a son of the Church of England, as by law established.	L. Ė.; Wake, William, 1657-1737, attributed name.	1687 (1687)	Wing W251A; ESTC R221936	36,083	64

before there was no chief over the rest Of Oral Tradition PA. 55. Oral and Apostolical Tradition without written Books either was the means of Planting and Conserving the Christian Religion or it was not Pro. It was not Pa. If not how did the Apostles propagate the Faith of Christ without written Books Pro. They did not but in propagating the Faith they always appealed to the Scriptures of the Old Testament they indeed taught the Christian Doctrine by word of Mouth before they committed it to Writing but that was no Tradition handed from Father to Son which is the Tradition you plead for Pa. 56. The number of the Canonical Books are mentioned in Scripture or they are not Pro. They are not Pa. If not how do you know the Canonical Books but by Oral Tradition Pro. By written Tradition the Testimony of all Ages in their Writings Pa. 57. The Christians of the Primitive Age on pain of Damnation held nothing for Faith but what they had received from Christ and his Apostles for such or they did not Pro. They did Pa. Why then do you deny Tradition Pro. We do not deny all Tradition but we affirm that Tradition is not as the Council of Trent affirms of equal Authority with the written Word but the Primitive Christians received their Faith from Christ and his Apostles by means of the Scriptures not by means of unwritten Tradition Pa. 58. Apostolical Tradition is the Rule by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrine Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote or else not Pro. If you can shew us any Apostolical Tradition and prove it to be such we will own it but for unwritten Tradition it is not the Rule Pa. If not how otherwise can we be assured Pro. What Doctrine Christ taught we can be assured by the Scriptures what Books the Apostles wrote we can be assured by Universal written Tradition the greatest Historical Evidence but not by unwritten Of the Eucharist PA. 59. That natural Body and Blood which Christ offered upon the Cross for the remission of Sins it was the same which Christ gave to his Apostles or it was not Pro. If you mean that material Body and Blood it was not Pa. Why do you then deny that Scripture of St. Luke 22. 19. This is my Body which shall be given for you and that Matt. 26. 20. This is the Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many for the Remission of Sins Pro. Why do you falsify the words of St. Luke and St. Matthew their Words are This is my Body which is given for you and This is my Blood which is shed for many not which shall be and we deny not the Words of the Evangelists but we deny the real Presence you assert because Christ spake here of his real figurative Sacramental Body not of his real natural Pa. 60. Christ either gave his Body and Blood to his Apostles at his last Supper or he did not Pro. He did Pa. Why then do you deny the real Presence Pro. We do not deny a real Presence but a natural Corporal Presence we do we affirm Christ to be present really and sacramentally but not naturally in the Body and Blood on which he hung upon the Cross according to that of St. Austin in Psal. 98. You shall not eat that Body which was Crucified nor drink the Blood which was shed upon the Cross. Pa. 61. When Christ said This is my Body did he speak Metaphorically or not Pro. He did Pa. If he did prove the Metaphor out of Scripture Pro. So we do both from the words of the Institution and the parallel places of Scripture 1. From the Words of the Institution This is my Body either those words are to be understood in a Metaphorical Sense or they are not if not then they are to be understood in a litteral if they are then they are a Metaphor If they are to be understood in a litteral Sense then they are either true in that Sense or they are not If they are not then Christ was a Lyar which is Blasphemy if they are true in a litteral Sense then the Bread is Christs Body or it is not if it is not then those words This is my Body are false if it be then an Impossibility is true for your own Authors confess that it is impossible that the Bread should be the Body of Christ litterally Gra. de Consec dist 2. c. 55 But an Impossibility cannot be true therefore the Bread is not Christs real Body If it be not Christs real Body they cannot be taken in a litteral Sense therefore they must be taken in a Metaphorical 2. From the Parallel places of Scripture when Christ says I am a Vine it is a Metaphor when he says I am a Door it is a Metaphor when he says I am a way it is a Metaphor when he says this is the Cup of the New Testament it is a Metaphor These are parallel Places of Scripture all Metaphors therefore This is my Body is a Metaphor too According to Theodoret. Dial. immutab he who called himself a Viae called the Sign his Blood. Pa. 62. The blessed Body of Christ not being contained in the Bread can be eaten or it cannot Pro. That Body which is not contained there viz. His Natural Body cannot be eaten but his Sacramental Body which is Spiritually there may therefore we do not maintain that we eat the Body which is not contained in the Bread but that which is therewith given to the Faithful we do eat Pa. Doth it not imply a great contradiction seeing you hold the Body is eaten in the Eucharist and not eaten in the Eucharist Pro. No. We do not say his Body is not eaten we affirm it is but not Carnally but Spiritually so that it is eaten by the Faithful not eaten by the unworthy receiver to maintain as you do that it is eaten and not eaten at the same time by the same person would be a contradiction but it is none to affirm that it is eaten by the worthy and not eaten by the unworthy receiver Of Liturgy in an unknown Tongue PA. 63. That which the Apostles practised is either lawful for us to practise or it is not Pro. Every thing they practised is not lawful for us to practise for some things they did which their Extraordinary Office warranted which is not Lawful for us to do but every thing they practised as private Christians is lawful for us to practise Pa. If it be why do you deny the Lawfulness of the Liturgy in an unknown Tongue seeing the Apostles had their publick Liturgies in Greek Syriack and Latin. Pro. We do not deny the Lawfulness of Liturgies in any Tongue but we deny the Lawfulness of using them among and imposing them upon a People who understand not the Language they are in And though I deny the Liturgies you speak of to have been extant in the times of the Apostles

yet if they were they never used a Greek Liturcy among the Latins but among the Greeks these several Liturgies being for the several Nations whose Language they were pen'd in Pa. 64. Seeing God hath commanded nothing concerning the Language of the publick Liturgy we ought either to follow the Commands of the Church or we ought not Pro. God hath commanded already that the publick Service should be in a known Tongue and not in an unknown so that you suppose what is not true the whole fourteenth Chapter of 1 Cor. forbids Prayer or Preaching in an unknown Tongue Pa. Why do you deny the Liturgy in an unknown Tongue seeing the Church commands it Pro. The Church doth not command it the Roman Church indeed doth but that is not the Church we deny it therefore because it crosses the ends of Prayer which is Edification and because God hath forbid it in the forecited place Pa. 65. The Man that prays and gives thanks in an unknown Tongue either doth well or he doth not Pro. He that gives thanks or prays in a Tongue unknown to himself doth not well and he that publickly prays and gives thanks in a Tongue unknown to his Auditors doth not well Pa. Why do you condemn that place of Scripture 1 Cor. 14. 17. Thou indeed givest thanks well but the other is not edified Pro. We do not condemn that place The Apostle there speaks of the matter of such a person's Thanksgiving which he says may be good but at the same time he condemns the manner the doing it in an unknown Tongue because others are not edified and he commands vers 26. that all things be done to edifying This then being a Breach of that Command is not lawful the Apostle says he may give thanks well for the matter but not in a right manner seeing the other is not edified For which reason we condemn the use of a Liturgy in an unknown Tongue Pa. 66. That which is praised in Scripture and proved to be pleasing unto God is either lawful and expedient for us to prastise or it is not Pro. That which is proved to be pleasing to God for us to do is lawful Pa. Why then do you deny the Liturgy in an unknown Tongue seeing the Apostle says 1 Cor. 14. 2. He that speaketh with Tongues speaketh not to men but God and vers 14. If I pray with Tongues my Spirit prayeth but my Understanding is unfruitful and vers 30. to speak with Tongues forbid not Pro. For God's sake Sir consider how strangely you argue this is the very reason why we Condemn publick Prayer in an unknown Tongue because it is not to Edification and because the Understanding is unfruitful and we ought to pray with Understanding 1 Cor. 14. 15. the Apostle here in vers 30. commends speaking with Tongues and so do we but it is one thing to speak with Tongues and another to speak in an unknown Tongue it is not unlawful to speak to or Pray with the People in Greek and Hebrew if they understand it or I or any other interpret it to them But to speak or pray in a Tongue they do not understand without interpreting what I say is expresly forbid by the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. 27 28. If any Man speak in an unknown Tongue let one interpret but if there be no Interpreter let him keep silence in the Church Thus Prayers in an unknown Tongue are so far from being recommended that they are expresly forbidden therefore we reject them Of Confession and Absolution PA. 67. The Apostles being made Spiritual Judges by our Lord had power from him to bind and loose from Sin or they had not Pro. They had no power to bind and loose from the Guilt of Sin but a power of binding and loosing they had Pa. Why then do you reject Absolution Pro. We do not reject it but the Absolution of the Church of Rome we do which pretends to more than Christ ever gave and we also deny that it is a Sacrament as Baptism and the Lord's Supper are Pa. 68. The Laity are obliged to disclose their Faults to their Judges or they are not Pro. If by their Judges you mean their Ministers they are not their Judges and they are not obliged to disclose all their faults to them Pa. If not how can they absolve them from what they know not Pro. Absolution is either general or particular the general is sufficient except in particular grievous Sins which trouble the Conscience for these we enjoyn a particular Absolution but for the general it is sufficient for the Ministers to know in general that they are Sinners and see that they profess to be Penitent Pa. 69. Christ in speaking these words whose Sins ye forgive c. John 20. 24. spoke true or false Pro. He spoke true Pa. Why then do you deny the power of Absolution Pro. We do not deny the power but we condemn your abuse of it Pa. 70. That which the Scripture commands either is necessary or it is not Pro. Whatever the Scripture commands as our Duty is necessary Pa. Why then do you deny that of St. James 5. 16. Confess your faults one to another Pro. We do not deny it but we say it doth not prove the necessity of Confession to a Priest it speaks of confessing one to another to our Brethren therefore by no means proves Confession of all our Sins to a Priest necessary to Salvation We condemn not the use of Confession but the making it necessary to Salvation and part of a Sacrament Of Purgatory PA. 71. There either is a Penal Prison or Place of temporal Punishment and Payment after this Life or there is not Pro. There is not Pa. Why then do you falsify that Scripture Zach. 9. 11. Thou also in the Blood of thy Covenant hast set forth thy Prisoners out of the Pit wherein there is no Water Pro. We do not falsify it but you do it is not Thou in the Blood of thy Covenant but as for thee in the Blood of thy Covenant or whose Covenant is by Blood I have sent forth thy Prisoners out of the Pit wherein there was no Water and it speaks not a word of Purgatory but of the Deliverance of the Israelites and the Redemption by the Messiah Pa. Why do you falsify that Text. Mal. 3. 3. He shall purify the Sons of Levi. Pro. We do not falsify it but we affirm it proves nothing of Purgatory but of the Conversion even of the Priests by the Gospel of Christ which we find was fulfilled Acts 6. 7. Or if it did speak of a Purgatory it speaks only of one for the Sons of Levi and therefore says nothing of such a third Place as you maintain Pa. But you falsify that Text 1 Cor. 3. 15. The work of every Man shall be manifest and yet he himself shall be saved yet so as by Fire Pro. We do not but we say it is evident that this whole Text is an allusion

were blameless that is they were so Holy that no Person could find fault with them He had spoken of their Holiness with reference to God before and he speaks now of their Reputation among Men but this is nothing to the keeping the Commandments perfectly with such a Perfection as we deny Of the Seven Sacraments PA. 110. Christ for the Sanctification of Mankind either instituted seven visible Signs of invisible Graces or he did not Pro. He did not Pa. If he did not answer me to these following Prepositions viz. Baptism is either a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is Pa. 111. Then we are agreed in that Point but Confirmation is either a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. If not Why hath it the Visible Sign viz. Oyl and Balm Pro. It hath no such Sign of Christs Institution which is requisite in a Sacrament but only of your own Invention Pa. See Act. 19. 5 6. And when Paul had imposed his Hands upon them the Holy Ghost came upon them And Acts 8. 14 15 16. St. Peter and St. John did impose their Hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost Pro. These Texts speak not a word of Oyl or Balm practised by the Apostles but of the laying on of Hands Your Confirmation therefore is no Sacrament seeing there is no Warrant of Christ for the outward Sign nor any Divine Promise to annex an invisible Grace to it Pa. 112. The Eucharist either is a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is Pa. Then the Controversy in this Point is ended But to go on 113. Penance either is a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. If not why hath it the visible Sign viz. The Penitent's Confession and the Priest's Absolution of an invisible Grace which is the remission of Sins Pro. There are no such Signs instituted by Christ for Confession to a Priest is no where commanded as I shew'd before and Absolution is only a part of Discipline and therefore can be no part of a Sacrament besides here is no outward and visible Sign which must be in a Sacrament for the words of Absolution are the form of the Sacrament according to the Council of Trent now the outward Sign is never the form of a Sacrament The matter of this pretended Sacrament being as I shewed no where commanded by Christ it can be no Sacrament Pa. 115. Extream Unction either is a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. Why then hath it the visible Sign the Priests Prayer ●nd the anointing with Oyl of an invisible Grace James 13 14 15 Pro. It hath no Sign of an invisible Grace St. James ●n that place speaks of it as a means to heal the Sick but ●hat is no invisible Grace therefore it is no Sacrament Whether that rite be still to be retained is another question and not to our purpose Pa. 116. Holy Order either is a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. Why then hath it the visible Sign the words of the Bishop and the things given to him that is ordained of an invisible Grace according to that 1 Tim. 4. 14. neglect not the grace that is in thee by Prophecy with imposition of hands of the Priesthood Pro. It hath no such visible Sign instituted by Christ which we challenge you to prove therefore 't is no Sacrament and neither is there any Grace given by it though Gifts are indeed bestowed So that you have falsifyed that Text of St. Paul which is not neglect not the Grace that is in thee but neglect not the Gift 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now there is a great difference between a Gift and a Grace Pa. 117. Matrimony either is a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. If not why hath it a visible Sign the mutual consent of both parties an invisible Grace and Supernatural Conjunction made by Almighty God Matt. 19. 6. Eph. 5. 31 32. Pro. The mutual consent is no visible Sign but an invisible Action neither is there any Supernatural Grace given by it for none of those Texts you cite mentions any such thing that of Eph. 5. you have fassified St. Paul says not it is a Sacrament but a Mystery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pa. 118. A visible Sign of an invisible Grace Divinely instituted by Christ either is the true Definition of a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. Then you deny the Definition which your selves attribute to a Sacrament Pro. You are Mistaken for that is only a part of the Definition we say that a Sacrament must be not only an outward and visible Sign of an inward and Spritual Grace Ordained by Christ but it must also be a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us of it now seeing your pretended Sacraments have neither outward Signs instituted by Christ nor invisible Graces annexed to them and conveyed by them we reject them and assert they are no Sacraments Pa. 119. Baptism and the Lords Supper is either more evidently said in Scripture than any of the other five to be Sacraments or they are not Pro. The word Sacrament is no where used in Scripture and therefore Baptism is no where called a Sacrament nor the Lords Supper But in Scripture we find the outward and visible Sign of Baptism ordained by Christ and the invisible Grace annexed to it and conveyed by it and so of the Lords Supper but we find no such thing of the other five now seeing nothing can be a Sacrament but what hath such a Sign with a Grace annexed and Baptism and the Lords Supper have them we say they are Sacraments and when you shew us the same in Scripture of the rest we will receive them for such It is therefore impertinent to ask us where Baptism is called a Sacrament for we don't contend about a word but the question is whether Confirmation Pennance Extream Unction Orders and Marriage be Ordinances of the same Nature with Baptism and the Eucharist this we deny and we are sure you cannot prove APPENDIX Pa. 120. YOur Church either hath her succession from the Waldenses c. or she hath not Pro. If you mean her Succession of Pastors She hath not Pa. If not then you must have no Succession unless it be from the Roman Church Pro. That part of our Church which in opposition to Rome is termed the Reformed had its Immediate Succession from the Church in communion with Rome Pa. 121. Luther and Calvin either had their Mission from the Roman Church or they had not Pro. They had Pa. If they had the Roman Church either had the Spirit of God when they gave them that Mission or she had not Pro. She had the Spirit of God as much as was necessary for that power of giving them their Mission Pa. If they had how could she fall into Errors and why did they depart from the Spirit of God Pro. They did not depart