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 bread_n consecration_n 4,106 5 10.7048 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A61802 A discourse concerning the necessity of reformation with respect to the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome : the first part. Stratford, Nicholas, 1633-1707. 1685 (1685) Wing S5930; ESTC R10160 55,727 60

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

nor Evangelist no nor Apostle and therefore not S. Peter himself was exempt from subjection to him (t) S. Chrysost ad Rom. c. 13. v. 1. And such as their Doctrine was such was their Practice tho their Emperors were Idolaters and implacable Enemies to the name of Christ yet they thought it not in the Popes Power to set them loose from subjection to them Nor did any Pope in those days pretend to such a Power And therefore they chose rather to dye when they had the greatest Provocations to resist and when the number of the Christians was so great that they were able with ease to have vanquish'd their Enemies (u) Cyprian ad Demetrianum 'T is a Doctrine that is contrary to the Confessions and Practice of the antient Bishops of Rome who took the Emperor for their Lord and Master and yielded themselves his most humble and obedient Servants and Subjects So did Pope Gregory the Great (w) Greg. M. Ep. 2. 62. and before Pope Gelasius I. (x) Gelasii Ep. 8. and after him Pope Agatho † Epist ad Constantinum Imp. Actione 4. Syn. 6. Vide etiam Richerium Hist Concil General l. 1. c. 10 S. ● 6. In short 't is a Doctrine that involves the highest Impiety against God the greatest Injustice toward men that subverts the Foundations of Government and is inconsistent with humane Society No man can recount the Usurpations and Rapines the Perjuries and Murders the Treasons and Rebellions the Confusions and Desolations it hath caus'd in the World 4. The next Instance shall be that which was likewise decreed by the Fourth Lateran Council * Cap. 1. viz. the monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation For the belief of which there is no better ground in Scripture than that the Church is transubstantiated or that the Rock in the Wilderness was substantially chang'd into Christ because the Church is call'd Christ's Body (y) Ephes 1. 23. and 't is said that the Rock which follow'd the Israelites was Christ (z) 1 Corinth 10. 4. But because 't is confess'd by many of their own learned Writers we may therefore take it for granted that this Doctrine cannot be prov'd by Scripture Yea that it is contrary to it is manifest because we find in Scripture that the Sacramental Elements after the words of Consecration were pass'd are call'd the Bread and the Cup as they were before (a) 1 Corinth 11. 26 27 28. And if we may believe our Saviour the Wine after it was consecrated and made the Blood of the New Testament was no other for substance than the Fruit of the Vine for after he had said This is my Blood of the New Testament he adds But I say unto you that I will not henceforth drink of the Fruit of the Vine c. (b) Matth. 26. 29. That the Fathers for seven hundred years after Christ believ'd the Elements after Consecration to remain the same for substance is beyond all contradiction prov'd by many Protestant Writers particularly in two short Discourses lately written upon this Subject (i) Letter to Lady T. Discourse against Transubstantiation And that the Popes themselves were of the same Belief in the fifth Century is evident For surely says Pope Gelasius the Sacraments we receive of the Body and Blood of Christ are a divine thing for which we are also by them made Partakers of a divine Nature and yet the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine does not cease to be (k) Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus Corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per tadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae tamen esse non definit substantia vel natura panis vini De duab nat in Christo Biblioth Patr. Tom. 4. Yea so far was Transubstantiation from being the Doctrine of the Primitive Church that we can meet with nothing like it till near the end of the eighth Century and tho as soon as it was started it was vigorously oppos'd by the most learned men of that time yet by the help of the deplorable Ignorance and Superstition of that and the two next succeeding Ages it was by slow degrees nurs'd up and brought to its full growth till at length it came to be establish'd for an Article of Faith in the Lateran Council under Pope Innocent III. in the year 1215. Nor is it only destitute of the Authority of Scripture and the ancient Church but plainly destructive of our whole Religion by subverting the main Foundation upon which it stands For if that be indeed the Flesh of a Man which we see and feel and taste to be Bread what assurance can we have that there ever was any such Man in the World as Jesus of Nazareth or that he ever wrought one Miracle in it The cerrainty of which depends upon the certainty of our Senses and therefore S. John appeals to them as the great unquestionable Proofs of the Truth of our Religion (a) 1 Epist John 1. 1 2 3. We have therefore the same Assurance that Transubstantiation is False as that the Gospel of Christ is True Nor is it more opposite to Sense than Reason the belief of it implying ten thousand Contradictions To which we may add the horrible Impieties it involves That the glorified Body of our Saviour should be contracted to the crum of a Wafer that he should be perfectly depriv'd of Sense and Reason that he should not be able to defend himself against the Assaults of the most contemptible Vermin that he should be swallow'd down whole and if the Stomach of the Communicant chance to be foul or over-charg'd with Wine that he should be vomited up again Good God! what man who is not quite forsaken of Religion Reason and Sense who is not himself transubstantiated into something below either Man or Beast can believe these things 5. That the Marriage of Priests is unlawful This Doctrine the Church of Rome borrow'd from the antient Hereticks especially from the Manichees who allow'd Marriage to their Hearers as the Church of Rome doth to Lay-men but forbad it to their Elect (a) Hic non dubito ves esse clamaturos invidiamque facturos castitatem perfectam vos vehementer commendare atqui laudare non tamen nuptias prohibere quandoquidem Auditores vestri quorum apud vos secundus est gradus ducere atque habere non prohibentur uxores Aug. de moribus Manichaeorum l. 2. c. 18. as that Church doth to her Priests The first Pope we read of that condemned the marriage of Priests was Siricius almost four hundred Years after Christ though he seems by his Epistles if they are indeed his rather to disswade Priests from it than peremptorily to forbid it (b) Epist 1 4. apud Binium Pope Calixtus II. absolutely forbad Priests Marriage and in case they were married commanded them to be separated (c) Presby●eris Diaconis Subdiaconis Monachis concubinas
Elements such an incredible Change were wrought yet no man can be sure that it is indeed wrought and by consequence that he is not guilty of foul Idolatry The reason is evident because upon the Principles of the Church of Rome the Consecration depends upon such a number of Uncertainties that no man can ever be certain that it is duly made For if he be not a true Priest that Consecrates if he do not pronounce the words of Consecration and pronounce them aright if he do not intend to consecrate but to abuse the People then no Consecration follows and consequently no substantial change is effected And if the Roman Doctrine be true is it possible for the People or for the Priest himself to know that he is a true Priest For no man can be so who is not baptiz'd by a Priest whose intention was right in baptizing him and ordained by a Bishop who intended to do what the Church does And who can tell whether the Priest that baptiz'd him or the Bishop that ordain'd him had a right Intention And can any man tell besides the Priest himself that consecrates whether he pronounces the words of Consecration or pronounces them as he ought when the words are utter'd with so low a voice that none can hear what he says And none certainly but himself and the Searcher of Hearts can tell whether the Priest when he pretends to consecrate may not intend to mock the People Now in these cases no Consecration follows but the Bread remains Bread still and a Wafer only is worship'd instead of Christ And if any say these cases are rare Let a Bishop of the Church of Rome answer (i) Bishop of Minori History of the Council of Trent l. 2. p. 241. Would to God says he they were so and that in this corrupt Age we had not cause to doubt they were many But suppose they are very few or but only one Let there be a knave Priest who faineth and hath not an intention to administer the true Baptism to a Child who after being a grown man is created Bishop of a great City and liveth many years in that charge so that he hath ordained a great part of the Priests it must be said that he being not baptiz'd is not ordain'd nor they ordained who are promoted by him So that in that great City there will be neither Eucharist nor Confession because they cannot be without the Sacrament of order nor order without a true Bishop neither can he receive order who is not baptized Behold millions of Nullities of Sacraments by the malice of one Minister in one Act only So many uncertainties does Consecration depend upon in the Church of Rome that it may seem highly probable that not one Sacrament in an hundred is duly consecrated and by consequence not one Person in an hundred that worships the Host but in so doing according to their own Doctrine he gives that worship to Bread that is due to God only It will not save them harmless nor so much as excuse them to say that they verily believe it not to be Bread but the very Son of God since if they do so their mistake must be grosly wilful there being no such exact likeness between Christ and a bit of Bread that any Man can mistake the one for the other who is not resolved so to do 6. To make a Picture of God is forbidden by God himself in the Holy Scripture Take ye therefore good heed to your selves saith God to the Jews for ye saw no manner of similitude in the day the Lord spake to you in Horeb out of the midst of the Fire lest ye corrupt your selves and make you a graven Image c. (a) D●ut 4. 15 16. 'T is repugnant to the very nature of God who is a Spirit and can no more be represented by a bodily shape than a Thought can It is an intolerable reproach to and infinitely derogates from his peerless perfections It was judged an absurd and a wicked thing by the antient Christians as Cassander confesses and quotes S. Augustin for the proof of it (b) Cassand Consu●t Art 2● We believe saith that Father speaking of Christ that he sits at the right Hand of God the Father and yet it is not to be thought that God the Father is circumscribed by a humane shape that those that think of him should conceive that he hath either a right-side or a left or for that the Father is said to sit is it to be supposed that it is done with bended Knees lest we fall into that Sacrilege for which the Apostle abhorrs those who changed the Glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of corruptible Man For such an Image of God it is unlawful for a Christian to place in the Temple much more detestable to place it in his Heart (c) Aug. de Fide Symbolo c. 7. Which Words plainly shew what the Judgment of Christians in this matter was four hundred Years after Christ It was condemned by the wiser sort of Heathens as a thing altogether unsuitable to the Divine Nature Yea that very Council which decreed that the Image of Christ and the Saints should be worshipped thought it not only unlawful but absurd and impossible to make an Image of that Being which is Spiritual Invisible and Incomprehensible (d) Concil Nicaen 2. Actione 4 Actione 7. in Epist Synodica ad Constantinum Iren. And Durandus one of their learned Schoolmen says It is a foolish thing to make Images to represent God (e) l. 3. dist 9. q. 2. And yet the practice of the Church of Rome not only now but many Years before the Reformation was to picture God the Father and the adorable Trinity and so generally hath this practice obtained that Bellarmine makes that an Argument to prove the lawfulness of it (f) Bell. de Imagin l. 2. c. 9. For now saith he such kind of Images are almost every where received and it is not credible That the Church would universally tolerate that which is unlawful He says they are almost every where received and that the Church did universally tolerate them but in that he says they are now received he plainly grants that they were antiently rejected 7. Another gross Corruption in the Worship of Rome which rendred the Reformation necessary was the Worship of Images This also the Church of England hath condemned as Idolatrous and proved it to be so by the Authority of Gods Holy Word and by the Testimonies of the antient Fathers (a) Homily against the peril of Idolatry I shall not mention the many Scriptures in which God prohibits and expresses his abhorrency of this sort of Worship and dreadfully threatens those who practise it for that would be to transcribe a great part of the Bible Whosoever can reconcile it with the second Commandment he need not doubt but he may make Perjury and Murther and Theft and false