Selected quad for the lemma: body_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A30976
|
A few plain reasons why a Protestant of the Church of England should not turn Roman Catholick by a real Catholick of the Church of England.
|
Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691.
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing B831; ESTC R18233
|
36,351
|
51
|
Because it is against the express Institution and Command of our Blessed Saviour who says Drink ye All of this and S. Mark particularly observes that they did All drink of it So that they might tho' with no just reason yet with more pretence have taken away the Bread For 't is never said Eat ye All of this nor express'd that they did all eat of it And the Decree of the Council of Constance the first Council that took away the Cup from the Laity in the year 1415. is most intolerable for they command upon pain of Excommunication that none should Communicate the Laity in both kinds in express contradiction to our Blessed Saviour's command Non obstante Institutione Christi They say indeed that the whole Body and blood of our Blessed Saviour is truly contain'd as well under the species of Bread as the species of Wine But admit this which is a great error that the whole Body and Blood be really and truly in the Bread so that the Laity in their Wafer receive both the Body and Blood then 1. Why did our Blessed Saviour institute it in both kinds if the Apostles receiv'd his body and blood in the Bread why did he give the blood a second time in the Cup 2. If the Laity receive the whole Sacrament the body and blood of our Blessed Saviour in the Wafer why needs the Priest who Consecrates receive any more 3. But admit that our Blessed Saviour's blood were wholly in the Wafer and the Body in the Cup as the Fathers of Constance say yet by their own receiv'd Principles the blood is not Consecrated in the Wafer nor his Body in the Cup their form of Consecrating the bread in the Wafer being different from the form of Consecrating the blood in the Cup and then admit that the blood were in the Wafer yet it is not Consecrated in the Wafer and therefore is not Sacramental blood or any part of the Sacrament as it is in the Wafer and therefore the Lay-men who receive only the Bread or Wafer do not receive the whole but only one part of the Sacrament and so contrary to our Blessed Saviour's command are depriv'd of the Blood the other part of the Sacrament 4. But however it is most certain and evident that they do not drink the blood in the wafer and therefore disobey our Blessed Saviour's command who expresly says Drink ye All of this By the Premisses I think it may and to impartial Judges will appear That the taking away the Cup from the Laity is a kind of Sacriledg in the Church of Rome as being against the Institution and express command of our Blessed Saviour Nor is this all for it is as much contrary to the practice 1. Of the Apostles and 2. Of the Christian Churches after them For the first S. Paul hath two signal things concerning this Subject For writing to the Corinthians about the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and he tells them that he had received of the Lord what he writ to them he says 1. That the Host to use their word was only Bread and not the very Body and Flesh of our Blessed Saviour For in two Chapters to the Corinthians he calls it Bread five times after Consecration and we may be sure he call'd it what he thought it was and what both his own and all their Senses manifestly saw and judg'd it to be It is true the Apostle in the same Chapter says That the eating of the Bread is the Communion of the Body of Christ. Not Communio propria substantialis as if they had really eaten the very substance of our Saviour's flesh but Communio typica Sacramentalis they eat his Body in eating the bread which was a Sacramental sign of his Body So a little before in the same Chapter he says that the Jews in Moses his time eat the same spiritual meat and drank the same spiritual drink for they drank of the spiritual Rock which was Christ. Not that they did or could then really and properly eat or drink his Flesh and Blood for it was above 1400 years before our Blessed Saviour had any flesh or blood but they eat his flesh and drank his blood in signis typis Sacramentalibus They eat our Blessed Saviour's Body in the Manna which was a type only and our Saviour himself the true Manna Sacramentally signify'd by it so he says the Rock was Christ that is the Sign having the Name of the thing signified as is most usual a type of Him. 2. It is evident by the places cited that the Corinthians by the Apostles directions receiv'd the Cup as well as the Bread. But besides our Blessed Saviour's Institution of the Sacrament in both kinds and the Apostles directions which are obligatory and commands that it should be so receiv'd there is one thing more which aggravates the error and injustice of the Church of Rome in taking away the Cup from the Laity which they do in contradiction to all other Christian Churches which ever since the Apostles time to this day have approv'd and practis'd the receiving the Sacrament in both kinds Nay in the Church of Rome itself for above 1200 years after our Saviour all both Lay and Clergy received in both kinds I shall not take any pains to prove this because it is a truth so evident that many Roman Catholicks and they both for Learning and Dignity eminent persons have confess'd it Cardinal Bona in a book by him lately publish'd has a signal passage to our Purpose his own words you have faithfully cited in the margin And for the meaning of the words in the Margin Cum offerebant de oblatis participabant if you consult Cassander he will tell you Quod omnes Laici qui aderant offerebant Diaconi omnis populus de calice communicabant For farther confirmation of this truth that anciently in the Roman Church the Laity had the Cup for above 1200 years I shall refer you 1. To the 27. Canon of the Lateran Council under Alexander the third in the year 1180. 2. Can. 28. Concilii Claromontani celebrati anno 1095. 3. Petrum de Marca de Primatu Lugdunensi pag. 441 442 c. 4. Cassandrum vid. in Consultatione de utraque specie Sacramenti pag. 182. 5. Lindanum vid. Panoptiae lib. 4. pag. 342. 6. Lastly Greg. de Valentia goes farther than some of his followers will and plainly confesses That the custom of Communicating in one kind only began to be general a little before the Council of Constance in his Tract de legitimo usu Eucharistiae cap. 8. 10. and that Council sate and made that bold Decree to take away the Cup An. 1414. And here it is very observable that altho' it was the express command of our Blessed Saviour and of the Apostle S. Paul from him that all should receive
Christian in the whole Church of Rome For if they be not baptiz'd then 't is certain they are no Christians nor Members of the Visible Church and that they are truly Baptiz'd is impossible for man certainly to know For if the Minister who Baptiz'd him did not intend it he is not Baptiz'd and what the Minister intended God only who knows the heart and our Intentions can certainly know It is true if I Baptize any Person I may certainly know my own Intentions that I did intend to baptize him and so I may be certain he is truly Baptiz'd but whether he who Baptiz'd me did intend it is impossible for me certainly to know So that although I may certainly know that another man is truly Baptiz'd yet no man in the Church of Rome can be certain that he is so All the assurance I can have that I am truly Baptiz'd and a Member of the Christian Church is from the Minister who Baptiz'd me But he being always Fallible and for ought I do or can know may be false such a testimony cannot assure me that I am truly Baptiz'd and indeed a Christian within the Church and then seeing Extra Ecclesiam non est salus it follows that for ought I do or can know I am in a miserable and damnable condition Now suppose a General Council call'd by the Pope or Emperor if they are not Christians I may be sure they are not Infallible Judges God as is and must be confess'd having never promised Infallible assistance to any without the Christian Church and that they are Christians I can never certainly know because 't is impossible for me to be assur'd that they have been truly Baptiz'd by any Minister really intending it Now admit they were Infallible Judges yet they cannot be so to me who can never be sure they are so For I can have no more Assurance of their Infallibility than I have of their Christianity of which 't is impossible for me to be assur'd seeing it is impossible for me certainly to know whether they be Baptiz'd 2. Upon the same Principle it is impossible for any certainly to know whether there be any one true Priest in the whole Papacy and consequently that there is any true Bishop for it is certain every true Bishop must be a Priest now if none can be certain that there is any true Bishop or Priest in the Roman Church then seeing it is certain that Bishops and Priests and true Orders are necessary to the Being of a True Church it evidently follows that they are so far from being certain that their Church is Infallible that they neither are nor can be certain that their Church is any True Church at all 3. Upon the same Principle Marriage being with them a Sacrament and the Intention of the Minister who marries any being necessary to make the Marriage good and valid all marryed People in the Church of Rome for ought they do or can know not knowing the Intention of the Priest who marryed them may live in perpetual fornication and their children if they have any illegitimate as begot by Fornication and not in lawful Marriage 4. And on the same Principle none in the Church of Rome can be certain that the Bread in the Eucharist is truly Consecrate because the Priests intention who Consecrates cannot possibly be known to them and if it be not truly Consecrate it as is confess'd remains Bread and then as is confess'd too they in Worshipping it are most impious Idolaters worse than they of Lapland who worship a piece of Red Cloth c. So that this is the miserable condition of all Communicants in the Church of Rome that for ought they do or can certainly know they are most impious Idolaters Now let any intelligent and pious Person judge whether our most wise and gracious God hath left his Church in such a miserable condition that it shou'd be in the power of wicked Ministers to make all his People abominable Idolaters 2. The Second thing I nam'd from which the great incertainty of the Roman Churches Religion tho' they vainly brag of Infallibility arises is their denying the certainty of our Senses For this being deny'd it will evidently follow that the Roman Catholicks neither have nor can have any certainty of their Religion That this may appear consider 1. That our Blessed Saviour ordain'd his Apostles to be Witness of his Resurrection and that he had a real Body and was not a Spirit 2. And that they might be sufficient Witnesses He appear'd several times to them that they might see and touch and handle him blames them for not believing those who had seen him after his Resurrection and S. Luke tells us that these were infallible proofs of his Resurrection c. and so thinks S. John too 3. The Roman Catholicks deny this certainty of our Senses and tell us that the Bread in the Eucharist after Consecration is not Bread but the very glorifyed Body of our Blessed Saviour tho' all our Senses assure us That 't is Bread still and tell us that we must not trust our Senses but believe it to be his Body Well ask them how they know it is his Body they say by Faith but how came they by that Faith They say as the Text saith by hearing But then 1. Sense they say is no certain Assurer of what we have by it 2. If all my five Senses may be deceiv'd in judging the Wafer to be Bread certainly their Hearing which is but one may be deceiv'd And then all their Faith and the certainty of it depending upon their Hearing none of the Senses according to their Principles being to be trusted in matters of Faith because they may deceive us it manifestly follows That they are so far from Infallibility that they neither have nor can have any so much as moral certainty of any thing they Believe But if not too much enough of this For indeed their pretences to Infallibility are so weak that they deserve no confutation I come now to the second thing which you desir'd me to do that is to give some Reasons to justifie our Separation from Rome that it may appear that we are not what they commonly miscal us Schismaticks And here it is to be consider'd 1. That Schism to pass by all other significations of the word is a Criminal or sinful violation or a breach of Ecclesiastical or Church-Union which Union is two fold 1. Internal consisting in an Union of Judgment and that mutual Love and Charity which Christians ought to have mutually one to another 2. External consisting in an outward profession of the same Faith Communion in the same Liturgies and Sacred Offices and Sacraments 2. Schism as now we speak of it does not consist in a violation or breach of that Internal Union of Judgment and Love tho' this may and is call'd Schism in Scripture and is a sin for such Internal