Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	bread_n	call_v	cup_n	7,649	5	9.8955	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A53665	Animadversions on a treatise intituled Fiat lux, or, A guide in differences of religion, between papist and Protestant, Presbyterian and independent by a Protestant.	Owen, John, 1616-1683.	1662 (1662)	Wing O713; ESTC R22534	169,648	656

partakers of one bread and of one cup. That is all of us either partake of both or each one at least either of the one or other A brave exposition But What shall we say to the other and in the other Texts so often occurring to the same purpose Are they also to be taken disjunctively This it seems is to interpret Scripture according to the sense of the Fathers to vent idle cavils which they were never so weak or perverse as once to dream of Had the Apostle but once used that expression this bread and this cup yet adjoyning that expression to the Institution of Christ commanding the administration of that bread and cup it were temerarious boldness so to disjoynt his words and render them incongruous to his purpose But repeating the same expression so often as he doth still with respect to the Institution of the Ordinance whereof he speaks to make us believe that in all those expressions he intended quite another thing then what he sayes is a wild attempt Miserable error What sorry shifts dost thou cast thy Patrons upon Who would love such a beast that so claws and tears her embracers The trivial instances of the use of the Particle and or et disjunctively as in that saying Mulier est domûs salus ruina which is evidently used not of the same individual person nor of the same actions but only expresses the different actings of several individuals of the same Species concern not this business whose argument is far from being founded alone on the signification of that particle though its use be constant enough to found an Inference not to be shaken by a few anomalous instances but from the necessary use of it in this place arising from the context of the Apostles Discourse Our Author further adds that sometimes the whole sacred Synaxis is called Breaking of bread without any mention of the chalice And what then I pray is not the body of Christ sometimes mentioned without speaking of the blood and the blood oftner without speaking of the body Is not the whole Supper called the Cup without mentioning of the Bread 1 Cor. 10.21 all by the same Synecdoche I shall not insist on his gross palpable mistakes from Luke 24.30 Nothing but domineering prejudices could ever put men upon such attempts for the justifying of their errors Upon the whole matter we may easily discern what small cause our Author hath from such feeble Premises to erect his Triumphant Conclusion of the Non-necessity of participation of the blessed Cup by the people in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper As little cause hath he to mention Antiquity and Tradition from the Apostles which lye universally against him in this matter and that there is now no such Custome in the Romish Church it is because they have taken up a practice contrary to the command and practice of Christ and his Apostles and contrary to the Custom in obedience thereunto of all the Churches in the whole world CHAP. XX. Saints SECT 27. FRom the Communion we come to Saints and these take up the longest Discourse of any one Subject in the Book Our Author found it not an easie task to set this practice of his Church in the Worship and invocating of Saints right and streight in the minds of sober men Several wayes he turns himself in his attempt all as far as I can perceive to very litle purpose In all of them it is evident that he is ashamed of their practice and principles in this matter which makes his undertaking as to Protestants so much the worse in that he invited them to feed upon that which he himself is unwilling to taste lest he should be poysoned At first he would perswade us that they had only a respectful memory and reverence for the Saints departed such as ingenuous persons will have for any worthy Personages that have formerly ennobled their families To this he adds the consideration of their example and the patterns they have set us in the ways of holiliness to perswade and prevail with us to imitate and follow them And with sundry Arguments doth he dispute for his honourable esteem and imitation of the Saints departed Herein then it may be lies the difference between them and Protestants that they contend that the true Saints are to be thus honoured and followed Protestants are of the mind that neither of them is to be done True for Luther Wickliff and especially Calvin have intemperately opened their mouths against all the Saints Calvin in special against the persons renowned in the Old and New Testament Noah Abraham Rebecca Jacob Rachel Moses c. with a great number of others Naughty man what hath he said of them It is certain in general that he hath said that they were all in their dayes sinners Is this to be endured that Calvin that holy-faced man should say of such holy persons that they had need to be redeemed and saved by Jesus Christ who can bear such intemperate Theiomachy Nay but he hath gone further and charged them every one with sins and miscarriages If he hath spoken any thing of their sins and failings but what God hath left upon record on set purpose in his Word that they might be examples of humane frailty and testimonies of his grace and mercy in Christ towards them for the encouragement of others that shall be overtaken in the like temptation as some of them were let him bear his own burden If he have said no more but what the Holy Ghost hath recorded for him and others to make use of I envy not their chear who triumph in falsly accusing of him But is this indeed the difference between Papists and Protestants about the Saints Is this the doctrine of the Papists concerning them Is their practice confined within the limits of these principles Are these the things which in their principles and practice are blamed by Protestants The truth is this is the very Doctrine the very Practice of Protestants They all joyntly bear a due respect to the memorial of all the Saints of God concerning whom they have assurance that they were so indeed They praise God for them admire his grace in them rejoyce in the fruits of their labours and sufferings for Christ and endeavour to be followers of them in all things wherein they were followers of Christ and hope to come to be made partakers with them of that glory and joy which they are entred into Is this the Doctrine of the Council of Trent or of the Harmony of Confessions Doth this represent the practice of Papists or Protestants It is very seldom you shall hear a Sermon of a Protestant wherein the example of one Saint or other is not in one thing or other insisted on and proposed to imitation If this venerable esteem and sedulous imitation of Saints with praysing God for his Graces in them his mercy towards them and an endeavour to obtain the crown they have received be the

them when it is used in the service of the Church as any other in the world whatever are such monstrous Presumptions as I wonder a rational man would make himself guilty of by giving countenance unto them For him whom he calls the Father of the Family of Christians if it be God he intends the only Father of the Family all men know he 〈◊〉 to any of the sons of men immediately nor by any Prophet by him inspired communicated his mind in Latine If it be the Pope of Rome whom he ascribeth that title unto I am sorry for the man not knowing how well he could make himself guilty of an higher Blasphemy CHAP. XIX Communion Sect. 26. IN the next Section entituled Table our Author seems to have lost more of the moderation that he pretends unto to have put a keener edg upon his spirit then in any of those fore-going and thence it is that he falls out into some more open revilings and flourishes of a kind of a Dispute than elsewhere In the entrance of his discourse speaking of the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper by Protestants wherein the Laity are also made partakers of the blessed Cup according to the Institution of our Saviour the practice of the Apostles and the Universal Primitive Church this civil Gentleman who complains of unhansome and unmannerly dealings of others in their writings compares it to a treatment at my Lord Maiors Feast adding scornfully enough For who would not have drink to their meat and what reason can be given that they should not or that a feast with Wine should not caeteris paribus be better then without If he suppose he shall be able to scoff the Institutions of Christ out of the world and to laugh men out of their Obedience unto Him I hope he will find himself mistaken which is all I shall at present say unto him only I would advise him to leave for the future such unseemly taunts lest he should provoke some angry men to return expressions of the like contempt and scorn upon the transubstantiated Host which he not only fancies but adores From hence he pretends to proceed unto disputing but being accustomed to a loose Rhetorical Sophistry he is not able to take one smooth step towards the true stating of the matter he is to speak unto though he sayes he will argue in his plain manner that is a manner plainly his loose in concluding sophistical The plain story is this Christ instituting his blessed Supper appointed Bread and Wine to be blessed and delivered unto them that he invites and admits unto it of the effect of the blessing of these Elements of Bread and Wine whether it be a transubstantiation of them into the Body and Bloud of Christ to be corporeally eaten or a consecration of them into such signes and symbols as in and by the use thereof we are made partakers of the body and bloud of Christ feeding really on him by Faith is not at all now under dispute Of the Bread and Cup so blessed according to the appointment of Christ the Priests with the Romanists only do partake the people of the Bread only This exclusion of the people from a participation of the Cup Protestants averre to be contrary to the institution of Christ practice of the Apostles nature of the Sacrament constant usage of them in the Primitive Church and so consequently highly injurious to the Sheep of Christ whom he hath bought with the price of his Bloud exhibited in that Cup unto them Instead of arguing plainly as he promised to do in justification of this practise of the Church of Rome he tells us of the Wine they give their people after they have received the Body which he knows to be in their own esteem a little common drink to wash their mouths that no crums of their Wafer should stick by the way What he adds of Protestants not believing that the consecrated Wine is transubstantiated into the Bloud of Christ which is not the matter by himself proposed to debate of the Priest's using both Bread and Wine in the Sacrifice though he communicates not both unto the people when the Priest's delivering of the Cup is no part of the Sacrifice but of the Communion besides he knows that he speaks to Protestants and so should not have pleaded his fictitious Sacrifice which as distinct from the Communion Paul speaks of 1 Cor. 11. neither do they acknowledge nor can he prove it very vain yet with these empty flourishes it is incredible how he triumphs over Protestants for charging the Romanists with excluding the People from the use of the Cup in the Sacrament when yet it is certain they do so nor can he deny it Yea but Protestants should not say so Seeing they believe not in Transubstantiation They believe every word that Christ or his Apostles have delivered concerning the nature and use of the Sacrament and all that the Primitive Church taught about it if this will not enable them to say the Romanists do that which all the world knows they do and which they will not deny but that they do unless they believe in Transubstantion also they are dealt withall on more severe terms then I think our Author is authorized to put upon them But it seems the advantage lies so much in this matter on the Roman-Catholicks side that the Protestants may be for ever silent about it and why so Why Catholicks do really partake of the animated and living body of their Redeemer this ought to be done to the end we may have life in us and yet Protestants do it not Who told you so Protestants partake of his Body and his Blood too which Papists do not and that really and truly Again Catholicks have it continually sacrificed before their eyes and the very death and effusion of their Lords bloud prefigured and set before them for faith to feed upon This Protestants have not I think the man is mistaken and that he intended to say the Catholicks have not and to place Protestants in the beginning of the sentence for it is certain that this is the very doctrine of the Protestants concerning this Sacrament They have in it the Sacrifice of Christ before their eyes and the death and effusion of his bloud figured for how that should be prefigured which is past I know not and set forth for faith to feed upon This they say this they teach and believe When I know not how Catholicks can have any thing figured unto them nothing being the sign of its self nor is it the feeding of Faith but of the Mouth that they are sollicitous about But this saith he they do not though he had not spoken of any doing before which is an old last that we have been now well used to and yet this saith he ought to be done For so our Lord commanded when he said to his Apostles Hoc facite This do ye which ye have seen me to do