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 communion_n cup_n 8,923 5 10.0506 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
A44535 The honesty of the Protestant and dishonesty of the popish divinity in a letter to a lady revolted to the Church of Rome / by Anthony Horneck. Horneck, Anthony, 1641-1697. 1681 (1681) Wing H2844; ESTC R28116 32,752 156

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

of it be considered there is nothing in nature can be more absurd or irrational and the Church of ROME had need oblige men to deny both their reason and senses to beleive a transubstantiation Here indeed a Faith is neeessary strong enough to remove mountaines and though never any Miracles were wrought but were wrought on purpose to convince our senses yet here we must believe one which neither sence nor reason can discover When Christ gave the Sacrament to his Disciples saith the Apostle 1 Corinth 11. 24 He brake the bread and said take eat this is my body which is broken for you It is a wonderful thing that the word is in the first Sentence this is my Body should have a litteral sense and in the very next sentence pronounced with the same breath cannot admit of a Litteral sense for the word is in the second sentence must necessarily stand for shall be because Christs Body when he gave the Bread was not yet broken If it will not admit of a Litteral Sense in the very next sentence because of the absurdity that would follow that Christ was Crucified before he was Crucified why should we understand it in the first sentence litterally when the absurdity is far greater Nay that the word is should not be capable of being understood litterally in the second essential part of the Sacrament This cup is the New Testament that here I say it should import and can import nothing else but signifies or is a sign of the new Testament and yet must not be understood so in the first part of the Sacrament is a thing we cannot comprehend And when the Apostle speaking of the Lords Supper or Eucharist 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ and the Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Let the rigidest Papist that hath not quite banished his reason tell me how he will make sense of the word is here except he understand it figuratively most certainly it cannot be understood literally for the Cup is not that Communion but is a sign of it One would admire how men can be so obstinate in a thing as clear as the Sun and you might as well conclude that Christ is a Door made of boards and nailes because the Scripture sayth he is a Door and that he is a real Vine with green Leaves and Grapes about him because the Scripture saith he is a Vine But suppose the word is in these words This is my body must be understood literally how doth this make for transubstantiation Are the words is and is transubstantiated all one A thing may be said to be a thousand ways and yet without transubstantiation so that if by the word is you understand transubstantiation you your selves must go from the literal sense and assume a sense which is not expressed in that saying All the Jews are so well versed in the sense of Sacramental expressions that by the word is they understand nothing but signifies or represents and therefore it s a horrid shame that Christians meerly for fear of being laughed at for departing from an absurd opinion and losing the credit of a pretended infallibility should make themselves ignorant in that which the meanest Jew even before the Gospel understood without a Teacher for we may confidently beleive that no Jew before Christs time was so sottish to think when it 's said the flesh is the Passeover Exod. 12. 11. that the flesh or blood was really the Passeover but only a sign and representation of it or a token to them as Moses calls it ver 13. I will not here put you in mind of the strange absurdities that must follow from this Doctrine of Transubstantiation viz. that Christ when he did eat and drink in this Sacrament must have eaten his own flesh and that the Apostles must have eaten his body while he was at the Table with them and before it was Crucified c. I could tell you that this Doctrine is against the great Article of our Faith that Christ is ascended into Heaven and there sitteth at the Right Hand of GOD until the day of Judgment That it is against the Nature of a real Body to be in a thousand places at once And that from hence it must follow that the Body and Blood of Christ is capable of being devoured by Vermine capable of being poisoned and instead of giving life may be so order'd that it shall kill and murther witness Victor the third Pope of ROME and Henry the VIIth Emperour who were poisoned in the Sacrament not to mention a thousand more of such Monstrous consequences But since Madam you do insist so much upon that place of Scripture John 6. 53. Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you I le but breifly shew you how ill a Logician you are either to believe that this is spoke of the Sacrament or that these words infer a Corporal manducation of Christs real Body and blood if they be meant of the Eucharist it will necessarily follow that Christ oblig'd the Jews and his hearers to come to the Sacrament at the time he spake these words for he speakes of their present eating and drinking Except ye eat c. But this he could not possibly do for the Sacrament of his body and blood was not instituted till at least a whole twelve months after nor did any of his disciples at that time dream of any such thing as his dying and being crucified nor doth Christ speak the least word of it in the whole Chapter which he must necessarily have done if he had intended the Sacrment by it which is all together founded in his crucifixion For this Sermon of Christ concerning eating and drinking his flesh and blood was delivered just about the Feast of the Passeover ver 4. After which feast as it is said John 7. 1. 2. the Jews celebrated the feast of Tabernacles and after this they kept another feast of the Passeover the last which Christ was at which was no less than a twelve month after John 11. 55. John 12. ●1 So that the Sacrament of Christs Body and blood not being instituted before the last Passover as all the Evangelists agree it was not possible that either the believing Jews or the Apostles could understand it of the Sacrament and I suppose Christ intended to be understood because there was no such thing as yet instituted Besides it is impossible that it can be understood of the Sacramental eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of Christ for without this eating and drinking there is no Salvation to be had as it is said Joh. 6. 53 54. and if it were to be understood of the Eucharist we must exclude all Christians from Salvation that are not in a capacity nor in a possibility of receiving it which I am sure your own Church will not