Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	christian_a	church_n	union_n	2,115	5	10.0071	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96332	A demonstration that the Church of Rome, and her councils have erred by shewing, that the councils of Constance, Basil, and Trent, have, in all their decrees touching communion in one kind, contradicted the received doctrine of the Church of Christ. With an appendix, in answer to the XXI. chapter of the author of A papist misrepresented, and represented.	Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.	1688 (1688)	Wing W1721A; ESTC R226161	116,790	130

may learn how excellently these Councils have consulted for the Advantage and the Salvation of Christian People The Fathers of the Council of Constance pretend to have made their Decrees in reference to this Matter (f) Sess 13. Saluti fidelium providere satagentes Endeavouring to provide for the Salvation of the Faithful The Council of Basil preface their Decree against Communion in both Kinds with a Pretence that they had honestly consulted (g) Sess 30. Quid circa perceptionem S. Eucharistiae tenendum sit agendum pro utilitate salute populi Christiani What was to be held or done about the receiving of the Eucharist for the Advantage and Salvation of Christian People The Council of Trent insinuates that she hath established this Custom because it was only such a Change in Dispensation of this Sacrament as the Church (h) Sess 21. c. 2. Utilitati suscipientium magis expedire judicaret Judged most expedient for the Benefit of the Receivers It therefore seems our Lord and his Apostles and the whole primitive Church for a Thousand Years saith their (i) Consult Art. 22. p. 981. Cassander for a Thousand and two hundred Years saith (k) Rerum liturg l. 2. c. 18. p. 862. Cardinal Bona were wickedly unmindful of the Advantage and Salvation of Christian People for our Lord instituted and in compliance with his Institution his Apostles and the whole Christian Church for the forementioned Centuries did minister the Sacrament in both Kinds till those good Souls filled with true Zeal for the Salvation of all christian People Et spiritu pietatis edocti And taught by the Spirit of true Piety forbad them to receive the Cup of Life the Apostles and all the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church were either so ignorant or heedless as that they never thought of making any Laws against Christ's Institution till the Councils of Basil Constance and Trent assisted with the Spirit of Wisdom Understanding and Counsel found it expedient so to do and for the Benefit and Salvation of the Laity to decree peremptorily that they hereafter never should receive the Cup of Blessing and Salvation That they should never drink of the Blood of the New Covenant the Blood of their Redemption the Blood shed for the Remission of their Sins They were so ignorant or so regardless of the Reverence due to the Holy Eucharist That neither the Perils which might happen to it from the long Beards of the Communicants or by growing acid or by being shed could make them think it fit to alter the Institution of our Lord or the Practice of the Church They thought so little of the Scarcity of Wine in some Countries and of the Aversation that some others had unto the tast or the smell of it that none of all these weighty Reasons though they were the same in the First Ages of the Church as in the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Centuries could move them out of Reverence to our Lord 's Institution to forbid the Practice of it till these (l) Catech. Trid. Part. 2. c. 4. Sect. 66. Gravissimae Rationes Most weighty Reasons being deliberately considered by the Roman Catholick Church She to prevent those dreadful Perils and these Scandals introduced this new Custom and confirmed it for a Law in Opposition both to our Saviour's Institution and to the Practice of the Church in which she had continued for a Thousand Years to the great Damage and the Hindrance of the Salvation of her People till these Councils so happily bestir'd themselves for their Advantage and Salvation And Thirdly Whereas these Councils in framing these Decrees style the Practice of Communicating under one Kind (m) Concil Const Sess 13. Romanae Universalis Ecclesiae consuetuod approbata The approved Custom of the Roman and Universal Church and of the (n) Consi Trid. Sess 21. Can. 2. Holy Catholick Church and the Declaration made concerning it at Basil is called Declaratio Catholicae veritatis (o) Sess 30. The Declaration of the Catholick Truth Not to observe at present how horribly Vncharitable these Councils are in excluding out of the Catholick Church and consequently from Salvation all who had not consented to the Violation of our Lord's Institution and to the Alteration of the Practice of the Church of Christ for a whole Thousand Years That is not only all who in the West refused to make so bold with our Lord's Institution but all the Greek and Eastern Churches I say not to insist on this hence it is evident That the present Practice and Judgment of what they call the Catholick and Universal Church can be no certain or sufficient Proof of Tradition Apostolical since in this Matter she hath both practised and decreed in Opposition to the plain Judgment and Tradition of the Church of Christ for Ten whole Centuries § 6 To these Considerations which concern the Definitions of these Councils touching Communion in one Kind I add these following Remarks touching these Councils and the Decrees which they confirmed in their Assemblies 1. Therefore touching the Councils of Constance and of Basil let it be considered that they constantly declare That they were Holy Synods assembled in the Holy Ghost and representing the Church Catholick The General Council of (p) Sess 8.14 Pisa which agreed with them in their Sentiments and met about the same Affairs ascribes unto it self the same great Titles 2. Note that there were present at the Council of Pisa saith (q) Council To. 7. p. 994. binius Three Patriarchs Twenty three Cardinals Thirty Arch-Bishops Two hundred and eighty Governors of Monasteries the Divines and Legats of the Princes of Europe There were present at that Council saith (r) Hist Consil General l. 2. c. 1. p. 35. Richerius an Hundred and eighty Arch-Bishops and Bishops Three hundred Governours of Monasteries an Hundred and twenty Masters in Theology Three hundred Doctors of the canon and the civil Law the Legats of Christian Princes and the Legats and Procurators of all the Universities of Europe At the Council of Constance saith (ſ) To. 7. p. 1134. Binius there were Four Patriarchs Twenty nine Cardinals Forty seven Arch-Bishops an Hundred and sixty Bishops and of Abbots Provosts and Priors and of all sorts of Clerks a very great Number To the Council of Basil saith the same (t) To. 8. p. 525. Binius came a very great Multitude of Prelates from the whole Latin World. Having premised these things I ask whether these Councils knew themselves full and entire Representatives of the Church Catholick and Councils assisted by the Holy Ghost or they did not If they did know themselves to be true General Councils representing the Church Catholick c. then they undoubtedly were so And then why were they represented by the Fifth Lateran Council as schismatical seditious Councils Concilium Constantiense ubi definit Concilium esse supra Papam reprobatum est in Concilio Florentino

Christ's discipline must also think themselves obliged to observe the same Tradition and Example in ministring the Cup and Censure in like manner those who do it not They who teach that not the Custom of Man but the Truth of God was to be followed could never have approved of the plea from Custom used by the Church of Rome for defalcation of the Cup. And lastly they who looked upon the Institution as a Command and all these sayings of St. Cyprian as Rules to be fulfilled and followed in the whole institution of our Lord must also think it a Command to minister the Cup unto the People and that those Rules of Cyprian did bind them so to do I therefore shall conclude this Chapter with that saying of Algerus * Quis audet excipere quod ipse non excepit aut quis audit prohibere quod ipse in Sacramento suo non prohibuit sed ipse faciens nos hoc ipsum facere praecepit cum dicit Hoc facite convenienter subaudiatur quod Ego quis aeque competenter subaudire audeat sed non de hoc unde ego item si mutandum est fermentato azymum mutetur etiam quolibet alio liquore vinum si enim vinum recipitur cur azymum refutetur cum sicut ex azymo sic ex vino Christus vetus pascha finierit novum inchoaverit utrumque nobis in Sacramento suo aeque celebrandum tradiderit Algerus de Sacram. Euch. lib. 2. c. 10. fol. 84. b. 85. a. In the case of unleavened Bread. Who dares except what Christ excepted not or forbid what he in his Sacraments did not forbid but doing it himself commanded us to do the same thing when he saith do this we are conveniently to understand this which I do but who dares also to understand this but do it not of that which I do it Moreover if Vnleavened Bread be to be changed for Leavened let the Wine also be changed for any other liquor for as our Lord Christ finished the Old Passover and began the New with Vnleavened Bread so did he also do it with Wine and delivered both to us to be equally celebrated in this Sacrament CHAP. III. The Contents In opposition to the Decree of the Trent Council asserting that they who receive in one kind only are not deprived of any Grace necessary to Salvation The Fathers declare 1. That it is necessary to partake of the Cup in order to our Vnion to Christ §. 1. For the Remission of Sins §. 2. For the obtainment of Eternal Life §. 3. An inference from this last Particular to shew the falshood of one Anathema pronounced by the Trent Council §. 4. IT is sure some prejudice against this Novel Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome some ground to scruple and suspect the lawfulness of the substraction of the Cup that it bears such a manifest repugnance to our Lord's institution and to that Repetition of it which St. Paul delivered as a thing carefully to be observed a Tradition to be retained by the Church of Corinth and by attendance to which all their miscarriages in reference to the Celebration of that Mystery were to be corrected That all the Fathers of the Church above a Thousand Years conceived themselves obliged by virtue of this Institution to Minister both species to the People That they on all occasions rose up with such an holy Zeal against those persons who in lesser matters presumed to vary from this Institution condemned all humane Institutions which receded from it and punish'd all Offenders in this kind But such hath been the Providence of God in reference to this Affair such the discourses of the Antients with respect unto this subject that there is scarcely any other Position advanced by these Councils in favour of this Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome which they do not directly overthrow or in plain words condemn almost as fully as any Protestant can do For Thirdly Sess 21. cap. 3. Sess 13. Can. 3. Whereas it is defined by the Trent Council that they are not deprived of any Grace necessary to Salvation who receive one kind only and that it cannot be doubted without prejudice to the Christian Faith but that Communion in one kind only is sufficient to Salvation The Fathers do in opposition to these Assertions plainly and frequently declare That it is necessary to Salvation for Christians in the general to drink Christi's Blood in the Sacrament This will be evident 1. From these Expressions in which the Fathers do declare it necessary not only to partake of the Bread but also of the Cup in order to that Vnion with Christ which sure is necessary to Salvation and this they generally gather from those words of Christ Joh. vi 56. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him The Doctrine of blessed Paul saith Cyril of Jerusalem is sufficient to aford us full satisfaction touching the Holy Mysteries of which being made partakers we become of the same body and blood with Christ for so he saith that our Lord Jesus taking Bread and giving Thanks he brake and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat this is my Body and taking the Cup and giving Thanks he said Take and drink for this is my Blood for in the type of Bread the Body and in the type of Wine the Blood is given to thee (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. Myst 4. p. 237. That partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ thou maist be of one Body and Blood with him for so we are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bearers of Christ his Body and Blood being received into our members (b) Haecaccepta hausta id efficiunt ut nos in Christo Christus in nobis sit De Trin. l. 8. p. 166. Those things being taken and drank saith Hilary produce this effect that Christ is in us and we in Christ and how natural this Vnity is he himself tēacheth saying He that eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him Cyril of Alexandria on these words saith That (c) In Joh 6.56 our Lord here shews the great profitableness of this work for as if one join Wax to Wax he will see one part within the other so he that receives the Flesh of our Saviour Christ and drinks his Blood is as he saith found one with him So mixed with and in him that he is found in Christ and Christ again in him Oecumenius upon these words The Cup of Blessing is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ saith thus You know what I say (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ed. Gr. p. 444. for his Blood knits us to Christ as Members to the Head by the participation of it This Meat and Drink saith Rabanus Maurus signifies the eternal society of the Head and Members He that drinketh saith he my Blood and eateth my Flesh

for you that is under this empty shew of Wine lieth my Blood united to my Body and so my Blood not shed and whether hoc est corpus thus interpreted doth not make Nonsence of the words let the considerate Reader judge § 2 Thirdly If there be such a necessary Concomitance in the Sacrament then must each part of the Sacrament exhibit whole and entire Christ with all his Benefits and consequently the depriving the Laity of one part or Species of the Sacrament must be the depriving them of whole Christ and all his benefits Now then in doing this either they are deprived of some spiritual Benefit or not if the first then must the Romanists be Sacrilegious because they do deprive the people of some spiritual Benefit from those sacred Mysteries they formerly received and that agreeably unto the Institution of our Lord and the common practice of the Church for a Thousand Years If the receiving of the Chalice worthily be of any advantage to Souls then he who does not receive it is a looser and he by whom they are deprived of this spiritual Good must be a Sacrilegious person If it be said that no spiritual Benefit can accrue to them by drinking of the Cup then must it be asserted that albeit a Man receive entire Christ worthily yet may he never be the better for it and what is this but to esteem the Blood of the Covenant thus received an unholy thing § 3 Fourthly had our Lord taught Concomitance his Institution of this Sacrament had been the Institution of a thing directly contrary to the Law of Moses viz. The eating of Flesh with the Blood and then it must have ministred offence to the Apostles and the first Jewish Converts who were all strict observers of that Law. Since then we do not find that the Apostles the Jewish Converts or even the Sects of Nazeranes and Ebionites did ever scruple the receiving of the Sacrament on this account we may presume our Saviour taught no such Concomitance § 4 To conclude should we admit of this imagination it would not free the Romanists from the Imputation of an half Sacrament though it would from delivering of half Christ For feeing a Sacrament is an outward visible sign it follows evidently he who hath but half of the outward visible signs hath but half of the Sacrament and consequently an half Sacrament He that receives only the Bread receives only the Sacrament of the Body and not the Sacrament of the Blood of Christ and so receives not an entire Sacrament § 5 That the Fathers of the Church till the Tenth Century knew and believed nothing of this Doctrine of Concomitance as it is evident from many of their Testimonies cited in this Discourse so may it fully be evinced from the received Customs of the Church of Christ And First this may be proved from that received Custom mentioned in all the Liturgies both of the Eastern and the Western Churches which was to bite or break a piece of the consecrated Bread and putting it into the Cup to say these words (b) Fiat commixtio consecratio corporis Sanguinis Domini nostri Ordo Rom. apud Cassandr p. 112 119. Let there be made a mixture and a consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ For though (c) Durant de rit Eccl. l. 2. c. 52. Durantus and (d) Bona rerum Liturg. l. 2. c. 16. p. 814. Bona do in conformity to the New Doctrine of Transubstantiation carefully remark that the Priest doth not thus speak as if those things were then united which before were separated and that they made no mixture of our Lord's Body and his Blood according to their real essences but only according to their Sacramental Species yet do the Liturgies refuse this Subterfuge and their Expositors sufficiently confute this uncouth Gloss for they do never speak of a Commixtion of the Sacramental Species but always of the Body and Blood of Christ They pray that this Commixtion and Consecration may avail to their (e) In vitam aeternam Ord. Rom. eternal Salvation which cannot be expected from the Sacramental Species but only from the real Body and the Blood. Albinus Flaccus doth inform us That this Commixtion is made (f) Ut calix Domini totam plenltudinem contineat Sacramenti Cap. de celebr Miss p. 93. that the Cup of the Lord may contain the whole fulness of the Sacrament as it were by the Copulation of the same Mystery This is not done in vain saith (g) De Eccles Offic. l. 3. c. 3. Amalarius for corporal Life consists of Flesh and Blood whilst these two continue in Man his Spirit or Life continues In that Office is shewn that the blood shed for our Souls and the flesh dead for our Body return to their proper Substance and that the New Man Christ is made lively by the quickening Spirit that he who died for us and rose again can die no more (h) Per particulam oblata immissae in calicem ostendit Christi corpus quod jam resurrexit a mortuis De inst Cleric c. ult Rabanus Maurus in like manner saith That the particle consecrated thus put into the Chalice shews that the Body of Christ is now risen from the Dead (i) Ad designandam corporis animae conjunctionem in resurrectione Christi cap. 17. Micrologus saith That this mixture is made to signifie the Conjunction of the Soul and Body of Christ in the Resurrection and that the particle put into the Chalice signifies the Body of our Lord risen from the dead Now they who say this mixture was made that the Cup might contain the fulness of the Sacrament did not believe that the Cup before contained the Sacrament compleatly as it must do if it contained the Body before And they who say That this is done to shew that the Body of Christ is now alive and risen from the dead and that this mixture therefore sheweth this because it joineth or uniteth Flesh and Blood did not believe they were before united by Concomitance And as our Lord by consecrating the Wine after he had distributed the Bread and bidding them all drink thereof because it was the Blood of the New Testament declared sufficiently that he did not conceive that his Disciples had received already that same Blood he Consecrated that they might receive it Even so these Christians who mixed the Consecrated particle of our Lord's Body with his Blood that so the Union of both in which our Saviour's Life consisted might be represented sufficiently declare they did not think his Flesh and Blood were by Concomitance before united Secondly This will be farther evident from that known Custom of the Church which was to mix the Bread and Wine that so when they Communicated Infants or infirm persons who could not swallow down the Bread alone they might truly say The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ profit thee to

all Crimes objected to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we partake of humane flesh it is not possible we should be guilty of so vile a thing Amongst us there is no eating of Man's flesh saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contr. Graec. p. 162. Tatian you are false witnesses who say this of us No Man saith Legat. p. 38. Athenagoras who is not mad can charge us with this thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for we may not eat humane flesh It is the Calumny of the Devil saith P. 32. Minutius You may be ashamed to object it to us Christians saith Apol. cap. 9. Tertullian whereas had they received this as an Article of Christian Faith that they did daily eat the Flesh of the Man Christ and thought that this Discourse not only taught but even obliged them so to do I know not with what Truth or what Sincerity they could without all limitation or exception not only have denied but even detested the doing so But that which puts it without dubt that Christians in the Primitive Ages had no apprehension that Christ by this Discourse had taught them that his proper flesh and Blood was to be eaten in the Sacrament is the memorable History of Sanctus and Blandina two Christian Martyrs written by Iraenene Bishop of Lions and preserved to us in In 1 Pet. ii 12. p. 149. g. a. Oecumenius thus That the Heathens having apprehended the Servants of Christians Catechized and using force with them that from them they might learn something secret the Servants having nothing to say that might be pleasing to their Tormentors in as much as they had heard from their Masters that the Holy Sacrament was the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they thinking that it had indeed been flesh and blood told this to the Inquisitors who apprehending 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the Christians had done that very thing gave notice of it to other Heathens and they endeavoured by torments to force the May tyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess it to whom Blandina readily and boldly answered saying How should they endure these things who so fast as not to enjoy lawful Flesh This I say is a clear indication that the Ancient Christians did not believe that in this Sacrament they did eat Christ's proper flesh and blood or that our Lord did here require them to do so for if they had thus thought how could Irenaeus have represented it as a plain mistake both in these Servants and these Heathens to think the Sacrament was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really Christ's flesh and blood and that the Christians by receiving of it did really eat Flesh and Blood How could he have introduced Blandina refuting this Imagination had it been the Sentiment of the then Church of Christ since by so doing she must have rejected one great Article of Christian Faith How lastly could Oecumenius have inserted these words into his Commentary without endeavouring to sweeten and explain and reconcile them to the Doctrine of the proper Manducation of Christ's Flesh and Blood. Again since that this Doctrine came into the world that is since it was broached first by Paschasius in the Ninth Century the Assertors of it give two Reasons why though we corporally eat that very Flesh which suffered on the Cross and drink that very Blood which was then shed corporeally yet is that Flesh and Blood concealed from our outward Senses under the shape of Bread and Wine The first is this C. 13. Al. 36. Vt ridiculum nullum fiat Paganis quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus that we might not be ridiculous to the Pagans by eating humane Flesh and drinking the Blood of a slain Man for this saith he would make our Religion execrable and cause them to condemn the Christians as the vilest of Men And again should the shape of Flesh appear it would be C. 37. Perfidis execratio execrable to the Heathens 'T is thus concealed saith Alger l. 2. c. 3. f. 15. b. Algerus Ne infidelibus pateat eorum Blasphemiis vilescat Least it should appear to Infidels and lie open to their Blasphemies and least they should judge us inhumane and cruel as being eaters and drinkers of humane Flesh and Blood. Secondly Least Christians perceiving things raw and bloody should be filled with horrour saith P. 133. b. Lanfrank least if the Faithful should perceive the Colour and the taste of Flesh and Blood humana pietas abhorreret humane piety should abhorr the Action saith L. 2. c. 3. Algerus Should it appear thus saith P. 224. Hugo Lingonenesis Rarius in terris esset qui hoc non abhorreret There would be scarce a Man on Earth that would not abhorr it It would saith P. 215. h. Petrus Cluniacensis Fidem laedere vel ad scandalum quorumlibet possit corda movere Be prejudicial to the Faith and scandalize the Minds of all Men. The profit of the receiving the Sacrament would be hindred saith Impediretur perceptionis ejus commoditas pro humani corporis comedendi horrore injecto L. 1. c. 7. l. 1. c. 16. algerus by the horror of eating humane flesh quoniam Christum vorari dentibus fas non est for it is not lawful to devour Christ with the Teeth Now let us in the fear of God consider whether that Sence of Scripture is to be received which makes that certainly to be believed by the eye of Faith which if it werre perceived by the Eye of Sense would render our Religion Ridiculous and execrable to the Pagan World which did we see our selves but ready to perform what actually we do we should utterly abhorr to do and should be horribly scandalized at our own Actions which did Men see us do they could not but esteem us cruel and inhumane Since that the Heathens have understood this is become an Article of Christian Faith do they not open their Mouths in Blasphemies against us as freely as if they saw us eat and drink Glorist's flesh and blood corporeally Did not Apud Dionys Carth. in Sent. 4. Dist 10. Art. 1. Averroes declare in the 12th Century He found no Sect more foolish than the Christians because they ate the very God they worshipped Doth not Apud Hotting Hist Eccl. Saec. 16. Part. 2. p. 160. Achmed Ben Edris say We use Christ worse than did the Jews because it is more Savage to eat his flesh and drink his blood than only to procure his Death Do not the Monsieur la Boulay Voyag part 1. c. 10. p. 21. Mahometans point at us saying There goes a God-eater And doth not then this their Doctrine render their Religion as plainly Execrable and Ridiculous to the Heathen world as if they saw them eat of humane flesh and drink of humane blood 3. The 53. v. affords two further Arguments in Refutation of the corporeal sence of these Expressions 1. That it follows plainly from it that the Thief upon the Cross and all the pious and