Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A65264
|
A fuller answer to Elimas the sorcerer or to the most material part (of a feign'd memoriall) toward the discovery of the Popish Plot, with modest reflections upon a pretended declaration (of the late Dutchess) for charging her religion : prelates ... in a letter addressed to Mr. Thomas Jones by Richard Watson ... / published by Monsieur Maimburg ...
|
Watson, Richard, 1612-1685.
|
1683
(1683)
|
Wing W1090; ESTC R34094
|
54,514
|
31
|
he or it shall be so understood Else we know not where to find any words of Christ that import the real subsistence of both elements in one wine in bread or bread in wine eating his blood or drinking his flesh His Institution was otherwise and so was accordingly the practice of the Church for 1300 years together And Dr. Cressey confesseth Exom Pag. 602. This is not a matter of Doctrine but meer practise The Church sayes not it is unlawful to take it in both kindes Nor do we know where Christ ever sayd It is lawful or allowable to take it but in one Extraordinary Cases come not under consideration here and therefore he might have refrained to mention either the sick or antipathetick people As the Councel of Basil ought to have granted the poor Bohemians their dispensation without so hard I say not onely but most impious condition if in their Consciences they were otherwise perswaded as is believed they were I shall transcribe it from Archbishop Laud Conf. pag. 198. That it may be lawfull for them to receive the Sacrament as Christ commanded them but not unless they will acknowledge most opposite to Truth that they are not bound by Divine Law to receive it in both kindes At this rate our departed Dutchess might very well undertake for Christ's both promising and performing when her good Preist whom now she must say after has the like effrontery as others to make him say what they will Like the Heretick Severus in Anastasius Sinatia who maintained it lawfull and even necessary according to occasions and emergent heresies to alter and change the Doctrines of Christ and the Cardinal of Cusa affirmed it lawfull diversly to expound the Scriptures according to the times See Bishop Taylor Reall Pres. Sect. 3. Where his Lordship very pertinently observes That in the sixth Chapter of St. John's Gospell is earnestly pretended that our Saviour taught the mystery of Transubstantiation but with some different opinions And yet very many of the Romanists affirm That in this Chapter Christ does not speak of sacramental or oral manducation or of the Sacrament at all And Bellarmine going to excuse it sayes in effect That they did not do it very honestly for he affirms that they did it that they might confute the Hussites and the Lutherans about the Communion under both kinds And if it be so and not be so as it may serve a turn It is so for Transubstantiation and it is not so for half-Communion we have but little reason to rely upon their Judgment or Candor in any exposition of Scripture And here sayes Archbishop Laud their building with untempered mortar appears most manifestly For they have no shew to maintain this but the fiction of Thomas of Aquin That he which receives the Body of Christ receives also his Blood per concomitantiam by concomitancy because the Blood goes alwaies with the Body of which Term Thomas was the first Author I can find Conf. p. 198. Who was born says Bellarmine Anno 1224. and died Anno 1274. And as he was the first that invented it so the Councel of Constance was the first that decreed it after the year 1400. sayes my Lord of Derry in his Answer to Mounsieur de la Militiere But be the invention whose it will Bishop Taylor sayes it is a new whimsie of theirs which will not serve their turn for which he gives four reasons which are to be found in the forecited Section And the Bishop of Derry speakes slightly of it and good reason why because we need it not being secure without it Let what will become of Concomitance sayes he whilest we keep our selves to the Institution of Christ and the Universall practice of the Primitive Church p. 92. But I know his Lordships Christian charity was ever such as not to condemn so many millions of devout Souls as after the Councell of Constance if not after the more early invention of Thomas Aquinas neither had nor could have participated the H. Sacrament of the Altar otherwise then under one kind as at that time was and ever since has been the standing Decree or Practice of the Latine Church to all the ill effects and unhappy consequences of a perpetuall profanation and sacriledge in a half-Communion the fruition and benefit but of a meer Skeleton a bloodless carkass nor vivified nor vivifying body of Christ which carrieth horrour in the very conception and where beleeved utter affrightment from all future so imperfect so insignificant if not altogether a null-participation I am well assured neither of their Lordships were unacquainted with that special Treatise upon this subject written by the pious Cassander Dignissimus lectu A book most worthy the reading sayes Grotious to whose judgement our moderate Divines are prompt enough favourably to attend beside what Modrevius hath in his on the same Argument Vid. H. Gr. Annot. ad Consult Cassand Artic. 21. where he shews how easily this difference might be accorded were it not for the sin of Sacriledge so fiercely laid to the charge of the Roman Church in denying the Cup to the Laiety Which Luther Melanchthon and Bucer three leading men in the Reformation thought need not discourage well prepared Communicants from receivng the Sacrament in one kind which might be done they thought without sin What may be replyed to this sure enough that great Doctor and amphibious Calvinist Andr. Rivet on whom I affix that Epithet because of his living so long in France and Holland whence he contracted a perfect knowledge of all that Sect in either Nation had to urge in any point of Controversie against all others in Communion with the Church of Rome had in readiness what apologies could be made for those three too indulgent Patrons of the Reformation which he seperately and singly thus allegeth 1. That Luther when he came fresh from the Papacy confessed se fuisse Monachum Papistam insanissimum That he had been a Monk and a most mad Papist I think it was but by dilucid intervalls when he and his rigid followers became the soberest party of the Protestants and requested therefore that his writings might be read with commiseration no wonder then that he saw not alltogether at one prospect or intuition Certainly if he thought it Sacriledge in good earnest and properly so called he could not but know it at first sight to be a sin and the good Doctors apology in his behalf is but weak and accordingly the learned Grotius in his turn takes no notice of it What more for Luther Dr. Rivet addes Gr. Disc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 375. That he had brought in excuse his infirmity and as it were infancy and that when his mind was more illuminated he learned to be wise mends not the matter much it takes not off what Grotius affirmes at first he said 2. Let us therefore see what more he can say for Melanchthon To shew his better opinion in the Case he remits us to some
spirit no less disconsolate and diffident upon one account then her own upon another But in this unsteady state of doubts and fears and an unsettled faith being Christmas day her H. goes to the King's Chappell to participate of the Holy Sacrament which contrary to her hopes brought new troubles upon her soul and I wonder not a whitt at it want of the Reall presence or Corporeall in the Roman sense being that which did most afflict her whereof she might be well assured little supply or comfort was to be had from the King's Chappell and so her labour she thought was lost Her next essay was by address to a Catholique for counsell and if possible for cure which now at last was as her H. fancied in some sort effected by a good Priest he sent for me fit venir un bon Prestre with whom conferring about her interiour condition and souls salvation the more she parlied the more she felt her self intrinsecally carried off and fortified by grace of the holy Spirit toward the change of Religion A Gentleman of quick dispatch was this good Priest but I hear nothing yet of his infallibility her H. lately lookt for unless the other Catholick who e're he was that call'd him to her passed his word for it in private which security taken all could not but be oracular that came from his mouth Of the H. EUCHARIST in one or both kindes As I find in the very first place was his decision of receiving the H. Sacrament in one kind in which one element if were not administred both the flesh and bloud of our Saviour Christ would never have suffered the other to be substracted and his Church deprived of half himself who promised to abide with her whole and entire no doubt to the end of the world Nor could her H. think her self free to believe otherwise or that Christ's own words could be frustrate Before I can well apply my self to reflect on this Article of half-communion as our Writers often call it I think it not alltogether impertinent to declare my dissatisfaction at the sodain change I observe of a disconsolate dejected Spirit to an argumentative and active Soul in search so superficiall and so definitive before full discovery as if intent upon contradiction of her own practice so many yeares and not startled at so quick a transition from the unquestionable security of both elements in the H. Eucharist to the hazard of enjoying the intire end and effect of neither when reduced to one I am very prone to suspect something like a chasme or hiatus here a defect in transcript of the Declaration published in her Highnesses name which Mounsieur Maimburg best knowes wherewith it should be and in fidelity to the trust reposed in him ought if so to be made compleat Howsoever to let it pass from hand to hand as delivered to us and to wait upon her R. H. so immediately as she leads the way from her Closet to the publike Schooles I can not but much commend the early exercise of her skill and prudence in selecting that part of the question which best will bear discussion and arresting her upon assurance of his word who never did nor being Truth it self can ever break his promise For no notice at all is taken how many yeares the Church persisted in submission to the express words of our Saviours institution without substracting or altering ought in the celebration of this H. Sacrament Whence Bishop Iewell sayes the Question that standeth between us is moved thus Whether the Holy Communion at any time within the space of six hundred years after Christ were ever Ministred openly in the Church unto the People under one kind Repl. to Mr. Hard. Ans. pag. 96. Which extent of time he might have drawn out much further by the concession among others of Cassander a man professing himself a Roman Catholique though of wonderfull modesty moderation and learning sayes Bishop Mountagu whose words are these as by his Lordship cited It is manifest that in administration of the sacred Sacrament of the Eucharist the Universall Church of Christ untill this day and the Western or Roman Church for more then 1000 yeares after Christ especially in their solemn and ordinary dispensation of this Sacrament did exhibit and give unto all faithfull Christians not one only but both the kinds of Bread and Wine as it is most clear and evident out of innumerable testimonies of the old Writers both Greek and Latine which I can make good c. This he did in part and the rest we may safely take upon his honest word and credit and 300 yeares more then he voucheth upon Bishop Mountagu's who saith after him too This is every where the custome in all the World unto this day but in the Roman exhorbitant Church and was not quite abolished in that Church till about 1300 yeares after Christ and by much art colluding and fine forgery was retained from being cast out of that Church in the late Conventicle of Trent onely kept in for a faction but mightily oppos'd by learned honest and conscionable Catholiques Whereupon this resolute and worthy Prelate joynes issue with all Papists living That it never was otherwise used in all the Church of God for above 1000 yeares after Christ And that if all the Papists living prove the contrary he will subscribe to all Popery Ans. to the Gagger ch 36. which is fair enough So that I shall need call in no more help upon this account except I may that observation of Bishop Taylor and others That the Primitive Church did excommunicate them that did not receive the holy Sacrament in both kinds Pref. to Diss. Pag. 5. I return therefore to her Highnessess argument drawn from the promise and veracity or fidelity of Christ to make it good Which promise being not particular not restrained to his Sacramental presence upon which we differ much less limitted to the Patriarchate of Rome and that under the name or notion of his Universal Church exclusive of all other Christians not taken into her communion he left her free at her own hazard to commit sacriledge in this kind as in divers other and to withdraw her self from him before ever he withdrew from her and to afford his fuller presence by both representatives elsewhere among a greater number of Christians by computation then those within her pale or Communion in both kinds of this H. Sacrament united altho' in some other doctrines ceremonies and customes or national or Provincial civical or rural or in other dissonancy whatsoever more or less divided But her H. had already changed her measures with her Religion and was already principled a new by her good Priest and not permitted to look back upon us unto whom for ever she had bid adieu By this time no doubt she was taught to say That Christ assured us The Holy Sacrament though but a Wafer containeth his flesh and blood because the Church hath at length declared