« PreviousContinue »
3. To such as rightly, worthily, and with Faith
receive the Lord's Supper, the Bread which we break, is a parcaking of the Body of Chrift; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partak
ing of the Blood of Christ. :) 4. Transubstantiation (or the Change of the
Substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be prov'd by Holy Writ.
Transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain Words of Scripture, overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many Superstitions. 6. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eat
en in the Supper only after an Heavenly and
Spiritual Manner. 7. The Mean whereby the Body of Christ is re
ceived and eaten in the Supper, is Faith, 8. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not
by Christ's Ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, and worshipped.
The First Proposition. See the Three laft Paragraphs fave one, of the First Chapter of the First Part of Mr. Kettlewell on the Sacrament, which begin at Thirdly, and that is in Ratification of a League of Love and Friendship, &c.
The Second Proposition. See the First Chapter of the First Part of Mr. Kettlewell on the Sacrament, and Bishop Wake's Commentary on the Catechism, Sect. 46.
The Third Proposition. Of Worthiness and Unworthiness to receive, see the Second, Third and Fourth Chapters of the First Part of Mr. Kettlewell on the Sacrament, and the Fifty first Section of Bishop Wake's Commentary on the Sacrament, The Blesfing bestowed on Worthy Receivers, our Article
expresses in St. Paul's own Words, 1 Cor. 10. 16. See Article 35. Prop. 9. and the Forty eighth Section of Bishop Wake's Commentary on the Catechifm.
The Fourth Proposition. See the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Chapters of the Second Pare of the Confutation of Popery,
The Fifth Propofition. 1. That Transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain Words of Scripture, appears from St. Paul's Saying, we are all Partakers of ibat one Bread, 1 Cor. 10. 17. and as often as ye. eat this Bread, 1 Cor. 11. 26. so that 'tis Bread, and not Chrift's Flesh, even when we eat and partake thereof. Parity of Reason proves the same of the Winę. See also the Forty ninth Section of Bishop Wake's
Commentary on the Catechism. 2. That Transubftantiation overthrows the Nature of a Sacrament, is evident, because it supposes what we eat and drink to be, not the Sign, but the Thing signified. 3. It has also given Occafion to many Superstitions. That it has given Occasion to abominable Idolatry, is evident from the Adoration of the Host, which is grounded on it. But tho’Idolatry is worse than Superstition, yer 'tis different from it. Wherefore for the Proof of this Branch of the Proposition, let it be confidered, 1. That in cases of imminent Danger, or great Calamities, the Hoft is expos’d by the Papists to appease God's Anger, and prevent or remove his Judgments. 2. Confider the following Passage of a moft eminent Saint and Scholar of the Roman Communion. Si mus aut aliud animal
propter negligentem cuftodiam species facramenti comederit : ille per cujus negligentiam hoc accidit, debet quadraginta diebus penitere,ut dicitur, de Consecr. dist. 2. Qui bene. Debet autem bis diebus penitere modo di&to in Sect. Si Sanguis Chrifti. ait Thomas in Scriptis. Et debet mus capi, si
potest, comburi, & cinis juxta altare reponi. Sed Petrus de Palude dicit, quod mus.exenterari debet : & mus quidem comburi, & cinis in piscinam projici ; pars autem bostiæ, fi homo eam borret sumere, debet in tabernaculo reverenter poni, & tamdiu ibi dimitti; quousque naturaliter confumetur. Ipsa autem bostia nequaquam debet in piscinam projici ; ficut fecit quidam facerdos de musca reperta poft confecrationem in calice. Nec etiam debet comburi, fecut fecit alius facerdos de boftiis mucidis consecratis, do cinis ipfarum in piscinam projici : quia hoc est immane facrilegium. Et ideo quantumcunque modica particula inve wiatur; debet reponi cum reverentia ; quod in ea totus eft Christus. Et fiquidem bomo esset tanti fervoris, quod hujuf modi non horreret, fed fumeret, commendandus esset ; si Etamen effet jejunus. Sic beatus HugoCluniacus commendawil Goderanum sumendo partiunculas boftiæ, quas leprosus cum vilissimo sputo evomuerat,dicens craticulam Laurentii fuissé tolerabiliorem. Anton. Florent. de Defe&tibus Mise, Vol. 3. Tit. 13. Chap. 6. Sect. 3. The same Author · has a great deal more of the same Trash in and near the same Place.
But least it should be imagined by such as are Strangers to the Roman Corruptions, that these are only the Fanfies of private: Men, of how great Character soever in that Church, I will therefore subjoin some few Passages from the Missal it self.
Si Sacerdos evomat Eucharistiam, fi Species integræ appareant, reverenter. fumantur, nisi. nausea fiat: tunc enim Species consecratæ caute separentur, & in aliquo loco sacro reponantur, donec corrumpantur, cu poftea in facrarium projiciantur. Quod si Species non appareant, comburatur vomitus, & cineres in jacrarium mittantur.
Si bojtia confecrata, vel aliqua ejus particula dilabatur in terram, reverentur accipiatur, locus ubi cecidit, muna detur, & aliquantum abradatur, & pulvis seu abrasio bua jufmodi in Sacrarium immittatur. Si ceciderit extra corpo rale in mappam, seu, alio quovis moda in aliquod linteum, mappa vel linteum hujusmodi diligenter lavetur, & lotió ipsa in Sacrarium effundatur. De defe&. circa missam occurrentibus, fe&t. 10. num. 14, 15. I forbear to mention other Particulars of the fame Kind.
Only I will subjoin a Passage of Ġavantus's Com ment on Numb. 12. of this very Section. Saies he, Quid fi tadát sanguis Super Barbam? Bartholomæus ab Angelo, Dialog: 5. Sedit. 713. vult eam ablui de comburi : Sed videtur Jufficere, fi barba pluries lavetur, cui
parcendum eft magis quàm taperibus; de quibus supra.
Let the Reader now judge, whether Transubftantiation has given Occasion to many Superstitions, or no. Our Reformers were too well aca quainted with them ; tho blessed be God, we have not Instances so ready at Hand.
The Sixth and Seventh Propositions. Of the FalThood of Transubstantiation fee the Fourth and Fifth Propositions. Of Consubstantiation see the Twenty eighth Question of Turretin's Locus Decimus nonusa Whence the Truth of these Two Proposicions necessarily follows. See Bishop Wake's Com.. mentary on tbe Catechism, Se&. 49.
The Eighth Proposition. See the Eighth Proposition of the Twenty fifth Article.
The TWENTY NINTH ARTICLE.
Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in
the Use of the Lord's Supper. HE wicked, and such as be void of a lively Faith,
although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as St. Augustine Saitb) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ : yet in 'no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.
St. Auftin in his Twenty fixth Tract on St. John has these Words; Ac per boc qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus, proculdubio nec manducat (Spiritaliter) carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus Sanguinem (licet carnaliter do visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis & fanguinis Chrifti) sed magis tant & rei facramena tum ad judicium sibi manducat & bibit. This Article therefore is taken from St. Austin, and the Church confirms the Doctrin contained in his Words, for the Truth of which see Art. 25. Prop: 9, 10.
The THIRTIETH ARTICLE.
Of both Kinds.
HE cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay
people : for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be miniftred to all Christian men alike.