« AnteriorContinuar »
tion is oftner Attributed in Holy Scripture to His Blood than to His Body. We are Saved by His Blood- Propitiation through His Blood
by the Sprinkling of His BLOOD---&c.
L. Ther is Mention made sometimes of the breaking of Bread, when ther is nothing faid of the Cup; and this we make use of as an Argument that the Cup is not Necessary. This is mainly Infifted upon in our Catechism, the Chap. you just now Named, Sect, Ixix, And Joh. vi. 51. is Quoted, I am the Living Bread
if any Man eat of this Bread And the Bread I will give is my Flesh.
G. We take not this to be spoke of the Sutranzent, but of Faith in Chrift, here Expressed by Eating, that is, Spiritually, as Himself explains it, ver. 63. It is the Spirit that Quickneth, the Flesh profiteth Nothing : The Words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life. But let it be taken of the saPorament, as you do, you will find the Blood Joined with the Flesh, in the next Words, ver. 53. Except ye Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and Drink His Blood -- as before Quoted : And again, ver. 54. Whofo Eateth My Flelib, and Drinketh My Blood L. And ver. 55. For My Fleso is Meat indeed, and M, Blood is Drink indeed. And ver. 56. He that Eateth My Flesh, and Drinketh My Blood Is not the Blood here Named with the Fleb? But if it were not, ther are a Hundred Places, as I now observed, where the Blood of Christ is Named as Cleansing, as Redeeming us, &c. without
any Mention of His Flesh or Body.. Are they therefore Excluded? This is such a fort of Reasoning, as if I invite you to Eat with me, you must have no Drink to your Dinner, because it was not Named. But if by Eating we commonly mean the Whole Meal, and Drinking is likewise Included, this Criticism upon the Lord's Supper, of calling it Eating, will Appear what it is, and not be thought Sufficient to Exclude the Cupin the Sacrament, And other Foundation you have none in Soripture. But if I once call it Eating the Lord's Supper, and several times call it both Eating and Drinking, will not the Latter ex. plain the Former? Or will Eating exclude Drinking, though Drinking be exprefly Named ? To Eat the Lord's Supper is the only Phrafe we use, I never heard any Body call it Drinking the Supper: And you may thence Prove, that we have not the Cup in our Sacrament, as well as that the Apostles had it not, because it is said they Eat Bread, or broke Bread. But I have Over-Laboured this Point, because you lay so much Stress upon it.
I will now shew you another Restriction your Church has made upon the Institutions of God. As she has taken the Cup from the Lairy, fo has she taken another of your Sacraments, that is Marriage, from the Clergy. I pass by the Politick Views and Advantages. the Court of Rome has in this, as giving the Pope the more Absolute Command and ma
king Him in Effect Heiri of all the great Posseffions of the Clergy, for the Canon Law obliges the Regular Bishops not to Dispose of their Estates by. [x] Will
, and the other Clergy not to be too Liberal of their Alms in their Sickness. And what they leave, the Pope disposes of as Grand Treasurer of the Charch. But waving all this, I will Insist now only upon what Relates to Conscience. You reckon it a Defilement in your Church for a Clergy-Max to Marry
. No great Complement to the Marryed State, which yet was Instituted of God in Paradise while Man was in his Innocence. And the Apostle says, [b] Marriage is Honourable in An, and tre Bed Vndefiled. And forbidding to Marry is Reckoned one of the [c] Doctrines of Devils. And directions are given how a Bishop should Govern his Wife and Children, (d) for if a Min know not how to Rule his own House, how fball he take Care of the Church of God? Yet your Interpreters would have this Wife and this House to be the Church ! St. Peter was a Married Man, and forsook' not his Wife after he was an Apostle, but [e] led her about with him as other Apostles did And that in the Primitive Church the Clergy did Marry is Plain from Sotrates his Eccles. Hist. lib. i. cap. Ji and I. V. C. 22. The Vow of Single Life was nor Imposed upon the Clergy till Pope Hildibrand. See
[a] Decretal. Gregor. lib. 3 de Teftam. tit. 26. cap. 7. 9. [b] Heb. xiji. 4. [c] i. Tim.is, 3. [<] Chap. iii. 5a [e] 1. Cori ix. 5.
Matth. Weftmon. ad An. 1074, Vincent. Spec. Hist. I. 24. c. 45. Antonin. l. 16.ç. 1. ff. 21, And it was without Precedent (lays Sigebert. Chron. ad An. 1074.) and, as many thought, out of an indiscreet Leal, contrary to the Opini, on of the Holy Fathers. But Hildebrand, was not obeyed in this in England for above a Hundred Years after, for our ancient Records fay, (a) All those Decrees availed nothing, for the Priests by the King's Confent still had their Wives as formerly. And Gregory the Great said (6) That it was lawful for such of the Clergy as could not contain, to Marry. And Pius the Second faid the same, (c) That they may be ale lowed to Marry. And your great Çanonist Panormittan says; (d) Ther is as great Reason 10 allow Priests to Marry now, as ever ther was ta Reffrain it. Let St. Bernard bear Witness in his Time what Reason ther was for Allow. ing it, he says, () There are many who cannot be bid for their Multitude, nor do seek to be Concealed through their impudence, who, being Restrained from the Nuptial Remedies, run inta all Filthiness. And another fays, (f) That fem in those Days were free from Fornication, And Matthew Päris tells that the Pope thought it almost a Miracle that a Candedate for
(1) Histor. Petroburg. An. 1127. ap. Spelm. T. 2. P. 36. (6) Responí. ad Interrog. Secund. Aug. Cantuar, (c) Pius 2. ia Gett. Concil. Bafil. See also Platin. in his Life. p. 329. (d) De Clericis conjug. can, cum'olim. (e) De Convers. ad Cleric. car: 29. (f) Gloff
. ad Graţian. Dift. 32. C. 5,
a Bishoprick was said to be a Pure Virgin. Whence the Gloff. ad Gratian in the Place just before Quoted, calls (a) Fornication but a Ves nial Sin. And it is Tollerated if not allowed (6) However it was Reckoned a lefs Sin in a Priest than Marriage. For this Reason, Deadly Sin is added to Fornication in our Litany. But why was Celibacy enjoined to the Priests? And why Marriage a greater Sin than Fornication? Because the First is a Breach of the Command of the Church, and the Latter of the Command of God! And the Difference of the Punishment of these in your Church, shews that she thinks so; for a Priest committing Fornication coines off for a Small Penance, whereas if he Marries he is Degraded. May we nor then say to the Church of Rome, as Christ to the Church of the Jews, in a Parallel Case, (c) Full well ye Reject the Commandment of God, that ye may keep your own Tradition.
But if Marriage be such a Defilement as is Un worthy a Priest, how came you to make a Sacrament of it?'I suppose you cannot mean 'less by a Sacrament than a Means of Grace, you have made many lefs things so, as is shewed before. And would you Deprive the Clergy of any Means of Grace? Or is it your Modelty to put them upon the Level with the Laity for Depriving them of the Cup in the Sacrament of Christ's own Institution.
(2) Decret. P. Alex. 1. 3. tit. 2. C. 3. Glofl.ad Grati42. dift. 92.C.S (b) Ibid. Dist. 34, Car. 7. Cofterus Encujrit. de Cælisac,, c. 17. (0) Mark. vii. 9.