Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	body_n	communion_n	lord_n	6,336	4	4.2264	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A17586	The re-examination of two of the articles abridged: to wit, of the communicants gesture in the act of receaving, eating, and drinking: and The observation of festivall dayes	Calderwood, David, 1575-1650.; Cowper, William, 1568-1619. Passage of Master William Cowper pretended bishop of Gallway, his sermon delivered before the estates, anno 1606. at which time hee was minister at Perth.	1636 (1636)	STC 4363.5; ESTC S118315	29,491	64

the cup the second time because hee had made mention of it before Luke then by way of anticipation bringeth in Christ protesting in the 17. verse that the protestation of not drinking more may bee joined with the protestation of not eating more preceeding in the 16. verse therefore when hee cometh to the order of the institution verse 20. he omitteth the protestation and thanksgiving which are recorded by other Evangelists because hee made mention before of them verse 17. and 18. This anticipation or inversion of order in the Evangelist Luke was observed by Augustine and Euthymius Ba●adius and Suarez Iesuits Mewshius observeth other inversions in the same chapter Christ gave ●ot the cuppe to every one out of his hand which had been sufficient for dividing of it ●f no further had beene intended To drinke of one cuppe representeth fellowship in one commoun benefite but not that communication of mutuall love and amitie which is represented by reaching the same cup to other The guests at ci●ill banquets of old intertaining other courteously reached a cup of wine to other which cup they called philotesia metonimically because it was a symbole of love or friendship which name any man may justly impose upon the cup of the holy supper of the Lord sayeth Seuekius antiquitarum convivialium lib. 3. cap. 10. If there were no more but reaching the cup from one to another it were sufficient to exclude kneeling for what reason were it to kneel at the receaving of the bread and not at the receaving of the cup Were it not also absurd to see the communicants reaching the cup to other and the Minister to walk along to give every one the bread Analogie requireth that the bread should bee distributed among the communicants as well as the wine Christ said in the plurall number Take yee eat yee as well as drink yee divide yee and nor take thou eat thou therefore not only Piscator Tessanus and Hospinian but also Estius a popish writer upon the 1 Cor. 10.16 gather that they divide the bread as well as the cup. Beza sayeth that the manner of their sitting could not permit Christ to give every one the bread Mouline on the Lords supper 2 part pag. 97. maintaineth that Christ could not deliver the bread to every one of the disciples hands especially considering that the parties lying half along upon beds at the table tooke up more rowme then they do now adayes This distribution of the bread as well as of the cup is confirmed by the custome observed afterward Master Paybodie pag. 92.101 104. acknowledgeth that the Communicants at the first supper did communicate the bread and cup one with another as also in the Apostles times pag. 95. Bullinger in the place above cited reporteth that in the Monastries of S. Bennets order c cathedrall kirks they communicated upon Maunday-thursday panem azymum frangentes calicem invicem propinantes in tatum vetexis coenae vestigium preferentes that is breaking unleavened bread and reaching the cup to other This was a footstep of the order observed universally before upon the anniversarie day called the day of the Lords supper which is now called Maunday-thursday Frier Rainerius reporteth that the Waldenses participate mutually as was done at Christs supper Bullinger in his 6. decad sermon 9. that the supper of the Lord is then rightly celebrated when the communicants distribute the bread and the cup among themselves Gualter homil 118. in Marcum setting down the best form of celebration requireth that they break the bread to other and distribute the cup. Tindall in his tractat upon the Lords supper requireth that every man reach and break to his neighbour The latter confession of Helvetia which is approved by many reformed kirks and by our owne recommendeth this breaking of bread The Lords supper was denominate breaking of bread from that rite or ceremonie of the breaking of the bread Acts. 2. it is said the disciples continued in breaking of bread and Acts. 20 that the disciples conveened to break bread which is clearer then the former speach and importeth that the disciples or the faithfull themselves brake bread Estius a popish professour in Doway writing upon 1 Cor. 10.16 sayeth that in the primitive kirk they had the breaking of bread which was first done by the Presbyteri●● and deacons and after them in smaller pieces by the faithfull to whom it was given that they might distribute the same among themselves The Apostle 1 Cor. 10.16 sayeth The bread which we break is not the communion of the body of Christ that is the bread we break distribute and eat For the breaking alone by the Minister is not the communion of the body of Christ. The Apostle rehearsing the words of the institution sayeth not Take thou eat thou but in the plurall number take yee eat yee Yea Durandus Rational lib. 4. cap. 1. sayeth that the apostles celebrated as Christ did The breaking of the bread serveth for two uses first for the representation of Christs sufferings as also the pouring of the wine represented mystically the effusion of his blood Bullinger sayeth decad 5. serm 7. Wee break the bread of the Lord with our own hands for we our selves are to bee blamed that hee was bruised our sins wounded him wee crucified him and wee believe that not only hee suffered for others but specially for our selves Gualtor in his homil 295. on Matthew sayeth That every one when they break the bread acknowledgeth themselves to be the authours of his death and passion The other use is for distribution and reaching to other to testifie mutuall love and amitie If two should drink out of one cup and yet not teach to other it might well be thought there were no great kindnesse betweene them To divide the bread and to eat together in token of love and benevolence was a custome observed in the orientall countries and yet still in sundrie countries of the West Serranius in Iosuam cap. 9. Of this use the reader may finde more in Bullinger Decad 5. and Gualter 118. in Marcum Zuinglius in his exposition of the Christian faith reporteth that some sitting together casuallie and participating after this manner were reconcealed who before had beene at variance and that this fell foorth often If none must give the sacramentall bread but the Minister because hee acteth the person of Christ who gave his own bodie by the same reason they may not reach the cup to other as the Apostles did at the first supper where they represented the faithfull and communicated not as Pastours but as disciples as guests as other Christians as all our divines hold and among the rest Musculus cited by Doctour Lindesay pag. 59. This Doctour confesseth the cup may bee reached from one to another the Minister still acting CHRISTS person in his own place pag. 61.62 If none but the Minister must give the elements because hee representeth Christs person then might not the Deacon in

upon the analogic betweene the outward signes and rites and the things signified take eat drink mentally and spiritually by faith Our desires in the meane time are not prayers Prayer is more than desire it is a manifesting of our desires to God The soule may send foorth short ejaculations like darts in every ordinance and these ejaculations may bee incident to all our actions even civill let bee religious even when wee are eating and drinking our ordinarie meat drink But a set and continued prayer can not consist with other actions In suddaine ejaculations no other gesture is required then that wherein the motion of the Spirit of God shall finde them If mentall prayer might bee permitted it is secret before the Lord and the signes of it before men should bee concealed Thirdly What necessitie is it to pray kneeling in this act more then at other prayers at which yee doe kneel It is clear then yee kneel not in regard of that pretended prayer but because yee are before such a creature The like may bee said of thanksgiving Ejaculations of thanks may agree with the proper exercise of the Soule in the time of receaving eating and drinking as it may also with our ordinarie eating and drinking at our tables but not a set thanksgiving which should require the attention of all the powers of the soule and can not bee done without diverting the Soule from the exercise proper for the time Prayer is a craving our taking eating and drinking is not a craving but a receaving Thanksgiving is properly directed to God so is not our act of taking eating and drinking The Sacrament was called the Eucharist by the Ancients not for the act of taking eating and drinking but for the thansgiving preceeding which was but a part of the action The showing foorth of the LORDS death by the act of eating and drinking is but only a representation The showing foorth by word is only a declaration o● commemoration Representation or commemoration are to men and not GOD resemble preaching and not prayer or thanksgiving The celebration of the action it self is a profession of thankfulnesse before man for a great benefite but not thanksgiving directed to God God is honoured by preaching prayer singing swearring praising and not by adoring only To honour is more generall than to adore It is yet objected that in the act of receiving wee receave an inestimable benefite Ought not a subject to kneele when hee receaveth a benefite from his Prince to testifie his thankfulnesse I answere If wee were to receave a gift suppose but a morsell of bread out of Gods owne hand immediatly we ought no doubt to adore upon our knees but not if by the hand of the creature The person who receaveth the gift from the King is supposed to receave it immediatly from the king or suppose hee kneele receaving from his servant mediat civill worship is not a rule for religious adoration which should bee directed to God immediatly Now wee receave the Sacrament out of the hand of the Minister not out of Christs owne hand Yea the Apostles at the first supper adored not on their knees when Christ himselfe ministred the Sacrament howbeit upon occasion and at other times they adored Nor did they adore God the Father upon their knees for the benefite they were receaving The inward benefite Christs body and bloud is not the outward object is receaved by the soule not by the body by the godly only not by all that receave the Sacrament by faith imbracing Christ present by his Spirit in the soule Now the act of faith or believing is not an act of adoration nor is it expressed outwardly by kneeling Wee receave eat and drink Christs bodie and bloud as soone as wee are effectually called and begin to believe and as oft as we believe the promises of the Gospel when wee heare them read or exponed CHRIST bodie is farre absent from us at the receaving of the Sacrament We are united with Christ and made members of his bodie before wee come to the Sacrament and doe not receave his bodie at everie communion as if wee had lost it since the former and yet there is but one bodie received at all the times Wee are said then to take eat drinke Christs bodie and bloud at every celebration of the Lords supper because wee put foorth our faith in act at that time and renewing the act of faith wee take eat and drink by believing that same bodie and bloud which wee did before our faith being strengthened by the outward signes and seales to that end and so grow by faith in union with Christ. Further the manner or forme of receaving a gift should bee answereable to the manner of the offering the nature of the gift and the will of the giver If a King call his Nobles to a banquet it is his will that they sit at table Howsoever then otherwise and at other occasions wee behave our selves as supplicants wee are now according to our Lords will and pleasure to observe that externall forme of a feast which hee hath left to his kirk and to act thereat in our outward carriage age the persons of guests and friends as hee calleth us Iohn 15.15 Therefore howbeit the inviter bee a great person the manner of invitation is familiar to assure us of our preferment and fellowship with him howbeit there bee great inequalitie betweene us and him Againe if wee should kneele because wee are receaving a gift by this reason wee should kneele when wee receave any gift or benefite from GOD As for example When wee are eating and drinking our ordinarie meat and drink If yee will say the one is holy the other commoun then yee confesse yee kneele because of the holinesse of it and that is idolatrie If yee will say yee receave a greater gift then when yee receave your ordinarie food that is not more but that then is a greater motive Yet if it be called a gift then whensoever or whatsoever gift yee receave yee ought to kneele God deserveth thanks for the least of his benefits because bestowed upon us by so great a Lord and for his owne excellencie which is the reason upon Gods part that moveth us to adore him It is frivolous which is alleadged that what we crave upon our knees wee may receave upon our knees For wee crave our dayly food rayment and other necessars upon our knees and yet wee receave them not nor use them upon our knees It is as frivolous That what wee crave of GOD upon our knees in publict worship wee may receive upon our knees For wee may crave in the time of publick worship upon our knees things necessarie for this temporall life and so wee doe when in the Lords prayer wee pray Give us this day our dayly bread By this kinde of reasoning what I crave in private worship upon my knees I may receave upon my knees But it is not the diversitie of the

geniculis non aderara see pag. 52 and 49. The ancients in these times thought kneeling not sutable with such an action as the participation of the Lords supper because it was an action of joy and delight Yee see then howbeit they kneeled other wayes upon the station dayes because of their fasting and mourning yet at the end a little before their dissolving they stood at the comm●un table Now the reason why these dayes were called station dayes was not according to his observation so called because of the gesture of standing but only by way of allusion to militarie stations and watches at the gates of Princes palaces that as they stayed in their watch whether sitting or standing so the Christians stayed in the kirk mourning and praying in these times of persecution for peace and safetie to the kirk till the third houre after-noon at which time they communicate It was the custome of the kirk for a thousand year to stand upon the Lords day and yet the Lords day was not one of their station dayes which should have beene if the gesture of 〈◊〉 only should make a station day as Doctour Burges would have it It is grosse ignorance in the Doctour to affirm that the station dayes were these dayes wherein they stood in prayer and at all the solemne worship of God and to denie that they were set dayes of fasting Further is nothing more evident then that Tertullian in sundrie other passages speaketh of stations or station dayes as dayes of fasting Where as in the Re-examination it was given and not granted that they stood on these dayes in time of divine service or prayer now being induced by the observation of Albaspinaeus Wee denie that they stood in time of prayer upon these dayes and therefore the argument is the more forcible for us that notwithstanding of their humiliation and kneeling upon these dayes of mourning and fasting yet at the end when they were neare dissolving and ending their fast or station they stood at the table of the Lord and receaved the Sacrament standing Howbeit this was not the right gesture yet it is clear they kneeled not when they received the Sacrament Tertullian maketh no mention of receiving the Sacrament in their houses kneeling For a thousand years they stood even in time of prayer upon the Lords day and therefore it can not bee imagined that they kneeled when they received the Sacrament But say our opposits they used the same gesture in the receaving the Eucharist which they thought fittest for prayer I answere they thought nor standing the fittest gesture for prayer but kneeling and stood upon the Lords day to signifie their joy for Christs resurrection which was a conceat taken up by them not known to the apostle for they kneeled not for the like reason betwixt Easter and Pentecost and yet wee see in the 20. of the Acts the Apostle Paul kneeled The custome yet observed to this day in the orientall kirks to communicate standing notwithstanding that other custome hath ceased declareth that they intended never geniculation in the act of receiving If ever kneeling in the act of receiving had been in use among them it had not beene left off considering mans pronnesse to idolatrie and superstition It resteth then that kneeling is only found in the kirks which were subject to the pope Howbeit this idolatrous gesture prevailed under the reigne of the great Antichrist yet there wanteth not faithful witnesses to stand out against it as the Waldenses and the Picardi If at any time wee should not seeme to have communion with Antichrist we should most of all at this holy supper which setteth foorth our communion with Christ and his kirk Yee see then suppose that kneeling in the act of receiving were indifferent yet in respect of the scandall the danger and inconvenients fall upon it we ought to oppose it But we are now to prove that it is not indifferent but idolatrous and therefore a hainous sin whether we consider it as it is injoined by the act of the pretended assembly at Perth or as the action may bee considered simplie in it self Wee are directed by the act of Perth to kneel in reverence of the Sacrament which is idolatrie for we are directed to kneel in due regard of so divine a mysterie to wit as is the Sacrament or as is the receiving of the body and bloud of Christ to wit in the sacramentall manner Yee may also take up the intent of the act by the intent of the English prelats and their adherents for conformitie with them is intended Doctour Mortoun sayeth that their kirk thought it fit by outward reverence in the manner of receiving the Eucharist to testifie their due estimation of such holy rites Master Hutton sayeth they kneeled to put a difference between the ordinarie bread and wine and the sacramentall to which they gave the more reverence because it is more than ordinarie bread and wine Some of the formalists pretend that they kneel because of the prayer outered at the deliverie of the elements but that short bit of prayer or wish is ended before the minister offer the bread to the communicante and bidde him take it and yet the communicant is injoined to continue still upon his knees Nor is kneeling injoined to them by statute or their service book in regard of prayer but in regard of the Sacrament it self Master Paybodie pag. 334. doth freely confesse that their prayer is not the principall respect of their kneeling nor the principall respect upon which their kirk injoined it And pag. 299. suppose their bee no prayer used in time of receaving hee thinketh never the worse of the gesture of kneeling Doctour Mortoun and Master Hutton as yee have heard professe they kneel to testifie their due estimation of such holy rites and more reverence to the elements then ordinarie bread and wine Now to testifie more reverence to the elements by kneeling is to testifie by adoration which is idolatrie Neither are wee directed by the act of Perth to pray in the act of receiving but to use that kinde of gesture in the act of receaving which becometh meditation lifting up of the heart which also may bee done without prayer But prayer can not consist with the act of taking eating and drinking Wheresoever the publict intent of a kirk is to kneel for reverence of the Sacrament every communicant following her direction is an idolater interpretativè and so to bee construed both before God and man whatsoever bee his own private intent If any man receave the Sacrament upon his knees at Rome or any other popish kirk whatsoever bee his private intent hee must bee interpreted to kneel according to the intent of that kirk But setting aside the act of the assemblie at Perth which is only a null and pretended assemblie we shall consider the action it self wee will prove that it can not be done but for reverence of the Sacrament or sacramentall elements