Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
blood_n drink_n eat_v flesh_n 4,887 4 7.4765 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A30976 A few plain reasons why a Protestant of the Church of England should not turn Roman Catholick by a real Catholick of the Church of England. Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691. 1688 (1688) Wing B831; ESTC R18233 36,351 51

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Because it is against the express Institution and Command of our Blessed Saviour who says Drink ye All of this and S. Mark particularly observes that they did All drink of it So that they might tho' with no just reason yet with more pretence have taken away the Bread For 't is never said Eat ye All of this nor express'd that they did all eat of it And the Decree of the Council of Constance the first Council that took away the Cup from the Laity in the year 1415. is most intolerable for they command upon pain of Excommunication that none should Communicate the Laity in both kinds in express contradiction to our Blessed Saviour's command Non obstante Institutione Christi They say indeed that the whole Body and blood of our Blessed Saviour is truly contain'd as well under the species of Bread as the species of Wine But admit this which is a great error that the whole Body and Blood be really and truly in the Bread so that the Laity in their Wafer receive both the Body and Blood then 1. Why did our Blessed Saviour institute it in both kinds if the Apostles receiv'd his body and blood in the Bread why did he give the blood a second time in the Cup 2. If the Laity receive the whole Sacrament the body and blood of our Blessed Saviour in the Wafer why needs the Priest who Consecrates receive any more 3. But admit that our Blessed Saviour's blood were wholly in the Wafer and the Body in the Cup as the Fathers of Constance say yet by their own receiv'd Principles the blood is not Consecrated in the Wafer nor his Body in the Cup their form of Consecrating the bread in the Wafer being different from the form of Consecrating the blood in the Cup and then admit that the blood were in the Wafer yet it is not Consecrated in the Wafer and therefore is not Sacramental blood or any part of the Sacrament as it is in the Wafer and therefore the Lay-men who receive only the Bread or Wafer do not receive the whole but only one part of the Sacrament and so contrary to our Blessed Saviour's command are depriv'd of the Blood the other part of the Sacrament 4. But however it is most certain and evident that they do not drink the blood in the wafer and therefore disobey our Blessed Saviour's command who expresly says Drink ye All of this By the Premisses I think it may and to impartial Judges will appear That the taking away the Cup from the Laity is a kind of Sacriledg in the Church of Rome as being against the Institution and express command of our Blessed Saviour Nor is this all for it is as much contrary to the practice 1. Of the Apostles and 2. Of the Christian Churches after them For the first S. Paul hath two signal things concerning this Subject For writing to the Corinthians about the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and he tells them that he had received of the Lord what he writ to them he says 1. That the Host to use their word was only Bread and not the very Body and Flesh of our Blessed Saviour For in two Chapters to the Corinthians he calls it Bread five times after Consecration and we may be sure he call'd it what he thought it was and what both his own and all their Senses manifestly saw and judg'd it to be It is true the Apostle in the same Chapter says That the eating of the Bread is the Communion of the Body of Christ. Not Communio propria substantialis as if they had really eaten the very substance of our Saviour's flesh but Communio typica Sacramentalis they eat his Body in eating the bread which was a Sacramental sign of his Body So a little before in the same Chapter he says that the Jews in Moses his time eat the same spiritual meat and drank the same spiritual drink for they drank of the spiritual Rock which was Christ. Not that they did or could then really and properly eat or drink his Flesh and Blood for it was above 1400 years before our Blessed Saviour had any flesh or blood but they eat his flesh and drank his blood in signis typis Sacramentalibus They eat our Blessed Saviour's Body in the Manna which was a type only and our Saviour himself the true Manna Sacramentally signify'd by it so he says the Rock was Christ that is the Sign having the Name of the thing signified as is most usual a type of Him. 2. It is evident by the places cited that the Corinthians by the Apostles directions receiv'd the Cup as well as the Bread. But besides our Blessed Saviour's Institution of the Sacrament in both kinds and the Apostles directions which are obligatory and commands that it should be so receiv'd there is one thing more which aggravates the error and injustice of the Church of Rome in taking away the Cup from the Laity which they do in contradiction to all other Christian Churches which ever since the Apostles time to this day have approv'd and practis'd the receiving the Sacrament in both kinds Nay in the Church of Rome itself for above 1200 years after our Saviour all both Lay and Clergy received in both kinds I shall not take any pains to prove this because it is a truth so evident that many Roman Catholicks and they both for Learning and Dignity eminent persons have confess'd it Cardinal Bona in a book by him lately publish'd has a signal passage to our Purpose his own words you have faithfully cited in the margin And for the meaning of the words in the Margin Cum offerebant de oblatis participabant if you consult Cassander he will tell you Quod omnes Laici qui aderant offerebant Diaconi omnis populus de calice communicabant For farther confirmation of this truth that anciently in the Roman Church the Laity had the Cup for above 1200 years I shall refer you 1. To the 27. Canon of the Lateran Council under Alexander the third in the year 1180. 2. Can. 28. Concilii Claromontani celebrati anno 1095. 3. Petrum de Marca de Primatu Lugdunensi pag. 441 442 c. 4. Cassandrum vid. in Consultatione de utraque specie Sacramenti pag. 182. 5. Lindanum vid. Panoptiae lib. 4. pag. 342. 6. Lastly Greg. de Valentia goes farther than some of his followers will and plainly confesses That the custom of Communicating in one kind only began to be general a little before the Council of Constance in his Tract de legitimo usu Eucharistiae cap. 8. 10. and that Council sate and made that bold Decree to take away the Cup An. 1414. And here it is very observable that altho' it was the express command of our Blessed Saviour and of the Apostle S. Paul from him that all should receive