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_v eat_v saviour_n 5,467 4 7.4314 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
A61552 The doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome truly represented in answer to a book intituled, A papist misrepresented, and represented, &c. Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. 1686 (1686) Wing S5590; ESTC R21928 99,480 174

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

How did they receive the Bread before the hoc facite As Priests or as faithful It is ridiculous to suppose the hoc facite changed their capaciy and if it did it only relates to consecrating and not to receiving but if Christ gave it only to the Apostles as Priests then for all that I can see the People are not at all concerned in one kind or other but it was intended only for Priests If the People be concerned how came they to be so Where is there any command but what refers to the first Institution And it had been more plausible according to this Answer to exclude the People wholly than to admit them to one Kind and to debar them the other 2. Christ attributes the obtaining Life Everlasting the end of the Institution sometimes to receiving under both Kinds sometimes under one John 6. 51 57 58. He could not easily have thought of any thing more against himself for our Saviour there makes it as necessary to drink his Blood as to eat his Flesh Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man a● drink his Blood ye have no Life in you If this be understood of the Sacrament as he saith how is it possibl● for him to make the Cup indifferent Unless it be ind● ferent whether the People be saved or not 3. Christ himself administred the Sacrament to some of his Disciples under one kind only Luke 24. 30. But is he sure Christ did then administer the Sacrament to them Or that if he did the Cup was not implied since breaking of Bread when taken for an ordinary Meal in Scripture doth not exclude drinking at it But S. Augustin he saith l. 49. de Consensu Evangel understands that place of the Sacrament If he doth it cannot be where he saith for S. Augustin wrote but Four Books of that Subject but l. 3. 25. he doth say something towards it yet S. Augustin in another place supposes that these Disciples did both eat and drink The Disciples did not know him but in the breaking of Bread and truely he that doth not eat and drink Judgment to himself doth in the breaking of Bread own Christ. Where it is plain that he applies both to the breaking of Bread here spoken of 4. He saith it was the Custom of the Primitive Christians to give it under one kind to Children the Sick and to Men in a journey I would he had produced his Authorities to prove these things for I can bring several to prove the direct contrary as to Children and Sick persons and Travellers and not only Ancient Writers but the most Learned of their own Church And therefore I cannot but wonder to find him saying This was attested by all Ancient Writers and Modern Historians But I have ever found those have been most mistaken who produce all Writers and Historians when it may be there is not one that speaks home to the business At least we have here none mentioned and therefore none to examin and it would be too hard a task to search All. 5. He adds to this extravagancy in saying That Receiving in one or both kinds was indifferent for the first Four hundred years when the contrary is so manifest that the most ingenuous of their own Writers consess it If any persons did carry home one kind which is very questionable for Baronius and Albasinoeus say they carried both Kinds to receive it in times of Persecution at what season they thought fit afterwards This ought not to be set up against the general and constant Rule of the Church which is attested not only by Cassander and such like but even by Salmero Ruardus Tapperus and Lindanus who make no scruple of saying The publick Celebration in the Primitive Church was in both Kinds But then how is it possible for us to judge better what they thought themselves bound to do than what they constantly observed in all their publick Celebrations The Church is not accountable for the particular Fancies or Superstitions of Men but what was observed in all publick Offices we have reason to think the Church thought it self obliged so to do out of regard to the Institution of Christ. And to shew how Universal this Observation was in the Church those who give account of the Eastern Church say That the Greeks Nestorians Armenians Maronites Cophtites and Abyssins do all observe it still viz. That the publick Communicants do partake of both Kinds And not one of all these Churches but think themselves bound to observe it out of regard to the Institution of Christ and why then should any think the Primitive Church thought it indifferent 6. The first Precept of receiving under both Kinds was given to the Faithful by Pope Leo A. D. 443. and confirmed by Gelasius A. D. 490. This is a great mistake for Leo gave no Precept about it but only told the people how they might certainly discover the Manichees for they would conform in other things but they would not taste of the Wine which argued that all other Communicants did then partake in both Kinds Gelasius not only confirms the Custom then used but he saith That it is Sacriledge to divide that Holy Mystery And surely he did not account Sacriledge an Indifferent thing 7. Lastly he saith That those who receive in one Kind are truely partakers of the whole Sacrament This is a new way of Concomitancy we used to hear of Whole Christ under either species and that Whole Christ was therefore received But how comes it to be the whole Sacrament which consists of two distinct Parts And if it be a Sacrifice the Blood must be separated from the Body else the Blood of Christ is not considered as shed and so the Notion of the Sacrifice will be lost Which is our next Head XXII Of the MASS UNder this Head which is thought of so great Consequence in the Roman Church I expected a fuller Representation than I here find as about the Opus Operatum i. e. how far the meer Act is effectual About their Solitary Masses when no Person receives but the Priest About the People having so little to do or understand in all the other parts of the Mass About the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mass how useful and important they are About reconciling the present Canon of the Mass with the present Practises About offering up Masses for the honour of Saints All which we find in the Council of Trent but are omitted by our Representer Who speaks of the Mass as though there were no Controversy about it but only concerning the Sacrifice there supposed to be offered up and which he is far from true Representing For the Council of Trent not only affirms a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice to be there offered up for the quick and dead but denounces Anathema's against those that deny it So that the Question is not Whether the Eucharist may not in the sense