Selected quad for the lemma: body_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
body_n	bread_n	communion_n	cup_n	8,923	5	10.0506	5	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