Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
death_n blood_n body_n shed_v 4,580 5 9.5800 5 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
A59790 An answer to the request to Protestants, to produce plain Scriptures directly authorizing these tenets Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1687 (1687) Wing S3264; ESTC R16978 12,957 22

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

an express proof of This is my Body for if it be not his Natural Body as sense and reason tell us it cannot be then it must be only his Sacramental Body or his Body by Institution Christ was visibly present with his Apostles in his own Natural Body when he instituted this Sacrament and therefore they could not understand and our Saviour could never intend they should believe that the Bread which he blessed and brake was his Natural Body which they saw before their eyes that they ate their Lord when they are the Consecrated Bread that they swallowed him down into their stomachs and yet all this while saw him and conversed with him as they did at other times The Bread is the Body of Christ but it is his broken Body which it could not be at the Institution of this Sacrament for Christ was not then Crucified his Natural Body was not yet broken and therefore the broken bread though it was his Sacramental could not be his Natural Body his Blood was not then shed and therefore though the Wine was his Blood of the New Testament it could not be his Natural Blood which is shed for the remission of sins unless his Natural Body was broken and his Blood shed before he was crucified Now I take that to be the express sense of Scripture which is the only sense that can be made of it for a sense in which it is impossible is none at all V. Our Lord's Presence in or with the Eucharist is meerly gracious and influential and if more only to the Faithful A. There is no such Proposition as this taught by the Church of England that I know of we own the influences of the Divine Grace to accompany the external administration of the Lord's Supper and this I suppose they will not put us to prove We own the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ that is the Consecrated Elements to be really present upon the Altar and verily and indeed eaten of the Faithful for so our Saviour expresly tells us This is my Body and This is my Blood and this is somewhat more than to say that our Lord's Presence in or with the Eucharist is meerly gracious and influential for so he is present in all other Religious Duties but here he is so present that his Body and Blood with all the benefits of his Death and Passion are exhibited to worthy Receivers as much as they could have been had we eat his Natural flesh and drank his blood And therefore whatever difference they would allow between Christ's gracious and influential presence in the Eucharist and eating his Natural flesh and blood had that been possible the same we allow between his gracious Presence and eating his Sacramental Body which is to all the ends and purposes of a Sacrament the same by his own Institution with his Natural flesh and blood for the carnal feeding on Christ's flesh is not a Sacramental eating of him But if by more he means that Christ is corporally present in the Eucharist that his natural Flesh and Blood is contained under the Species of Bread and Wine this we deny and it being a Negative Article it is ridiculous as I observed before to demand express Scripture to prove that it is not in the Scripture let those who affirm it prove by express Scripture that it is there for this is my Body and this is my Blood will not do it We own that it is the Body and Blood of Christ as well as they and therefore they must prove that it is Christ's natural Body and Blood and it is well for them that they have something else than Scripture to trust to VI. Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of our Saviour under the Species of Bread and Wine is Idolatry A. Nor is there any such Proposition as this taught in the Church of England We teach indeed that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist remains Bread and Wine after Consecration and that to adore Bread and Wine is Idolatry as Romanists themselves confess and is easily proved from Scripture if to give Divine Worship to Creatures be Idolatry To adore our Saviour is not Idolatry but to adore Bread and Wine for our Saviour may be as much Idolatry as to worship the Sun for God. But this Author puts a fallacy upon his Readers by an explanatory Parenthesis Adoration of the Eucharist i. e. of our Saviour under the Species of Bread and Wine as if they only worshipped our Saviour under the Species of Bread and Wine whereas they teach that the Species themselves whatever they be to be sure not Christ himself are to be worshipped together with Christ and therefore according to their own Doctrine they must worship something which is not Christ. And let them consider what name to give this VII All Christians whenever they communicate are oblig'd to receive in both Kinds A. And why does he not ask us to prove That all Christians whenever they communicate are obliged to receive the bread For there is the same Institution for the Wine that there is for the Bread. There is no other rule in matters of Institution but to observe the Institution and since the Sacrament was instituted in both kinds and neither Christ nor his Apostles have told us that it is sufficient to receive in one kind we think this reason enough to assert that all Christians when they do communicate must communicate in both kinds And indeed this Sacrament is not compleat without it for if we consider it as a spiritual Feast Wine as well as Bread to drink as well as to eat is essential to a Feast if we consider the End of the Institution to be a commemoration of the Death of Christ and the expiation of his Blood how can we commemorate Sacramentally the expiation of his Blood without drinking his Blood which is shed for the remission of sins For to eat his Blood together with his Flesh as they pretend does not represent his broken Body and his Blood shed but his whole Body with Flesh and Blood together which contradicts the very Institution of this Supper And if we partake of no benefits in the Sacrament but what we Sacramentally commemorate I would desire this Author to tell me how those who do not drink the Blood of Christ this blood of the New Testament obtain the remission of their sins A very material thing for those to consider who would be sure of their Salvation VIII Chastity deliberately vow'd may be inoffensively violated A. This is no Doctrine of our Church nor are Protestants now concerned in it though some of the Monks and Nuns at the beginning of the Reformation were There was no such thing known as vowing Chastity as that signifies a Vow against Marriage neither under the Law nor in the times of Christ and his Apostles and therefore we cannot expect in Scripture an express decision of this matter but must argue from the nature and obligation of Vows