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	bread_n	cup_n	4,095	5	9.9348	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85088	Two treatises The first, concerning reproaching & censure: the second, an answer to Mr Serjeant's Sure-footing. To which are annexed three sermons preached upon several occasions, and very useful for these times. By the late learned and reverend William Falkner, D.D.	Falkner, William, d. 1682.; Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.; Sturt, John, 1658-1730, engraver.	1684 (1684)	Wing F335B; ESTC R230997	434,176	626

is not within the Churches authority 2. They may as well say that whole Christ is in one kind and therefore there needs no consecration of the Cup as that therefore there needs no distribution And so the Cup may be wholly rejected with as much Piety as the Laity are now deprived of it 3. What is contained in the Sacrament is contained in it according to the Will of Christ and his Institution and thereby the Bread is the Communion of the body of Christ and the Cup is the Communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 And (n) Ration l. 4. c. 54. n. 13. Durandus did truly assert that the blood of Christ is not Sacramentally in the Host because the Bread signifies the Body and not the Blood So he with somewhat more to this purpose And this is the more considerable because in the Holy Eucharist the death of Christ is represented and in the Cup his Blood as shed And Gelasius who was once Bishop of Rome when he heard that some received the Bread only and not the Cup declared what then it seems was Catholick Doctrine at Rome that they must either receive the whole Sacrament or be rejected from the whole because (o) de Consec Dist c. 2. comperimus divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire the dividing one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge Which words contain a more full and plain censure of what since his time is practised in the Church of Rome than can be evaded by the strained and frivolous Interpretations either of Gratian of Binius or Baronius And we have also much greater authority than his For besides what I have above mentioned this use of the Cup was part of what S. Paul received of the Lord and delivered to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11 23-25 and it was matter of praise in the Corinthians that they kept the ordinances as he delivered them v. 2. 19. And what is asserted in the Council of Trent that the Church had just reason to order the Communion in one kind and what others say that it is more profitable to Christians and contains an honour and reverence to that Ordinance must suppose that their wisdom is greater than our Saviour's who did not know or consider with so much prudence as they do what is fit to be appointed and established in his Ordinance And since the Holy Ghost declared both the Bread and the Cup to be appointed to shew forth Christs death till he come 1 Cor. 11.26 they must therefore be both used to this purpose until his second coming and then no power was left to any Church to alter and change this institution And whilst some pretend reverence to God and this Sacrament in taking away the Cup from the people it would be considered that there can be no honour to God in acts of disobedience But if pretences of honouring God in acts of disobedience could render actions commendable Sauls Sacrificing must have passed for a pious attempt and the Doctrine of the Pharisees for the observing their vow of Corban must have been esteemed a Religious assertion 20. A third Instance I shall consider Of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is their pretending to offer a proper expiatory Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass which is derogatory to Christs own Priestly oblation whereby he once offered himself a compleat Sacrifice of expiation But the (p) Sess 22. c. 2. Council of Trent declares that in the Mass is Sacrificium verè propitiatorium a truly propitiatory Sacrifice and that it is offered both for the sins punishments and other necessities of the living Christians and also for the dead in Christ who are not fully purged And it pronounced an Anathema against him who shall say in missa non offerri Deo verum proprium sacrificium that in the Mass is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice or that it ought not to be offered for the quick and the dead And they declare it to be the very same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross And the (q) Catech. ad paroch jux dec Trid. p. 247. Roman Catechism saith that this Sacrifice of the Mass doth not only contain an efficacious meriting but a satisfying also and even as Christ by his passion did both merit and satisfie So they who offer this Sacrifice do satisfie And the Council of (r) Anath 3. Trent will have it offered for satisfactions 21. Now it is acknowledged that that perfect Sacrifice which Christ himself once offered is lively represented and eminently commemorated in the holy Communion and the benefits thereof are there received by the worthy Communicant and on this account this Sacrament especially is a Christian Sacrifice in a large sense The Eucharist how a Christian Sacrifice as that Jewish Feast was called the Passeover as it was a memorial and representation of the original Passeover when the destroying Angel passed by the Houses of the Israelites And it may be called a Sacrifice as it contains the performance of such a chief part of service and worship to God as renders them who do it aright pleasing and acceptable to God And therein we present our selves to God with our homage and oblations and our praises and supplications that we and the whole Church may obtain remission of sins and all other benefits of Christs passion And such great actions of Religion are in a more large sense though not in a strict sense frequently called Sacrifices both in the holy Scriptures as in Psal 51.17 Rom. 12.1 Phil. 4.18 Heb. 13.15 16. 1 Pet. 2.5 and frequently in the Fathers as may be shewed from Justin Martyr Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus and divers others But this sense is so far from satisfying the Council of Trent that it pronounceth (ſ) ubi sup an Anathema against him who shall say it is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or a commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and not a propitiatory Sacrifice 22. Now that there is not nor can be in the Sacrament a proper Sacrificing Christ's Body and Blood to make expiation for the sins of men may appear from four Considerations Cons 1. Christ's once offering himself a Sacrifice Cons 1. The Sacrifice of the Mass derogates from the death and pussion of Christ was so compleat that it neither needs nor admits of any reiterating or that this or any other propitiatory or expiatory Sacrifices should be again offered This is observed by the Apostle to be one excellency of the Sacrifice of Christ once offered above the legal Sacrifices that whereas by reason of the imperfection of them the Priests offered oftentimes the same Sacrifices Christ by one offering had fully perfected his work and the Apostle therefore expressly saith he should not offer himself often Heb. 9.25 26 27 28. chap. 10 10-14 (t) de Missa l.

these things But that which is here to be enquired and examined is Whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought not according to the institution of Christ and by his authority to be administred in both kinds 15. That Christ did institute this Sacrament against Christs Institution in both kinds of Bread and Wine is so plain from the words of its Institution that this is acknowledged in the (d) Ubi sup c. 1. Council of Trent And that he gave a particular command to all Communicants to receive the Cup seems plainly owned in one of the Hymns of the Roman Church (e) Sacris c. in Brev. Ro. in festo Corp. Christ Dedit fragilibus corporis ferculum Dedit tristibus sanguinis poculum Dicens Accipite quod trado vasoulum Omnes ex eo bibite Sic Sacrificium istud instituit He gave the entertainment of his body to the Frail to the Sad he gave the Cup of his blood saying Take this Cup which I deliver drink ye all of it Thus did he institute that Sacrifice These expressions have a particular respect to that Command concerning the Cup Matt. 26 27. Drink ye all of it And it may be further observed that those words in the Institution Do this in remembrance of me are a Precept which hath special respect to the receiving both the kinds both the Bread and the Cup. For though I acknowledge these words Do this to establish the whole Institution that as (f) Cyp. Ep. 63. S. Cyprian expresseth their sense ut hoc faciamus quod fecit Dominus ab eo quod Christus docuit fecit non recedatur that we should do what our Lord did and should not depart from what Christ taught and did Yet these words have a more especial regard to the distribution or participation of the Sacrament For Do this c. in S. Luke and S. Paul comes in the place of take eat c. in S. Matt. and S. Mark and in these words of S. Paul Do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me the words as oft as ye drink it do plainly import thus much that the Command do this in that place doth peculiarly respect the receiving the Cup. 16. This Institution of Christ was anciently even in the Church of Rome acknowledged to be so fair a Rule to all Christians that from hence (g) de Consecrat di 2. c. 7. Cum omne Pope Julius undertook to correct the various abuses which had in some places been entertained Insomuch that he declares against delivering the Bread dipt in the Cup upon this reason because it is contrary to what is testified in the Gospels concerning the Master of truth who when he commended to his Apostles his Body and his Blood Seorsum panis seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur his Recommendation of the Bread and of the Cup is related to be each of them separate and distinct And that the Apostolical Church did give the Cup to the Laity is plain from the Apostles words to the Corinthians where he useth this as an Argument to all particular Christians against communicating in any Idolatrous Worship 1 Cor. 10.21 ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils And the same will appear manifest from other expressions hereafter mentioned And the Council of Trent (h) Sess 21. c. 2. owns that from the beginning of Christianity the Sacrament was given in both kinds But they following much the steps of the Council of Constance account neither the Institution of Christ nor the practice of the ancient Church to be in this case any necessary guide but they declare the custom then received to be changed upon just reasons 17. But that the Argument from the Institution and Command of Christ might be eluded and a Mist cast before the Sun divers Romanists and particularly (i) de Euchar l. 4. c. 25. which binds all Communicants Bellarmine declare that Christs command drink ye all of it was given to the Apostles only and not to all Communicants To which I answer 1. That the Apostles at the time of the Institution of this Sacrament were not consecrating but communicating and therefore the Command given to them as receiving the Sacrament is a rule for Communicants Which binds all Communicants and can by no reason be restrained to the consecrating Priest And indeed the ancient Church made no such distinction in this case between Priest and People but acknowledged as (k) Chrys Hom. 18. in 2 Epist ad Corinth S. Chrysostome expresseth it that the same Body is appointed for all and the same Cup And agreeable hereunto are the Articles of the Church of England which declare (l) Art 30. that both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike 2. That this device would serve as effectually if it were considerable to take away the Bread with the Cup from the people that so no part of Christ's Institution should belong to them 3. The Command of Christ with the reason annexed Matt. 26.27 28. Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins doth give sufficient light to discern to whom this Precept is designed to wit to all them who desire to partake in the Communion of the blood of the New Testament for the Remission of sins and that is to all Communicants in that Sacrament 4. S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.25 26. plainly applys Christ's Command concerning the Cup to all who come to the Holy Communion in that after the rehearsal of that part of the Institution concerning the Cup he immediately says to the Corinthians For as oft as yet eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come And he re-inforceth this Command of partaking of the Cup indefinitely to all who are to Communicate v. 28. Let a Man not only the Priest examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. 18. But here the Council of Trent acquaints us with a claim of the Churches authority and power in the Sacrament (m) Ubi sup c. 2. in dispensatione Sacramentorum salva illorum substantia statuere vel mutare to appoint and change things in dispensing the Sacraments still preserving their substance And they seem to intimate that the Communion in both kinds No power of the Church can take away the Cup from the People is not of the substance of the Sacrament because whole Christ and all necessary grace is contained under one kind But 1. If by being of the substance of the Sacrament we mean all that is enjoined by Christ's Precept and is necessary for the right administration of the Sacrament according to his Institution The use of both kinds is proved to be of this nature and therefore to change this

2. c. 4. Bellarmine was so apprehensive of the force and reasonableness of this consideration with respect to the Mass and the frequent repetition thereof that he thought it necessary to assert that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not of infinite value for saith he si missae valor infinitus esset frustra multae missae if the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass was infinite it would be in vain that there should be many Masses But he might also have discerned that upon the same reason he would be obliged to acknowledge in derogation from the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross and in opposition to the testimony of the Scriptures that that offering of the Sacrifice of Christ which he himself made in our nature was but of a finite value and not compleat so as thereby to perfect for ever them who are sanctified because if this had been effected by that one offering it would be in vain to have repeated offerings of that Sacrifice 23. But others of their Writers entertain different notions and opinions from this and conclude (u) Barrad Concord Evangel Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. that the merits of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist must be infinite because they are the same merits with those of the Sacrifice upon the Cross And this must needs be so according to the Council of Trent which declares (w) Sess 22. c. 2. it to be the very same Sacrifice which is now offered by the Priest and which was then offered upon the Cross and differeth only in the manner of offering and then its merit and vertue must be the same Now this conception of the value of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist in asserting it to be so compleatly propitiatory doth not only derogate from the Sacrifice of Christ which himself offered upon the Cross but in truth it makes it so void as to take away any necessity thereof For since our Lord instituted and makes them void and consecrated the Eucharist before his death if he had therein offered himself a compleat expiatory Sacrifice then the work of redemption and expiation must have been fully performed before that great work of his passion upon the Cross and consequently his death upon the Cross as a Sacrifice must be in vain This was (x) Hist Conc. Trident. p. 443 451. again and again urged in the Council of Trent by some whose apprehensions were not agreeable to what that Council determined Nor can it be otherwise solidly answered than by acknowledging that our Lord when he instituted and celebrated the Eucharist did not in that action properly offer himself a propitiatory Sacrifice And whereas in the Institution of the Eucharist our Saviour spake of his blood which is shed not only divers particular Writers of the Romanists own the expression of the present tense to denote what was future but soon to be accomplished but even the Vulgar Latin both in S. Matthew and S. Luke expresseth it effundetur shall be shed to which agreeth the expressing the same in the Canon of the Mass The like may be observed concerning the phrase of his Body being given or broken which the Vulgar Latin also in the words of the institution 1 Cor. 11.24 renders tradetur shall be given Nor is it either pious or reasonable to think that the Eucharist celebrated by an ordinary Priest must be more properly and fully an expiatory and propitiatory Sacrifice than that which was celebrated by Christ himself in the first institution of it when his act then was made the Rule to guide theirs by his giving this commandment Do this in remembrance of me 24. Cons 2. Cons 2. The body of Christ is not now capable of being Sacrificed A proper Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood is not now capable of being offered in the Eucharist Indeed that Sacrament beareth a particular respect to the death of Christ to his Body as broken and his Blood as shed and therein his death is shewed forth 1 Cor. 11.26 But after his resurrection he dieth no more death hath no more dominion over him Rom. 6.9 And therefore his Body as having been once really dead and his Blood as once shed may be commemorated and represented in the Eucharist But there is now no exhibiting his Body and Blood in that Sacrament really dead which cannot be and so properly offered a Sacrifice to God And the defenders of the Romish Sacrifice seem here to be put to a great loss 25. In (y) de Missa l. 1. c. 2. Bellarmin's definition of a Sacrifice the last clause thereof declares that the thing sacrificed ritu mystico consecratur transmutatur is by a mystical right consecrated and changed And explaining the former of these he saith it must ex prophana fieri sacra of a prophane thing be made sacred and that Sacrificare is Sacrum facere But though the elements of the Eucharist before the consecration may be called profane things or not sacred and so may be consecrated by the Priest the glorious body of Christ is capable of no such thing And explaining the latter clause he saith it must be changed so ut destruatur that it may be destroyed or that desinat esse quod ante erat that it may cease to be what it was before and this is as far from agreeing with the uncorruptible body of Christ as the other and therefore the Cardinal in making and explicating this definition seems to have laid aside or else to have forgotten the interest he was to maintain 26. And (z) Conc. Evang. To ● l. 3. c. 6. Barradius acutely tells us that immolatio oblatio and consumptio staying offering and consuming are the things essential to a Sacrifice and he undertakes so great an adventure as to shew how all of them even the first and the last may be affirmed concerning the body of Christ in the Sacrifice of the Mass He saith that as a lamb is slain when the blood is separated from the body by a knife Christ is here slain when vi consecration is sanguis Christi à Corpore Christi separatur by force of the Consecration the blood of Christ is separated from the body of Christ Now it is a thing very hard to be conceived how such a real division and actual shedding of blood should be suffered by the incorruptible and glorious body of Christ and it is yet more difficult to conceive how this can be reconciled with the Council of Trent which declares that after the Consecration (a) Sess 21. c. 3. in the Sacrament of the Eucharist sub singulis speciebus totum atque integrum Christum sumi all and whole Christ is by the Communicants received under each of the species which could not be done unless whole Christ was there and they anathematize him who shall say the contrary which I suppose this Author was not aware of 27. With like nicety and trifling he further says (b) Barrad ibid. the Body

and Blood of Christ are consumed by the Priest on the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine because those species are consumed Now it is strange enough to speak of the glorified body of Christ being consumed which is capable of no corruption and it is yet more strange that it should be consumed by consuming the species when it is not the subject of those species Surely it would be more rational to assert the mortality of the soul and to think it sufficiently proved by the death of the body 28. To avoid this difficulty some steer another course (c) Coster Enchir. c. 9. de Sacrificio Missae Costerus a third Jesuit in a manner deserts the cause He first gives such a large description of a Sacrifice as may agree to other acts of Divine worship But when he speaks of the nature of this Sacrifice he declares it to be representative of the passion and Sacrifice of Christ He saith indeed that Christ is here offered but then he saith Christ upon the Cross was truly slain by the real shedding his blood but here is tantum illius mortis repraesentatio sub speciebus panis vini only a representation of his death under the species of Bread and Wine Now though repraesentare be sometimes observed to signifie rem praesentem facere to make the thing present as some learned men have observed the sense of Costerus must be what we generally understand by representing because he sometimes speaks of the species representing the dead body of Christ which cannot be by making it so and sometimes he declares the Sacrifices of the Law to represent the death of Christ but not so excellently as the Eucharist And concerning the effect of this Sacrifice (d) ibid. p. 324 334. he declares this difference between that Sacrifice on the Cross and this of the Mass that the former was offered to satisfie God and pay the price for the sins of the world and all other needful gifts but the latter is for the applying those things which Christ merited and procured by his death on the Cross And to this purpose again Hoc efficitur per Missae Sacrificium ut quod perfecit Christus in cruce id nobis singulis applicetur illic pretium est solutum pro peccatis omnibus hic nobis impetratur hujus pretii applicatio Quod orationibus quoque in Ecclesia praestatur quibus rogatur Deus ut efficiamur participes passionis Christi This indeed if it were the true Doctrine of the Romish Church in this particular would be a fairer account of it than either it self or others give But in truth this is so different from the sense of the Council of Trent above expressed that it seems to import that this Writer thought it hard to clear and defend the true sense of that Church and therefore chose to represent it under a disguise and in this Controversie in most things he comes nearer to the Protestant Doctrine than the Romish We own such a representation of Christs death in this Sacrament as consists with his real presence in a Spiritual and Sacramental manner We acknowledge such a Relation between the Passion of Christ on the Cross and the Memorial of it in this Sacrament that the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and the benefits procured by his passion are exhibited in this Sacrament and are therein by the faithful received And we account the elements of Bread and Wine to be offered to God in this Sacrament as an oblation according to the ancient Church since the setting apart and consecrating the elements is a separating them to God and to his service but we do not look upon them to make way for a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist But I now pass from the consideration of the Sacrifice to consider the Priest who is to offer it 29. Cons 3. The Sacrifice of Christ peculiar to his incommunicable Priesthood Cons 3. It is peculiar to the Office of Christs high Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec to offer up himself to be a propitiatory Sacrifice and this high Priesthood is communicated to no other person besides himself The Sacrifice of our Saviour as (e) Athan. cout Arian Orat. 3. Athanasius saith hath compleated all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being once made and he adds Aaron had those who succeeded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but our Lord having an high Priesthood which is not successive nor passeth from one to another is a faithful High Priest And this was the Apostles Doctrine Heb. 7. Now Bellarmine saith (f) de Mis l. 1. c. 24. no Catholicks affirm other Priests to succeed to Christ but they are his Vicars or suffragans in the Melchisedecian Priesthood or rather his Ministers But here it must be considered 1. That if they be Priests of such an order as can offer Christ himself or the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood to be a Sacrifice of atonement and propitiation they must be capable of performing all the necessary rites of that Sacrifice And one great rite thereof is that as the legal High Priest in making an atonement was to enter into the holy of holies with the blood thereof so he who offers the great Sacrifice of atonement which is the Body and Blood of Christ must enter into Heaven it self and there appear in the presence of God for us presenting his Sacrifice to God in that Holy place Heb. 9.11 12 24. but this none but Christ himself can do 2. He who is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec must be a Priest for ever since the order of the Melchisedecian Priesthood doth not admit succession as that of the Aaronical did Heb. 7.3 8 17 23 24 28. And therefore such persons as succeed one another in their Office cannot be of the Melchisedecian Priesthood 3. Since an High Priest is chiefly appointed to offer gifts or Sacrifices for sins Heb. 5.1 chap. 8.3 and thereby to make reconciliation and execute other acts of his Office in pursuance of his Sacrifice the offering that Sacrifice of reconciliation for which he is appointed is a main part of his Office and therefore not to be performed by him who hath not the same Office Wherefore since no man hath that Office of High Priesthood which Christ himself hath none can make the same reconciliation by offering the same Sacrifice of atonement or propitiatory Sacrifice 30. But we are told in (g) Catech. ad Paroch de Euch. Sac. p. 249. the Roman Catechism that there being one Sacrifice on the Cross and in the Mass there is also one and the same Priest Christ the Lord and the Ministers who sacrifice non suam sed Christi personam suscipiunt they take upon them the person of Christ and they say not this is Christs body but this is my body Now if these words should intend more than that the Minister acts by Christs authority who hath given to none authority