Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	artery_n	heart_n	vein_n	9,504	5	10.0908	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34032	A modest and true account of the chief points in controversie between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants together with some considerations upon the sermons of a divine of the Church of England / by N.C.	Nary, Cornelius, 1660-1738.; Colson, Nicholas.	1696 (1696)	Wing C5422; ESTC R35598	162,211	316

the Blood as Anatomists and Experience teach us being by the last motion of the Heart convey'd from the Arteries into the Veins where it stands still when there is no more Circulation it is impossible to conceive how all the Blood in his Body shou'd come out of his Side especially in the Posture he then lay in So that that which the Doctor wou'd have us take for granted has no Degree of Truth in it Well but suppose we shou'd grant that Christ's Body was exhausted and drain'd of his Blood will this destroy the Doctrine of Concomitancy by no means For since we believe that under the Species of Bread is really or as his own Cathechism says verily and indeed contain'd the Body of Christ which being now a human living Body must necessarily have Blood in it though we shou'd suppose it had none when it was ●ead we have all the Reason in the World to believe that when we take the Lord's Body we do at the same time by Concomitancy that is together with it take the Blood which it contains So that tho' it were true that the Body of Christ was exhausted and drain'd of his Blood in his Passion yet it wou'd not at all prejudice our Doctrine of Concomitancy nor make any thing for the Doctor 's Purpose But you will say If the Communion in One Kind be sufficient If it contains the Body and Blood of Christ why did the Christians heretofore sometimes receive it in both kinds I answer because the Representation of the Death of our Lord is more fully express'd in both kinds than in One But then we must consider that this Representation is not of that Importance as to ballance all the weighty Considerations that mov'd the Church to command the use only of One kind We have the Death of our Lord sufficiently represented to us when we take the Communion in One kind because we believe and are put in mind that it is the Flesh and Blood of our Lord which we receive in Remembrance of his Death and Passion and we have this Representation fully express'd in the Sacrifice of the Mass where his Body and Blood are shewn Mystically separated under different Forms and that almost as often as we receive the Communion So that there is nothing wanting in our Communion to give us a lively Representation of the Death and Passion of our Blessed Lord and if there were 't is not of that moment as to make amends for the Horrid Prophanations and Abuses which must inevitably attend the Communion in both kinds in a degenerate Age in which all Piety and Godliness are almost extinguisht and whereof we have sad Instances in our Adversaries Practice it being frequently boasted by many of their Libertins that after hard drinking over Night they come in the Morning to receive the Communion and drink off whole Communion-Cups of consecrated Wine to quench their brutish Thirst Besides the Manner of administring the Sacrament of Baptism at present which our Adversaries do also follow and practice tho' very different from that of the primitive Church doth sufficiently justifie our Conduct in this Particular 'T is certain that the Regeneration of the Faithful is more lively express'd and represented by Immersion or plunging into the Water as the Primitive Church did always Baptize than by Infusion or Aspersion as we now do For the Faithful being plung'd into the Water of Baptism Rom. 6. ● is as St. Paul saith buried with Christ and in rising out of it he seems to rise out of the Tomb with his Saviour and therefore fully represents that Mystery by which he was regenerated whereas a simple Infusion or Aspersion such as we use doth scarce shadow it Moreover when the Faithful is immers'd or dip'd into the Water or Four where all the Parts of the Body are wash'd this Lotion does more fully express the cleansing of the Soul from all its sins than if one part only had been wash'd Yet no body doubts but that the Baptism conferr'd by Infusion or sprinkling of Water upon one Part only of the Body is sufficient to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament because the main thing is there represented namely the washing of the Soul So that it is enough to express the Mystery as to the Substance and the Effect and the Grace that is annex'd to it and not scrupulously to inquire after every minute-Circumstance of it especially when there are weighty Reasons and Motives to diswade us from it In like manner tho' we do not so fully represent the Death of our Lord when we take the Communion in One kind as we shou'd by taking it in Both yet we are perswaded that there is nothing Essential to the Sacrament wanting to it because we do both express and receive the Substance the Effect and the Grace of the Sacrament that is the Body and Blood of Christ the spiritual Food of our Souls and that strict Union with Christ which as he himself saith maketh us dwell in Him and Him in us And if the Church did forbid the Laity the Use of the Sacred Cup 't was not with an Intent to rob them of any thing that might tend to increase their Devotion as our Adversaries do most injustly suggest but in Respect to the Precious Blood of Christ for which surely we cannot have too much Veneration She saw that as the Piety and Devotion of the people diminish'd so their Negligence to receive the sacred Cup in such a manner as may secure it from spilling abounded She found by Experience that many Infirm and Old and even Folks in perfect Health what with coughing or other Convulsions as they receiv'd the Sacred Cup gave up their Stomacks into the Chalice or shed the Precious Blood to the great Horror of the Spectators and their own greater Confusion that others what with trembling and quaking did very often notwithstanding all their care spill some Drops of the Sacred Blood in fine that in Cities where some thousands use to communicate at a time Crouds of People pressing upon the Priest have sometimes spilt the Sacred Chalice in his Hands and which I cannot mention without Horror Trod upon that Precious Blood by which they were Redeem'd These and the like Considerations mov'd the Church or rather the People for the Church did only confirm the Custom which was introduc'd for many Years before to abstain from the Sacred Cup and to content themselves with the Body and Blood of Christ under the Form of Bread which is easily receiv'd with due Respect and without Danger and to which nothing is wanting only a more full Representation of the Mystery which yet is supply'd by other means and which in the Opinion of any Reasonable Man is not sufficient to attone for the aforesaid Prophanations CHAP. VI. Of Prayers in an Vnknown Tongue I May Reasonably presume it will not be expected I shou'd speak much to this Head for the Scandal which our Adversaries wou'd

whether in one or both kinds is quite an other thing from the Institution of it We say indeed that when Christ instituted the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood He consecrated not in One but in both Kinds because He design'd to leave these Symbols to his Church as a perpetual and everlasting Memorial of His Body broken and Blood shed upon the Cross which is express'd by the Separation of one Symbol from t'other and this I hope we are careful to do as often as we offer that Sacrifice But to eat or partake of the Sacrifice it self in one or both kinds is sure no part of the Institution but belongs to the Modus or manner of administring it Christ instituted the Sacraments of Baptism Confirmation and Matrimony yet we do not find that ever he gave or administred any of these Sacraments to any Body which surely he wou'd not have omitted were it any part of their Institution 'T is then plain that to give the Communion in One or both kinds is neither for nor against our Saviour's Institution but respects meerly Administration and Use But let us suppose with the Doctor that to administer the Communion in One kind is contrary I do not say to Christ's Institution for that it cannot be but to the manner in which our Saviour gave it yet still I do not see how this can help the matter For the Question is not whether Christ gave it in both kinds but whether we ought necessarily to give it in both kinds because he did so This the Doctor affirms and we deny But how does He prove it Why because Christ gave it in both kinds This is begging the Qustion Well because Christ gave it in both kinds we ought to do so too This is to say if it be to purpose that we are bound to do all those things that Christ did at the institution and administration of the Communion If so then we must fall to wash the Disciples Feet to eat Suppers before the Sacrament to administer the Communion at Night and which is more strange we must command all those to whom we give the Communion to do the same thing we do that is to consecrate and administer the Sacrament and consequently make them all Priests all these things I say we are bound to do For Christ did all and every particular here mention'd to all those to whom he gave the Communion in both kinds But since neither He nor any Man in his Wits will say that we are bound to do all these Things because the Discipline and Practice of the Church and the Living Members of it have determin'd that all those particulars are now neither Necessary nor Expedient I hope he will give us leave to conclude that we are not bound to give the Communion in both kinds neither Touching the second Proposition The Council of Constance was forc'd to decree it with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ The Doctor is not the only Man who affirms this for I find it in the Works of one or two more of his Brethren upon this Subject But Good God! What may not Men undertake who have the Confidence to give out such Calumnies for Truth 'T is a vulgar Observation but a True one that when Mountebanks pretend most to infallible Cures they are then furthest from them just so 't is with these Gentlemen for there are Mountebanks in Religion as well as in Physick when they pretend most to Evidence and Demonstration in matters of Religion then they have the least Colour or reasonable Pretence to it But the best way to refute this Calumny is to cite the very Words of the Council and then let the Reader judge what Faith is to be given to Men who vend such Impostures for Truth In the * In nomine sanctae individuae Trinitatis Patris Filii Spiritus sancti Amen Licet Christus post Caenam instituerit suis discipulis administraverit sub utraque Specie Panis Vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum tamen hoc non obstante Sacrorum Canorum Authoritas laudabilis aprobata Ecclesiae consuetudo servavit servat quod hujusmodi Sacramentum non debet confici post Caenam neque a f●lelibus recipi non jejunis nisi in casu Infirmitatis aut alterius necessitatis a jure vel ab Ecclesia concesso vel admisso Name of the Holy and undivided Trinity Father Son and Holy Ghost Amen Tho' Christ hath instituted this venerable Sacrament after Supper and hath administred it to his Disciples under both Kinds of Bread and Wine tamen hoc non obstante yet this notwithstanding the Authority of the sacred Canons the Laudable and Approv'd Custom of the Church hath held and doth hold that this Sacrament ought not to be made after Supper nor receiv'd by the Faithful not fasting except in case of Infirmity or some other Necessity approv'd and allow'd by Law or by the Church This is all in this Decree that has any Relation to the Dr's Non obstante And now I appeal to the most partial of our Adversaries whether he had the least Colour or Pretence to what he here suggests There is indeed a Non obstante to the making of this Sacrament after Supper and giving it to those who were not fasting and no more And if this be a sin sure he is not qualified to throw the first Stone at us for it For he and his Brethren are confessedly involv'd in the same Crime seeing they do not make the Sacrament after Supper nor give it to the best of their knowledge to any but such as are fasting As to the third Proposition The Doctrine of Concomitancy will not help the matter because in the Sacrament Christ's Body is represented as broken and exhausted and drain'd of his Blood Hence the Doctor infers that the Sacred Bread which represents his Body under these circumstances cannot be said to contain or exhibit his Blood But methinks he shou'd have prov'd his Postulatum before he wou'd perswade us of the Truth of this Inference For I suppose he was too well acquainted with us to think we shou'd believe it upon his Word That our blessed Lord shed a great deal of His Precious Blood as much as was sufficient for the Redemption of Mankind we readily grant but that His Body was exhausted and drain'd of His Blood so as to have none at all left in it we can by no means assent to If Christ's Body had been drain'd of His Blood He wou'd have died of Weakness and Loss of Blood but the Centurion who it seems was a better Naturalist than the Doctor thought quite otherwise For he concluded from the Force and Vigour wherewith our Blessed Lord gave up the Ghost that he was the Son of God Vere Filius Dei erat iste Nor will it avail the Doctor that when the Souldier pierc'd his side with a Spear there came out Blood and Water For Christ being then dead and