Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	body_n	bread_n	remain_v	8,161	5	7.7960	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61518	A peace-offering an earnest and passionate intreaty, for peace, unity, & obedience ...	Stileman, John, d. 1685.	1662 (1662)	Wing S5554; ESTC R12102	300,783	364

must condemn also the other § 23 Object No. For Sitting is now the Table posture and succeedeth the Tricliniary Gesture 1. Sol. The Standing at least is as unlawfull and indifferent from the Prime patterne and first examplar as Kneeling but yet this posture is allowed by all where it thwarts not a Publick setled practice of a Church and practised by many of our Brethren at home and the French Churches abroad when yet the same Argument that condemnes Kneeling condemnes that 2. § 24 But how came Sitting to be the Table Gesture now is it not by a silent custome among Nations and it is strange that the silent custome of a Nation should be enough to change the Gesture at our ordinary Tables and yet a Positive Law of the same Nation should not suffice in such a case at the Sacred Table If a Custome without Authority can so prevaile that what was before not Decent should now be Decent and what was before Decent should now be not so cannot a Law made by publick Authority established by an expresse consent of the people and allowed by daily use prevaile that what was upon no sound reason ever found unlawfull should be esteemed lawfull now for the time to come Custome is enough to satisfie us in our ordinary Tables why should not both Law and Custome together suffice for Satisfaction here when if there were no Custome but Custome and Law did seeme to oppose each other yet as to a Case of Conscience it may be soberly concluded that Custome should rather give place to Law than Law to Custome These things and much more to this purpose may he that please see in that Reverend Bishop in the place before cited where he solidly and largely handles the Question of the obligation of Christs example in this case § 25 2. For that exception that Kneeling was not used by the Church for many hundred yeares after Christ this signifieth as little for even in their Prayers Kneeling sometimes was not publickly in use yea expressely forbidden the Custome being as it is by Mr Baxter h Baxt. five Disp Disp 5. chap. 2. §. 41. confessed both Antient and Universall in the Church and every where observed and established afterwards in the last Cannon of the Councell of Nice and renewed by others That none should Kneele in publick worship on the Lords day no not in Prayer No wonder then that we find not this practice there where they Kneeled not at all in the publick worship But as they worshipped so they communicated the manner of receiving being i See Account of proceed Answ to §. 15. e ● Auge in Psal 98. Cyril Gatech Onystag 5 more adorantium so that there can be nothing drawn from their practice against Kneeling at the Communion which is not also as strong against Kneeling at any other parts of publick worship even Prayer also § 26 3. As to the fear of justifying the Papisticall adoration of the Elements as Christ corporally present we are sufficiently secure for our Kneeling tendeth to no such thing We are informed clearly enough of the Doctrine of our Church by what is expressely set down in the Rubrick Printed in the Common-Prayer-Book of Edw. 6. at the end of the Communion though since left out whether as some say by negligence or for what other reason it matters not when still we maintaine the same Doctrine and our Church doth publickly declare it in our established Articles sc Art 28. in that Rubrick there is this expression concerning Kneeling We do declare that it is not meant thereby that any adoration is done or ought to be done either unto the Sacramentall Bread or Wine there bodily received or unto any reall or essentiall presence there being of Christs naturall flesh and blood For as touching the Sacramentall Bread and Wine they remain in their very naturall substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithfull Christians and as concerning the naturall Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ they are in heaven and not here for it is against the truth of Christs naturall body to be in more places than one at the same time But further § 27 Let it be observed the order prescribed in our Church is that the people Kneel not only at the receiving of the Elements but during the whole ministration which as it cannot be said to adore a corporall presence which is not there nor by the Papists pretended to be there untill the Vm the very last sillable of the Hoc est cropus meum i. e. this is my body be pronounced so it sheweth us why we Kneel and whom we adore viz. That in all humble devotion we present our selves before God and with humility of soul confesse our sins begge his mercy offer him praise for his benefits especially his unspeakable gift of Jesus Christ for the life of the world and with all reverence receive from the hand the Seales of his Covenant assurances of our pardon and peace and life upon our unfained faith sincere repentance and persevering obedience and put our Seales to the same Covenant solemnely engaging our selves to those duties and expecting mercy only on those Evangelicall termes And thus the forenamed Rubrick which is still the sence of our Church informes us that this thing viz. the Communicants Kneeling was well meant for a signification of the humble and gratefull acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ given unto the worthy receivers and to avoide the prophanation and disorder which about the holy Communion might ensue it § 28 Having now answered these exceptions I shall adde but these two things 1. Let this one Argument be weighed he that receiveth the Communion Kneeling either sinneth in that act or sinneth not if any say he sinneth let him shew wherein every sin is a transgression of some Law but here is no Law transgressed not a Law of the Church for that commandeth it not a Law of God for there is neither any precept in the Decalogue nor any precept in the Gospell that forbideth it let any man produce any such and we yeeld and the example of Christ is no more an obliging Law in this than in the Place Time and Habit as before was shown and there is acknowledged no obligation in these But if in this act men sin not what imaginable reason can there be produced why it should be unlawfull to do it when by a just Authority they are required 2. § 29 In Dubiis tutissimum c. In doubtfull things we must choose the safest Now suppose this a matter of doubt yet which is the safest way for us to goe it is easily to judge for we are sure it is our duty and we are obliged by command to partake in the Communion to receive this Sacrament we are sure that we are obliged to maintain the peace and keep in the Communion of the Church we are sure that we are bound to obey