Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	blood_n	body_n	spirit_n	7,059	5	5.2565	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45632	Some reflections upon a treatise call'd Pietas Romana & Parisiensis, lately printed at Oxford to which are added, I, A vindication of Protestant charity, in answer to some passages in Mr. E.M.'s Remarks on a late conference, II, A defence of the Oxford reply to two discourses there printed, A.D., 1687.	Harrington, James, 1664-1693.	1688 (1688)	Wing H834; ESTC R6024	66,202	96

the Pope and the Council of Trent unless they believe and say a great deal more These and many more such passages that occurr in this Appendix will probably amaze the Reader if he know not the Examiner's avow'd principle which he says is to lye and to forswear himself deliberately for a good purpose We have seen in this last Paragraph how he proves by the Replyer's own confession that there is no Real Presence But this being the main point of difference upon which this Replyer insists the Examiner resolves to search a little deeper that is to repeat the old Tale with as little truth and judgment as he told it us before Though to do him right he has added some Sentences which afford a large field of fresh matter For a sample wee 'l run over one of ' em Now it cannot be imagined that the Liturgy-makers should translate the words of the Mass Why the words of the Mass if the Form was older than the Mass as it must be if it were of that Antiquity he allows it or Why translate when he just before owns the addition of divers words which is contrary to the rule of translating unless the words added explain and illustrate the Original He says indeed these words more effectually conclude the Popish notion but it is by asserting the quite contrary For the form is The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee c. i. e. the Body which was offer'd for thee upon the Cross the Sacrament whereof the Priest holds in his hands But to return to his charge against the Liturgy-makers 't is that they should intend to give the English words a quite different signification from the Latine without giving any notice of it to the People Should we for argument's sake suppose we cannot with truth grant that the true signification of the Latine is as he pretends because that form was in use before Transubstantiation was thought of and indeed the Reformers did not introduce a new meaning of the form but restor'd the old But of this too they should have given notice So they did if Writing Preaching Printing suffering Imprisonment and Martyrdome were sufficient to give notice at least they gave such effectual notice that the very Mechanicks in those days understood both the Popish and Reform'd Doctrine much better than the Publisher and his Catholicks do in ours He goes on That the people who had been brought up to understand not the Latine Service I hope 't was well if the Priest did that no but the Real Body of our Lord by corpus Domini custodiat c. as they still understand by the Body of our Lord in the English Form if they are of the Church of England that they the next day should hearing the same words in English understand only the Real benefits c. which they never were taught to understand and not understand how these benefits could be eaten which they need not and perhaps no man can understand or given by the Priest or how they were given for rather than to the people since they knew that only the Elements were given by the Priest to the people as Symbols of the Body and Blood which were given for the people as neither how they should preserve the receivers Body i. e. to everlasting Life which they knew they did not but that it was one of the benefits of receiving Christ's Body that it should preserve the Receiver's Body and Soul to everlasting Life which neither the Elements nor the natural Body it self if receiv'd only by oral manducation could do that all these things should be done of which not one was pretended looks so heynous that truly our Author and the Catholics have too great a kindness for the Church of England than to impose upon her He means charge her with such abominable prevarication sufficient to drive away all men from her Communion In good time I suppose the false English was put in to salve the lyes for not only our Author but our Editor too has both for the Church and himself too great a kindness than to accuse her for prevaricating No he detests prevarication more than Image-worship no halfpenny shall induce him to declare for that for he knows by experience what it is and left the Church of England's Communion only to avoid it Thus we see how much work a man of art can cut us out when he searches a little deeper The Reader who I doubt before this is tir'd as well as I am will dispence with so particular a search of the rest of this deep Paragraph wherin every sentence in proportion to it's length is no less obnoxious than this The aim of the whole is to convict the Church of England of wavering and the proof is that He says it which to any man that knows him is a sufficient argument he does not mean it And so we might dismiss this Paragraph if it were not for one passage in which it is hard to determine whither Folly or Blasphemy be most conspicuous To K. Edward's second which is the latter part of the present form Take and eat this c. He excepts and says This what Individuum vagum or perhaps nothing if nothing consecrated as it seems But why it should seem so to Protestants who have not renounc'd their senses he does not tell us They see well enough that This is a piece of the Consecrated Bread which the Priest holds in hand when he says take and eat and are astonisht that a seeming Christian should object to their form what will equally make against our blessed Saviors own words When he said Take eat this is my Body do this c. they are satisfy'd none of the Apostles ever sayd This what individuum vagum or perhaps nothing or if any one did it was Judas The Examiner repeats this irreverence p. 211. where he says this form is nonsense or to most unintelligible And tho' our Blessed Savior said This is my Body which is given or broken for you our Examiner calls the dead body An irreverent to say no worse expression p. 196. repeats the censure p. 213. and cannot forbear to call the use of this expression an honor of which let him enjoy the shame for never was Irony more unseasonable Such irreverence is too great a crime to be chastis'd by a private hand 't is an iniquity to be punisht by the Judge But what better can wee hope for from that bold man who alleging in behalf of Popery that our Savior said this is my body and being answer'd that according to the Fathers he meant the Figure of his body reply'd without more ado Why then he ly'd I cannot now stay to inquire the meaning of that uncouth word Genevized which he afterwards interprets by being infected with Geneva but leaves us to seek what disease Geneva is the name of Nor shall I accuse but applaud him for his false

though it be true as the Church of England holds it and the Popish notion be very false yet an explicit knowledge and profession of either of these things is not necessary to Salvation nor is any Church bound to extend the Terms of her Communion so far as the explicit owning every truth or explicit rejecting every thing that is false From whence it follows 1. That our Church might lawfully require or wave an explicit Declaration and Subscription of this Article require it because true wave it because not essentially necessary 2. That her doing either one or t'other or both alternately argues no change or wavering in her Doctrine for to take or not take notice of a Corollary does not change the Proposition it depends upon But to justify yet farther the Proceedings of our Church in this matter the Replyer told him p. 4. that she had not allways thought it requisite to make the Declaration and Subscription of this Article a Term of her Communion as indeed she had not but rather us'd it like a Civil Test to discern who were qualify'd to bear Office in the Church And to make and impose such Tests as may inable the Government to confide in them they imploy is a piece of wisdome which all Governments practice and which no man can accuse if the matter of the Test be not evil Besides our Church did not do this out of pure choice but absolute necessity For finding all indeavors us'd to ruine her by two seeming contrary Partyes which alternately prevail'd as the Court-Interest vary'd she saw it necessary to cut these Diamonds with one another and so far countenance the weaker as might help to ballance the prevailing party not despairing but in time by God's blessing upon good indeavors the honest-minded men on both sides might be brought to see their Error and return to the Unity of the Church Now the Article of the Real Presence was at that time a very proper Test to discover who inclin'd to either Party for men had not yet learn'd to hold Communion with Us and receive our Sacraments against their Conscience nor to declare their Assent and Consent to our Establishment and make the most solemn protestations that they are of Us while their heart is at Rome though we have since learn'd that all this may be done and I wonder the Examiner knowing by whome never urg'd it for a Spirits being in two places at once since it seems to be a better instance than any he has given in his Pamphlet 4. 5. His two last Reasons are in effect already answer'd For 4. Whatever it is lawful to impose it is lawful to secure the observance of by what Penalties the Government thinks fit And 5. If the Church did vary from any old Form it was because that Form had been abus'd to conntenance Superstition and Idolatry In the next Paragraph He 's griev'd that we think that design impertinent which he says was the very primary intention of the Author as is plain enough It might be impertinent for all that and it was so plain and primary that the Author never spoke to it so that to know it we must know his heart which the Publisher of all men living ought not to expect of us He adds that the Author proves irrefragably that our Church has waver'd in her Doctrine I suppose he means unanswerably for nothing being urg'd he might well conclude nothing could be answer'd After this he repeats his old Narrative of what befell the Real Presence the Doctrine whereof was according to him thrown out and in his cleanly phrase lick'd up again thus desparing to convince our understandings he tryes to work upon our Stomachs But we have already said enough to the charge of wavering and Tautology which is nauseous in it self becomes more so by his example Having finish'd his Narrative he adds a politic tho' not so pertinent a Reflexion about persecuting Dissenters who if they would be eas'd must fee him to hold his tongue for if such a manager undertake it their cause is irrecoverably lost His next Remark is that Either the Replyer knows that all Catholicks declare they detest the adoration of any creature c. The Replyer never judges of the Examiners Catholicks by what they declare But if all true Papists detest the adoration of a creature that Gentleman is none who proffer'd for a halfpenny to declare that he terminated his worship upon the very Image it self I reserve the next Paragraph till I come to the fellow of it pag. 209. and must now admire the Examiners constancy who having been so often taken in the very act of misquoting follows the trade still with so great assurance as to falsify my own Reply to my face If there be says he no real participation as this Replyer afterwards every where confesseth c. I wish for the Readers ease he had nam'd somewhere but to supply that defect I will name him a place or two The Body which now exists whereof we partake is therefore verily and indeed receiv'd and by consequence said to be really present because a real participation c. Reply p. 14. And by virtue of this Spiritual and Mystical yet real participation we receive the benefits consequent to it p. 18. the Church of England which does not hold a bare reception of the benefits but a real participation of the Body c. p. 31. Which passages to name no more confess no real participation just as he confest Popery when he writ and sign'd a paper yet in being that deny'd it If the Reader desire a farther taste of his sincerity the note upon p. 13. will furnish him sufficiently We are there rank'd among them that pierced or deny or disbelieve our Savior's words though the charge be as false as the English. We are there charg'd with owning our receipt of the dead Body and dead Blood of our Lord though in the place by him quoted we say expressly that since the Body broken and the Blood shed neither do nor can now really exist they neither can be really present nor literally eaten or drank nor can we receive them c. It is there found necessary to declare that that the same Body which was immolated whilst upon earth remains tho' now glorify'd till the end of the world as if the Replyer had deny'd this or had not said that the Glorify'd Body now sits at the right hand of God and shall there continue till the restitution of all things pag. 13. and the Body that is glorify'd is numerically the same that was broken pag. 14. Nay he spares not his own dear self but in kindness to the Replyer for whome he is ready to sacrifice his life and all that he hath he says that he and his Catholics content themselves to believe and know that our Lord in this Sacrament is become to us a quickning Spirit tho' they know they shall scarce content