Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	blood_n	life_n	lord_n	4,921	5	3.7317	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30411	A relation of a conference held about religion at London, the third of April, 1676 by Edw. Stillingfleet ... and Gilbert Burnet, with some gentlemen of the Church of Rome.	Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1676 (1676)	Wing B5861; ESTC R14666	108,738	278

the burden of an heavy surcharge and that it might not go to the digestion but that it might feed his soul with spiritual nourishment From which words one of two consequences will necessarily follow either that the Consecrated Elements do really nourish the Body which we intend to prove from them or that the Body of Christ is not in the Elements but as they are Sacramentally used which we acknowledg many of the Fathers believed But the last words we cited of the Spiritual nourishment shew those Fathers did not think so and if they did we suppose those we deal with will see that to believe Christ's Body is only in the Elements when used will clearly leave the charge of Idolatry on that Church in their Processions and other adorations of the Host. But none is so express as Origen who on these words ' T is not that which enters within a man which defiles a man says If every thing that enters by the mouth goes into the belly and is cast into the draught then the food that is sanctified by the word of God and by Prayer goes also to the belly as to what is material in it and from thence to the draught but by the Prayer that was made over it it is useful in proportion to our Faith and is the mean that the understanding is clear-sighted and attentive to that which is profitable and it is not the matter of Bread but the word pronounced over it which profits him that does not eat it in a way unworthy of our Lord. This Doctrine of the Sacraments being so digested that some parts of it turned to excrement was likewise taught by divers Latin Writers in the 9 th age as Rabanus Maurus Arch-Bishop of Mentz and Heribald Bishop of Auxerre Divers of the Greek Writers did also hold it whom for a reproach their adversaries called Stercoranists It is true other Greek Fathers were not of Origen's opinion but believed that the Eucharist did entirely turn into the substance of our bodies So Cyril of Ierusalem says that the Bread of the Eucharist does not go into the belly nor is cast into the draught but is distributed thorough the whole substance of the Communicant for the good of body and soul. The Homily of the Eucharist in a dedication that is in St. Chrysostom's works says Do not think that this is Bread and that this is Wine for they pass not to the draught as other victuals do And comparing it to wax put to the fire of which no ashes remain he adds So think that the Mysteries are consumed with the substance of our bodies John Damascene is of the same mind who says that the Body and the Blood of Christ passes into the consistence of our souls and bodies without being consumed corrupted or passing into the draught God forbid but passing into our substance for our conservation Thus it will appear that though those last-cited-Fathers did not believe as Origen did that any part of the Eucharist went to the draught yet they thought it was turned into the substance of our bodies from which we may well conclude they thought the substance of Bread and Wine remained in the Eucharist after the consecration and that it nourished our bodies And thus we hope we have sufficiently proved our first Proposition in all its three Branches So leaving it we go on to the second Proposition which is That the Fathers call the consecrated Elements the Figures the Signs the Symboles the Types and Antitypes the Commemoration representation the Mysteries and the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ. Tertullian proving against Marcion that Christ had a real Body he brings some Figures that were fulfilled in Christ and says He made the Bread which he took and gave his Disciples to be his Body saying This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body but it had not been a Figure if his Body had not been true for an empty thing such as a Phantasm cannot have a Figure Now had Tertullian and the Church in his time believed Transubstantiation it had been much more pertinent for him to have argued Here is corporally present Christ's Body therefore he had a true Body than to say Here is a Figure of his Body therefore he had a true Body such an escape as this is not incident to a man of common sense if he had believed Transubsubstantiation And the same Father in two other places before cited says Christ gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread and that he represented his own Body by the Bread St. Austin says He commended and gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood The same expressions are also in Bede Alcuine and Druthmar that lived in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries But what St. Austin says elsewhere is very full in this matter where treating of the Rules by which we are to judg what expressions in Scripture are figurative and what not he gives this for one Rule If any place seem to command a crime or horrid action it is figurative and to instance it cites these words Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man you have no life in you which says he seems to command some crime or horrid action therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our memory that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us Which words are so express and full that whatever those we deal with may think of them we are sure we cannot devise how any one could have delivered our Doctrine more formally Parallel to these are Origen's words who calls the understanding the words of our Saviour of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood according to the Letter a Letter that kills The same St. Austin calls the Eucharist a sign of Christ's Body in his Book against Adimantus who studied to prove that the Author of the Old and New Testament was not the same God and among other arguments he uses this That Blood in the Old Testament is called the Life or Soul contrary to the New Testament To which St. Austin answers that it was so called not that it was truly the Soul or Life but the Sign of it and to shew that the sign does sometimes bear the name of that whereof it is a sign he says Our Lord did not doubt to say This is my Body when he was giving the sign of his Body Where if he had not believed the Eucharist was substantially different from his Body it had been the most impertinent illustration that ever was and had proved just against him that the sign must be one and the same with that which is signified by it For the Sacrament being called the Type the Antitype the Symbole and Mystery of Christs Body and Blood The ancient Liturgies and Greek Fathers use these phrases so frequently that since

ever Christs flesh is eaten and his blood is drunk which is most signally done in the Sacrament there eternal life must accompany it and so these words must be understood even in relation to the Sacrament only of the spiritual Communicating by Faith As when it is said a man is a reasonable Creature though this is said of the whole man Body and Soul yet when we see that upon the dissolution of Soul and Body no reason or life remains in the body we from thence positively conclude the reason is seated only in the Soul though the body has organs that are necessary for its operations So when it is said we eat Christs flesh and drink his blood in the Sacrament which gives eternal life there being two things in it the bodily eating and the spiritual Communicating though the eating of Christs flesh is said to be done in the worthy receiving which consists of these two yet since we may clearly see the bodily receiving may be without any such effects we must conclude that the eating of Christs flesh is only done by the inward Communicating though the other that is the bodily part be a divine Organ and conveyance of it And as reason is seated only in the Soul so the eating of Christs flesh must be only inward and spiritual and so the mean by which we receive Christ in the Supper is faith All this is made much clearer by the words that follow my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed Now Christs flesh is so eaten as it is meat which I suppose none will question it being a prosecution of the same discourse Now it is not meat as taken by the body for they cannot be so gross as to say Christs flesh is the meat of our body therefore since his flesh is only the meat of the Soul and spiritual nourishment it is only eaten by the Soul and so received by faith Christ also says He that eateth my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in him and he in him This is the definition of that eating and drinking he had been speaking of so that such as is the dwelling in him such also must be the eating of him the one therefore being spiritual inward and by faith the other must be such also And thus it is as plain as can be from the words of Christ that he spake not of a carnal or corporal but of a spiritual eating of his flesh by faith All this is more confirmed by the Key our Saviour gives of his whole Discourse when the Iews were offended for the hardness of his sayings It is the spirit that quickneth or giveth the life he had been speaking of the flesh profiteth nothing the words I speak unto you are spirit and they are life From which it is plain he tells them to understand his words of a spiritual life and in a spiritual manner But now I shall examine N.N. his reasons to the contrary His chief Argument is that when eternal life is promised upon the giving of Alms or other good Works we must necessarily understand it with this proviso that they were given with a good intention and from a good principle therefore we must understand these words of our Saviour to have some such proviso in them All this concludes nothing It is indeed certain when any promise is past upon an external action such a reserve must be understood And so S. Paul tells us if he bestowed all his goods to feed the poor and had no Charity it profited him nothing And if it were clear our Saviour were here speaking of an external action I should acknowledge such a proviso must be understood but that is the thing in question and I hope I have made it appear Our Saviour is speaking of an internal action and therefore no such proviso is to be supposed For he is speaking of that eating of his flesh which must necessarily and certainly be worthily done and so that objection is of no force He must therefore prove that the eating his flesh is primarily and simply meant of the bodily eating in the Sacrament and not only by a denomination from a relation to it as the whole man is called reasonable though the reason is seated in the soul only What he says to shew that by faith only we are not the Sons of God since by Baptism also we are the Sons of God is not to the purpose for the design of the argument was to prove that by Faith only we are the Sons of God so as to be the Heirs of eternal life Now the baptism of the adult for our debate runs upon those of ripe years and understanding makes them only externally and Sacramentally the Sons of God for the inward and vital sonship follows only upon Faith And this Faith must be understood of such a lively and operative faith as includes both repentance and amendment of life So that when our Saviour says he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved that believing is a complex of all evangelical graces from which it appears that none of his reasons are of force enough to conclude that the universality of these words of Christ ought to be so limited and restricted For what remains of that which he desired might be taken notice of that we ought to prove that Christs body and blood was present in the Sacrament only spiritually and not corporally by express Scriptures or by arguments whereof the Major and Minor were either express words of Scripture or equivalent to them it has no force at all in it I have in a full discourse examined all that is in the plea concerning the express words of Scripture and therefore shall say nothing upon that head referring the Reader to what he will meet with on that subject afterwards But here I only desire the Reader may consider our contest in this particular is concerning the true meaning of our Saviours words This is my body in which it is very absurd to ask for express words of Scripture to prove that meaning by For if that be'setled on as a necessary method of proof then when other Scriptures are brought to prove that to be the meaning of these words it may be asked how can we prove the true meaning of that place we bring to prove the meaning of this by and so by a progress for ever we must contend about the true meaning of every place Therefore when we enquire into the sense of any controverted place we must judge of it by the rules of common sense and reason of Religion and Piety and if a meaning be affixed to any place contrary to these we have good reason to reject it For we knowing all external things only by our senses by which only the miracles resurrection of Christ could be proved which are the means God has given us to converse with and enjoy his whole creation and the evidence our senses give being such as naturally determines our