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
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

them who made it not necessary No the sillier they if there were any that needed an express direction and the wickeder they that with design consecrated so aukwardly as to omit it Such particularities are not requisite unless to direct some Monks who scarce know their right hand from their left and accordingly we meet 'em in the Mass-Book or to some such Conformists as the Examiner once was who perverted the common usage with a dishonest intent and so made it afterwards necessary to restore even this direction Which as the Replyer farther told him now it is restor'd is but as it was in K. Edward's first book a marginal note directing when to use the Ceremony not a Rubric to injoyn the use of it For even in the present Common Prayer Book the use is not injoyn'd but suppos'd as is manifest from the Rubric before the Prayer of Consecration That Telesphorus put the Gloria in Excelsis in the Mass is a Monkish legend younger than the Mass which is yet much younger than Telesphorus That this hymn was the Angels congratulation for our Savior's coming into the world or rather that the hymn now so call'd begins with the Angelical congratulation we need not to be told for we are allow'd to read the Bible but that the Benedictus qui venit was their i. e. the Angels congratulation for our Saviors triumphant entry into Jerusalem is a thing I did not know before Had the Examiner consulted Aquinas he might have sav'd this blunder and learn'd a better reason why these two Hymns are made use of Populus devote laudat divinitatem Christi cum Angelis dicens Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus humanitatem cum pueris dicens Benedictus qui venit c. Aquinas apud Cassandrum Liturg. cap. 25. pag. 54. But I am not yet satisfy'd that Benedictus qui venit c. is so pertinently put into the beginning of the Office if according to the Examiner it be said to congratulate Christ's coming to be present upon the Altar For the Papists say he does not come till a good while after at the precise nick of time when the Priest has pronounc'd the last Syllable of Hoc est enim Corpus meum Wherefore Benedictus qui venit would do better in the Postcommunion when they think he is there than to congratulate his being there when they declare he is not 'T is impertinent to tell me what the Sanctus has been call'd since it is commonly call'd the Trisagium now as is manifest to any one that reads unless we must renounce our senses in every thing relating to the Eucharist And there 's very good reason to call it so if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify thrice and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy which perhaps the Examiner might have known but that Graecum est c. is an old Maxim of the Monks He should have known too or not pretended to any skill in Antiquity that the name Trisagium is given to two several forms both mention'd in a Synodical Epistle of Felix III. where he likewise tells a fine tale that has past upon divers other writers how the later the Examiner's Trisagium being miraculously sent from Heaven the use of it was first appointed by Proclus Arch-Bishop of Constannople though the Reader that is not fond of Legends may find a more rational account in Photius's Collections out of Jobius Monachus But the Trisagium most anciently us'd in the Celebration of the Eucharist is yet extant in the Apostolic Constitutions and is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So exactly does the truly ancient agree with our present form and so little truth is there in what the Examiner would insinuate that the other introduc'd by Proclus was the ancienter form as if to use a Convert's expression he were fated to be allways in the wrong The Replyer doubted p. 7. that some of the Discourser's quotations were not very judiciously chosen tho' the thing for which they were quoted at the same time he granted to be true The place in Eusebius he expresly shew'd to be impertinent which made him suspect the other two which he had neither leisure nor the books by him to examine Now the Appendix saying nothing of Eusebius the Author plainly gives him up and he says it is not worth while to Vindicate the others and for once is not mistaken Notwithstanding he will add what he finds in S. Ambrose's works l. 4. c. 5. de Sacramentis I will not now return that this book is so notoriously spurious that the Examiner himself durst not ascribe it to S. Ambrose nor will I except to the matter quoted which is true and agreeable to the doctrine of the Church of England if we take it in the Author's not the Quoter's sense for our present inquiry must be not whether it be true but pertinent which it cannot be if the form to which we answer Amen be a prayer and the form is The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve the Body and Soul to everlasting life Now admitting the form implyes this assertion what thou now receivest is the body of our Lord which he that answers Amen confesses to be true yet still the whole form is a prayer and he that says Amen to it answers Amen to a prayer unless the Examiner believe that the implying something assertory makes a petition cease to be a prayer which would be so ridiculous a notion as never dwelt in the same head with common sense Concerning the omission of these words in these holy mysteries the Replyer who pretended only to guess the true reason said it might be purely accidental And it might not be so says the Examiner For they have a signification contrary c. If they have so the Reply there told him that was cause enough to omit them because they would assert an Opinion contrary to sound doctrine and the declar'd judgment of the Church to which I find nothing return'd The Replyer observ'd p. 7. that no fault was found with the second form which is intirely agreeable to the words and end of the Institution Wherefore now it is decreed that some fault shall be found with it And first it is Faulty enough certainly because contrary to the former book which to prove was the Author's chief intention wherefore he never urg'd one word in proof of it But we want from the Examiner a better reason than the variety of expression to prove a contrariety in the matter least among other inconveniences this Appendix which is all Tautology prove only a heap of contrarieties Of his second exception I have given my opinion already and shall neither repeat that nor consider the two next Paragraphs wherein there is as much truth and pertinence as there is good manners The Examen gives me no occasion to add to what I sayd in my Reply I say and prove the Examiner denyes and calls names and who