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
A86302	Respondet Petrus: or, The answer of Peter Heylyn D.D. to so much of Dr. Bernard's book entituled, The judgement of the late Primate of Ireland, &c. as he is made a party to by the said Lord Primate in the point of the Sabbath, and by the said doctor in some others. To which is added an appendix in answer to certain passages in Mr Sandersons History of the life and reign of K· Charles, relating to the Lord Primate, the articles of Ireland, and the Earl of Strafford, in which the respondent is concerned.	Heylyn, Peter, 1600-1662.	1658 (1658)	Wing H1732; Thomason E938_4; Thomason E938_5; ESTC R6988	109,756	140

the meaning and effect of that extremity as he calls it p. 2. but that they are so far reconciled unto him as to be capable of the Remission of their sins in case they do not want that faith in their common Saviour which is required thereunto And here I should have left this point but that I must first desire Dr. Bernard to reconcile these two passages which I find in the Lord Primates Letter of the year 1617. in one of which he seems to dislike of their opinion who contract the Riches of Christs satisfaction into too narrow a room as if none had any kind of interess therein but such as were elected before the foundation of the world as before was said And in the other he declares that he is well assured that our Saviour hath obtained at the hands of his Father Reconciliation and forgiveness of sins not for the Reprobate but Elect onely p. 21. Let Dr. Bernard reconcile these so different passages erit mihi magnus Apollo in the Poets language If the Lord Primate did subscribe the Articles of the Church of England as Doctor Bernard saies he did p. 118. I know who may be better blam'd for breaking his subscription then he whom the Lord Primate hath accused for it p. 110. For in the second Article of the Church of England it is said expresly that Christ suffered was crucified dead and buried to reconcile his Father to us and to be a sacrifice not onely for original guilt but also for the actual sins of men In which as well the sacrifice as the effect and fruit thereof which is the Reconciliation of mankind to God the Father is delivered in general terms without any restriction put upon them neither the Sacrifice nor the Reconciliation being restrained to this man or that man some certain quidams of their own whom they pass commonly by the name of Gods Elect. The sacrifice being made for the sins of men of men indefinitely without limitation is not to be confined to some few men onely as the general current of the Calvinian Divines have been pleased to make it as if Christ really and intentionally died for none but them 4. The Church of England doth maintain that Christ is truly and really present in the Sacrament of his most precious body and blood Which Doctrine of a Real presence is first concluded from the words of the Distribution retained in the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth and formerly prescribed to be used in the ancient Missals viz. The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto life everlasting The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ c. Which words being thought by some precise and scrupulous persons to incline too much towards Transubstantiation and therefore not unfit to justifie a real presence were quite omitted in the second Liturgy of that King Anno 1552. whe● Dudly of Northumberland who favoured the Calvinian party carried all before him the void place being filled up with th● words of the Participation viz. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee c. Take and drink this in remembrance c. An alteration not well grounded and of short continuance For when that Book was brought under a review in the first year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth those words of the Distribution were re●●ored to their former place and followed by those of the Participation as it still continueth It is proved secondly by that passage in the publick Catechisme in which the Party catechized is taught to say that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper Now if a Question should be made what the Church means by verily and indeed in the former passage it must be answered that she means that Christ is truly and really present in that blessed Sacrament as before was said the words being rendered thus in the Latine Translation viz. Corpus sanguis Domini quae vere realiter exhibentur c. Verily and indeed as the English hath it the same with vere and realiter that is to say truly and really as it is in the Latine And thirdly this appears to be the Doctrine of this Church by the most Orthodox and Learned Prelates of the same the words of three of which only I shall now produce that out of the mouths of two or three witnesses the truth hereof may be established God forbid saith Bishop Bilson we should deny that the flesh and blood of Christ are truly present and truly received of the faithful at the Lords Table It is the Doctrine that we teach others and comfort our selves withal Secondly Bishop Morton as great an enemy to the Superstitions of the Romish Mass as ever wrote against it doth expresly say That the question is not concerning a real presence which Protestants as their own Jesuites witness do also profess Fortunatus a Protestant holding that Christ is in the Sacrament most really verissime realissimeque as his own words are But none more positively and clearly then Doctor Lancelor Andrews then Lord Bishop of Chichester who in his Apology written in Answer to Cardinal Bellarmin thus declares himself as one and one of the chief Members of the Church of England viz. Praesentiam credimus non minus quam vos veram de modo praesentiae nil temere definimus We acknowledge saith he a presence as true and real as you do but we determine nothing rashly of the manner of it And in his Answer to the eighteenth Chapter of Cardinal Perrons Reply he thus speaks of Zuinglius It is well known saith he that Zuinglius to avoid Est in these words hoc est Corpus meum in the Church of Romes sense fell to be all for significat and nothing for est at all And whatsoever went farther then significat he took to savour of the Carnal presence For which if the Cardinal mislike him so do we a further declaration of the true sense and meaning of the Church in this particular we have from Mr. Alexander Noel Dean of Saint Pauls and Prolocutor of the Convocation in the year 1562. when the Articles or Confession of this Church were approved and ratified who in his Catechism publickly allowed to be taught in all the Grammar Schools of this Realm thus resolves the point The Question is Coelestis pars ab omni sensu externo longe disjuncta quaenam est That is to say what is the Heavenly or Spiritual part of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper To which the party Catechised returns this Answer Corpus sanguis Christi quae fidelibus in Coena Dominica praebentur ab illisque accipiuntur comeduntur bibuntur coelesti tantum spirituali modo vere tamen atque reipsa id est the Heavenly or Spiritual part is the Body and Blood of Christ which are given to the faithful in the Lords

recorded in the fourth Commandment p. 113. And in these words we have two several propositions viz. First That the setting apart of some whole day to Gods solemn worship is juris Divini naturalis and secondly that the Sabbath which he meaneth by this solemn day was juris Divini positivi recorded in the fourth Commandment both which shall be examined in their several turns And first I would fain know of Doctor Bernard or any other of the Lord Primates Chaplains since he cannot answer for himselfe where we shall find that the setting apart of some whole day for Gods solemn worship was juris Divini naturalis That some time was to be set apart for the worship of God is agreed by all and reckoned by most knowing men not interessed in any party to be the moral part of the fourth Commandment but that this time should be some whole day is neither imprinted in mans heart by the Law of Nature nor ever required of the Iews nor observed by the Christians Or granting that some such whole day was to be set apart for Gods solemn worship I would fain know in the first place when the said whole day was to begin and how long to continue whether it were a whole natural day or a whole artificial day as they use to phrase it And if it were a whole natural day then whether to extend from midnight to midnight after the reckoning of the Gentiles or from Sun-setting to Sun-setting from Even to Even according to the account of the Iewes or if a whole artificial day then whether a day of twelve hours onely after the reckoning of the Iewes or from Sun-rising to Sun-setting be they more or less according to the several Climates under which men lived Which points unless they be well stated the conscience will have nothing in this case to rely upon In the next place considering that the Lord Primate speaks indefinitely of some whole day without determining when and how often the said whole day was to be observed I would fain know whether such a whole day was to be set apart once or twice in the week or whether it would suffice to the fulfilling of the moral part of the fourth Commandment if it were onely once a month or once a year or once in seven year or once in the course of a mans whole life For being it is said indefinitly that the setting apart of some whole day to Gods solemn worship is juris Divini naturalis ingraffed in the Heart of man by the Law of Nature it may be probably inferred that the setting apart of one whole day at what time soever a man pleaseth may very sufficiently comply with the intention of that Law and consequently discharge the man so doing from all further observance which how far it will satisfie the consciences of men or be accounted acceptable in the sight of God I shall leave to others to determine But admitting that this whole day which the Lord Primate speaks of was to have as frequent a return as the Iewish Sabbath I would then know when such a whole day was either ordinarily kept or required to be kept by the Iewes or Gentiles That no such whole day was ever ordinarily kept by the Iewes appears by their riotous feastings on the Sabbath day which before we spake of by which it is most evident that the one half of that day was either spent in Luxury and Riot or in Rest and Idleness and that the least part of the other moyety was spent in holy Meditation and much less in the solemn worship of God which in the first settlement of that Nation in the Land of Canaan was performed onely in the Tabernacle as afterwards in the Holy Temple at which but few of the people and those which dwelt near the place of worship could give any attendance We meet indeed with a Commandment that the Sabbath was to be continued from Even to Even Levit. 23. 32. that is to say from Friday evening at Sun-set until the like time of Sun-set on the Sabbath day Which Precept being first given by God with reference to the day of Atonement or Expiation and commonly applyed by the Iewes to the weekly Sabbaths requires no otherkeeping of the day for that space of time more then the afflicting of their souls by a solemn fast then onely rest from labour all servile works And this appears plainly by the first words of the said 32. verse where it is said That it should be unto them a Sabbath of rest compared with vers 30 31. where forbearing all or any manner of work is the chief thing required to the observation of that day And yet that rest from labour and cessation from all manner of work frequently intermitted also either with reference to the solemn keeping of the day it self Mat. 12. 5. or the preservation of the creature Luke 13. 15. 14. 5. But that the whole day extending from Even to Even should be either spent in afflicting their souls as it is meant onely of the day of Atonement or Expiation which was observed but once a year or in the acts of solemn and religious worship if it be understood of the weekly Sabbath to which the Iews commonly applied it also as before was said as I no where find So have I no reason to believe it without better grounds Certain I am that so much of the Sabbath day after this account as intervened between the Sun-setting on the Friday and the Sun-rising on the Sabbath was partly spent in rest from labour and making necessary preparations for the day ensuing and part thereof in necessary repose and sleep for the refreshing of their bodies and support of nature and how the rest of that day was spent we have seen before There is another place in Scripture much prest upon the consciences of the people by the rigid Sabbatarians of these times to stave them off from any lawful recreation on their new made Sabbath that is to say Isa 58. 13 14. where God speaks thus unto that people If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath from doing thy pleasure on my holy day and call the Sabbath a delight the holy of the Lord honourable and shalt honour him not doing thine own wayes nor finding thine own pleasure nor speaking thine own words then shalt thou delight thy self in the Lord. But if we look better on this Text and compare it with vers 3. of the same Chapter where we find mention of a fast and of the afflicting of their Souls on the day of that fast we may see easily that the Text so much insisted on by our Sabbatarians relates onely to the day of Atonement which being a day of publick humiliation and of confessing their sins to the Lord their God required a stricter withholding of themselves from their lawful pleasures then any of the weekly Sabbaths So as admitting that this whole day was by God required to be

is the Churches meaning cannot be better manifested then in the words of Mr. Alexander Noel before mentioned who being Prolocutor of the Convocation in the year 1562. when this Article was disputed approved and ratified cannot in reason be supposed to be ignorant of the true sense and meaning of this Church in that particular And he accordingly in his Catechism publickly allowed of with reference to a local Descent doth declare it thus viz. Ut Christus corpore in terrae viscera ita anima corpore separata ad Inferos descendit pariterque Mortis ejus vis ad mortuos Inferosque adeo ipsos usque eò permanavit ut Animae incredulorum tristissimae ipsorum incredulitati maximè debitae condemnationis sensum perciperent ipseque Satanas Inferorum Princeps tyrannidis suae tenebrarum potentiam omnem afflictam profligatam ruina oppressam esse animad verteret Id est As Christ descended in his body into the bowels of the earth so in his soul separated from that body he descended also into Hell by means whereof the power and efficacy of his death was not made known onely to the dead but the Divels themselves insomuch that both the souls of the unbelievers did sensibly perceive that condemnation which was most justly due to them for their incredulity and Satan himself the Prince of Divels did as plainly see that his tyrannie and all the powers of darknesse were opprest ruined and destroyed But on the contrary the Lord Primate alloweth not any such local Descent as is maintained by the Church and defended by the most learned Members of it who have left us any thing in writing about this Article And yet he neither follows the opinion of Calvin himself nor of the generality of those of the Calvinian party who herein differ from their Master but goes a new way of a later discovery in which although he had few Leaders he hath found many followers By Christs Descending into Hell he would have nothing else to be understood but his continuing in the state of separation between the body and the soul his remaining under the power of Death during the time that he lay buried in the grave which is no more in effect though it differ somewhat in the terms then to say that he died and was buried and rose not till the third day as the Creed instructs us And yet to set out this opinion to the best advantage he hath laid out more cost upon it then upon all the rest of his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge thronging together so many citations concerning the word Hades out of old Greek Authors so many Critical Observations on their Words and Phrases out of Grammarians Scholiasts and Etymologists as serve abundantly both to amaze the ignorant and to confound the learned Nothing lesse meant in all those Collections then to assert the Doctrine of the Church of England in this particular no more then he hath done in the other Points before remembred though all of them are either to be found in the Book of Articles to which he had subscribed as Doctor Bernard hath informed us p. 118. or in the Book of Common Prayer which he was bound to conform himself unto both in judgment and practice as being impos'd by Act of Parliament on the Church of Ireland 7. I should now proceed to see what difference there is between the Doctrine of the Church of England and the Lord Primates own judgment in the point of Free-will which he hath given us in his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge p. 464. But because that point hath some relation to the Nine Articles of Lambeth I shall take no other notice of it then as it is comprehended in those Articles in the defence whereof the Lord Primate did appear with so great affection as made him very gracious in the eyes of the Calvinian Party both at Home and Abroad But this together with the little esteem he had of the Orders Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England is left to be the subject of the following Section SECT XI The Articles of Lambeth when made and on what occasion Dislik't and supprest by Queen Elizabeth and rejected by King James at the Conference at Hampton-Court Countenanced and defended by the Lord Primate who for so doing is much honoured by the English Puritans The History of Goteschalcus publisht by him and the great thanks he received for it from Doctor Twisse What else it was that made the Lord Primate so esteemed by the Brethren here His Inconformity to the Orders Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England in six particulars WE are informed by Doctor Bernard that the Lord Primate did fully approve the Articles of Religion of the Church of England in points of Doctrine as the same more enlarged in the Articles of Ireland and that he also did approve the Discipline and Constitution of both Churches p. 144. By which if Doctor Bernard means that the Articles of England were the same with those of the Church of Ireland though more enlarged in theirs of Ireland than in ours of England he is much mistaken there being many things contained in the Articles of the Church of Ireland extremely differing from the Doctrine of the Church of England as shall be shewn particularly in a place more proper But because the Lord Primate is no otherwise concerned therein then in relation to the Nine Articles of Lambeth which are incorporated and contained in those of Ireland I shall confine my self precisely unto that particular And I shall find enough in that to shew the Lord Primates further differences from the Church of England those Articles containing all the Calvinian Rigours in the Points of Praedestination Grace Free-will c. which have produced so much Disturbance in these parts of Christendom Those Articles first occasioned by some Differences which arose in Cambridge between Doctor Whitaker the Queens Professor and Doctor Peter Baro the Lady Margarets Professor in that University agreed on at a private meeting in Lambeth-house Anno 1595. None but the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Bishop Elect of London and the Bishop of Bangor with some learned men of Doctor Whitakers own party being present at it and being so made were sent to Cambridge rather to silence Doctor Baro than to compose the Differences by any equal expedient So that being made on a particular occasion at a private meeting and by men not impowered to any such purpose they were never looked on otherwise than as private Opinions not as the Tendries of this Church So far disliked by Q. Elizabeth when she first heard of them that they were presently supprest by her command and so supprest that we hear no more news of them till the Conference at Hampton-Court where they found no better entertainment from the hands of King James for Doctor Reinolds having mov'd that the Nine Orthodoxal Assertions as he called them which were made at Lambeth might be added