Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	body_n	call_v	natural_a	3,680	5	6.6307	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79524	Catholike history, collected and gathered out of Scripture, councels, ancient Fathers, and modern authentick writers, both ecclesiastical and civil; for the satisfaction of such as doubt, and the confirmation of such as believe, the Reformed Church of England. Occasioned by a book written by Dr. Thomas Vane, intituled, The lost sheep returned home. / By Edward Chisenhale, Esquire.	Chisenhale, Edward, d. 1654.	1653 (1653)	Wing C3899; Thomason E1273_1; ESTC R210487	201,728	571

wine we do signifie the flesh and blood which he offered for us And the Old Testament saith he was instituted in blood because that blood was a witness of Gods benefits in signification and figure whereof we take the mystical cup of his blood for the tuition of our body and soul he and many more concurring in judgement in this point that the Sacramental bread and wine are not corporally and really the natural substance of the flesh and blood of Christ but that they are similitudes significations figures and s●gnes of his body and blood and therefore be called and have the name of his flesh and blood and were but indeed tokens thereof and meant of a spiritual grace as Christ witnesses The words which he spake were spirit and life Joh. 6. It was bread which he took it was wine which he gave saying I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine till I drink it with you in my Fathers kingdom They were the elementary parts of the Sacrament signifying the spiritual substance of his body and blood And when he took the bread and the cup and said This is my body this is my blood it is manifest by what I have already spoken that that saying was a figurative speech To maintain that it was very flesh and very blood Christ gave to his disciples Bread and wide are the outward elements of the invisible grace doth utterly destroy the nature of a Sacrament both according to the Tenents of the Church of Rome and all other Churches concerning the nature of a Sacrament The Church of England holds that the bread and wine are but the outward visible signes of the inward spiritual grace And herewith agrees S. Austin in his definition of a Sacrament lib. 2. de doctr Christian Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum sensibile sanctificans nos S. Tho. part 3. quaest 60. art 3. says Tria significantur primū causa effectiva nostrae sanctificationis scilicet Passionem Christi Hoc facite in mei commemorationem 1 Cor. 11. secundum causam formalem nostrae sanctificationis scil gratiam tertium cansam finalem quae est gloria Whereupon the Church hath this heavenly Song Oh sacred banquet in which Christ is received and the memory of his Passion recollected by which our mindes are filled with grace receiving a blessed pledge of future glory Hugo de Sancta Victoria part 1. cap. 1. Sacramentum è materiale elementum foris sensibus praepositum ex similitudine representans ex institutione significans ex sanctificatione continens aliquam invisibilem spiritualem gratiam And herewith agreeth S. Austin saying Sacramentum signum est quod praeter speciem quam ingerit sensibus facit quicquid in cognitionem venire The Councel of Florens treating upon the Sacrament of Confirmation have resolved that all Sacraments must consist of matter and form there must be an outward signe to signifie the inward grace Wherefore I wonder that the Papists can for shame deny that the matter of bread and wine should remain in the Eucharist for by this means they deny it to be a Sacrament destroying the end of Christs holy institution which was That it should be had in remembrance of him And they generally gainsay the publike profession of their Church by the contradictory practices in private and particular Masses and Altar-Sacrifices And they likewise go against Christ who says This bread is my body He did not say This is no bread but my body And certainly if Christ would have had us to think the substance of the elements were changed he would not have called them bread and the fruit of the vine Nay he would not when he explained the words of giving his flesh to eat and his blood to drink have said his words were spirit and life And S. Paul therefore to witness this truth with the Church of England says The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ He thereby explaining Christs saying Hoc est corpus meum to be meant of a spiritual eating and of a communion of his body we being hereby made one with Christ he dwelling in us and we in him Besides when Christ bade them drink all of the Cup it was wine he bade them drink for the words of consecration follow And therefore if the Apostles drank any thing else they did not fulfil the precept or else Christ commanded them to drink that that was not there which were impious to imagine And as for the bread it is called bread after consecration for S. Paul calls bread the communion of Christs body which must needs be understood of bread consecrate otherwise it is not the communion of his body So that it is evident that the elements of bread and wine remain in the Sacrament and are not materially changed And this the Monks which administred to King John of England and to Henry the seventh the Emperour knew well enough which Princes the better to further the holy designes of the Pope were dispatched hence out of this world by the poysoned elements of the Eucharist which elements Christ ordained Sacramentally to be received for our nourishment thereby signifying our communion with Christ by the bread and wine made of many ears and many grapes and our growing up by faith in Jesus even as those elements turn into our flesh and blood by natural digestion so Christ is spiritually conveyed unto our souls which are fed by his flesh and blood which every faithful and worthy receiver is by the receiving of this Sacrament made partaker of The Doctor would perswade us fol. 327. that if by denying the bodily presence we mean onely not with accidents of his body as quantity figure and the like and that Christ is ●ot so bodily in the Sacrament but spiritually Then we agree with the Catholikes But then in the same leaf ●e would again perswade us that Christ cannot be really there unless his body be there and that it must be as well corporally as spiritually there or else we deny Christs being there To which I answer The errour of Transubstantiation We by maintaining a spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood do not divide the spirit from the body as the Church of Rome doth by maintaining a bodily presence because according to their doctrine the wicked receive the body and not the Spirit as I have already proved we by taking the bread and wine which tend to the nourishment of our outward bodies the thing signified by them to wit Christ Jesus is hereby conveyed unto us to be the food of our souls and becomes spirit and life to us he living in us and we in him and this is onely to the worthy receiver who by faith feeds upon him and lays hold of the benefits of his Passion The ungodly they onely receive the bread wine not discerning the Lords body And if the Church of Rome mean that his body is

in it one earthly another heavenly by the heavenly understanding the sanctification which cometh by the invocation of the name of God and by the earthly the substance of bread which doth nourish our bodies Shortly after Irenaeus was Origen about 200 yeers after Christ who affirms in Matth. cap. 15. that the material bread remains whose matter availeth nothing but goeth down into the belly and is voided downward but the Word spoke upon the bread is it that availeth Eusebius Emissaenus who wrote about 300 yeers after Christ de consecrat dist 2. says that outwardly was nothing changed all the change was inwardly As man made new in Baptism doth visibly remain in the same measure receiving a new inward without making any change in the outward man not seen not felt but believed so likewise when thou dost go up to the altar to receive the spiritual meat in thy faith look upon the body and blood of Christ and feed upon him with thy inward man By which it is plain that it is onely a spiritual change by faith not an outward and corporal change Epiphanius contra Haereses lib. 3. tom 2. The bread saith he is meat but the vertue that is in it giveth life Chrysostome who wrote about 420 yeers after Christ ad Caesarium Monachum The bread saith he before it is consecrate is called bread but after it is consecrate it is delivered from the name of bread and exalted to the name of the Lords body although the nature of the bread doth still remain S. Austin who lived about the same time in Sermone ad Infantes That which you see on the Altar is the bread and the cup which your eyes shew you is the wine but faith sheweth you that that bread is the body and that cup the blood of Christ Gelasius Bishop of Rome contra Eutichem Nestorium proving the Godhead and Humanity of Christ he enforceth it with two reasons the one drawn from the example of Man who being but one is made of two parts and hath two natures the Body and the Soul the other drawn from the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ which saith he is a godly thing and yet the nature of the bread and wine do not cease to be there still This was the opinion of the Fathers of those days and thus Transubstantiation is a new doctrine and no otherwise held the Church of Rome for a thousand yeers after Christ there being never so much as question made about this point for a thousand yeers compleat the time of Satans being let at large Apoc. 20. at which time by reason of some pretended miracles this doctrine was by the private opinion of some men set abroach which being once published it being the nature of evil weeds to spread and grow fast if once they get rooting in any garden it presently got abettors and champions to justifie it against all opposers some out of curiosity of Wit striving to blinde Truth with subtil reasons others out of dulness of apprehension God having withdrawn his Spirit from them were given up to this delusion so that in 60 yeers this new bantling wanted not foster-fathers to nourish it up to a greater and fuller growth A mongst the rest one Paschasius was one that first publikely maintained it and after him the Popes enclined to this opinion insomuch that Berengarius a French-man and Arch-deacon of Anjou opposing this Heresie was himself censured of that he urged against the then Pope of Rome and was the first that ever was questioned for maintaining against this doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Pope adhering to the adverse party which was for Transubstantiation Berengarius was forced to recant the Councel of Vorcellense held 1051. swaying against him which opinion of his he again resumed and did recognize the Truth again after that the then-Pope was dead which when Pope Nicolas 2. heard of he sent his busie agent and Cardinal-Chaplain Hildebrand into France to bring Berengerius under coram nobis who being sore troubled and molested and seeing by the faction of the Pope and Hildebrand that the current was against him through the treachery of a base timorous nature he suffered his noble parts his intellects to be clouded with the mists of the times errour and tamely did recant his former tenents and did therefore take an Oath never to oppose that doctrine of his Holiliness in this point of Transubstantiation And thus this doctrine began And although Pope Nicolas did avouch this doctrine in a Councel at Laterane held anno 1059. Ante chap. 14. and there framed the term of Transubstantiation yet notwithstanding this pretty Papal babe of Heresie was Christned and put forth to nurse yet nevertheless it grew not to be free and to bear rule till 1215. when Pope Innocent the third manumitted the stripling and by another Lateran-Councel did decree this doctrine as a point of Catholike Faith enjoyning all to the obedience thereof upon pain of Hetesie Johannes Scotus who was called Duns lib. 4. writing of this matter saith that the words of the Scripture might be expounded more easily and plainly without Transubstantiation but it pleased the Church to chuse this sense which is more hard being moved thereunto most chiefly because that of the Sacraments men ought to hold as the holy Church of Rome doth hold Which kinde of blinde obedience Blinde obedience makes the Popish Religion in no better condition then the State of Athens was whilst it was governed by the arbitrary power of a standing Legislative Councel which daily gave new Laws unto the people so that the people could not by any known Rule say their clothes were their own all the Law by which they derived any property being under an arbitrary power insomuch that as they were not secure by walking after any known Law so neither was it safe for them to rely upon such new Laws as the Councel it self proposed the Councel altering every day her own Laws as time administred occasion for self-advantage so that Athens was in a miserable condition during this slavery of her Legislative power not dissolvable by any Authority the people not having liberty to dissolve it and to call as occasion shall require a Councel to redress grievances and not otherwise to continue but to be dissolved that so in the intervals they might know what Law stood good and unalterable amongst them Even so stands the Religion of the Papists Now that the Pope is declared above Councels and that he may continually prescribe Rules of Faith by vertue thereof their Religion is a meer nose of wax alterable at his will and pleasure who has a faithful tribe of Ignations which will blandish his new doctrines and make the people believe they are but growings in faith whenas they are diametrically opposite to the Catholike Faith of the Primitive Church but if it stand for conveniency or advantage to the Pope and his creatures it must be believed

Commandment is drawn from the example of Christs precept who himself gave the Cup as well as the Bread and bade them drink as well as eat the one being the outward element to signifie his flesh the other his blood and Christ having said Vnless ye eat the flesh and drink the blood ye have no life in you it follows of necessity and in obedience to the precept that both be given that both be received Wherefore the Doctor might well have spared his twit against the Protestants who do not by that place of John ●●derstand bare faith as he saith without the outward elements fol. 340. but they do thereby understand the holy Sacrament of Christs body and blood which by the receiving of those outward elements according to Christs institution and the operation of faith is conveyed to the spiritual nourishment of the soul Such weak objections as these against the Protestants gives occasion to the world to suspect the Doctor did not understand the Protestant Religion and that his going to the Romish Church proceeded of ignorance and if so he is less to be blamed for chusing Rome for his Mother Church for unless she reform he may according to such humour be shaddowed under her wing and spend the rest of his dayes in blind obedience and make his own ignorance mother of his devotion The Doctor would perswade that these words import no precept because in respect Christ intended to injoyn no more but the substance to wit really to receive his body and blood which sayes he fol. 341. may be done under one kind 'T is a strange presumption to argue this against the express words of Christ and Saint Paul Do this drink of this Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood c Which certainly they would never have practised according to these words had it been needless to receive the Cup as well as the Bread whenas they are thereby made all to drink into one Spirit 1 Cor. 12.13 Plutarch reports that Pericles had such skill in wrastling that though he received a fall he would perswade the standers by and the wrastler that cast him that he himself was the Conqueror and such art doth the Doctor use in denying this to be a precept and yet beside the overthrows that Christ and Saint Paul have given him he has crossed legs with himself and given himself the fall So fol. 338. he sayes the Priests receive in both kinds because they offer a sacrifice upon the Cross which sayes he is not perfect without that and if that be not a perfect sacrifice of Christ that suffered without the Cup I desire to know how it came to pass to be a perfect Transubstantion of perfect Christ in the Cake onely to the people and not to the Priest unless he will confess the people receive nor the same body the Priest doth offer I for my part know not how this should be and desire to be better informed herein otherwise to persist to maintain the Cup to be necessarily given to the people We do not when we receive his flesh by the Bread and his blood by the Wine receive dead Christ as the Doctor would infer fol. 342. because we separate the blood from the flesh for this were to tax Christ of giving and the Apostles of receiving dead Christ which is gross and impious Besides he himself has answered himself as to that objection fol. 338. for saith he the Priest receiving under both doth not receive two Sacraments because the Sacrament is essentially and entirely contained under either kind and being received both at once they make but one refection signifying one thing and producing one effect no more saith he then 6 or 7 dishes of meat make but one dinner Now as the Priest doth not divide the flesh and blood and receive two Sacraments no more do we and if the Doctor would have advisedly considered with himself when he taxed us in this he might easily have perceived that he did through our sides wound Christ and his Apostles nay the Church of Rome it self for that she administred and her people received in both kinds and after the same manner and unless he can shew stronger reasons then these for her change the Church of England desires her not to censure too severely of her for not conforming with her for that she is not easily induced to forsake the practice of Christ and his Apostles and for that the Sacrament is to be administred in remembrance of Christ she conceives we ought not to forget the manner of Christs institution were there no precept for it but especially sith we are enjoyned so to do we desire to drink the blood and to eat the flesh that we may have eternal life thereby We must drink his blood Eating and drinking as well as eat his flesh and although as the Doctor affirms admitting Transubstantiation we may be said to drink that that is drinkable and eat that that is eatable yet we are to remember the end for which we are commanded to drink that blood which is in remembrance that Christs blood was shed This Cup is my blood in the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins Matth. 26.28 And Saint Paul witnessing that it was Christs will it should be drunk in remembrance thereof 1 Cor. 11. which cannot be properly signified in the Cake there being no outward Element to represent the shedding of Christr blood and precious price of our redemption and for which end this Sacrament was ordained Besides Christ calls himself the Vine as well as the Bread and we hereby become Branches lively growing and budding upon our ever-living Root Christ Jesus whose holy institution whilst we follow and reject any other rule of humane institution we may truly say We bear not the Root but the Root beareth us Rom. 11.18 The Doctor 3. And taken for or by the Doctors construction to avoid the precept of Christ in relation to the Cup takes upon him to construe and for or Joh. 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood he reads it or drink the blood ye have no life in you And this he would have done for avoiding of contradiction because that in the same Chapter eternal life is promised to them that eat onely To which I answer The Bread is not Sacramentally so often in Scripture mentioned alone as it is with the Cup joyntly wherefore if avoiding contradiction be the reason then must we not admit or for and in that of John and 1 Cor. 11.27 For if so then we contradict 1 Cor. 10. Our Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink Saint Cyprian lib. 2. Epist 3. sayes this was prefigured by the bread and wine which Melchizedek gave to Abraham Gen. 14. and likewise that text of the 1 Cor. 11.28 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat and drink c. And we further do hereby contradict all