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	father_n	spirit_n	9,006	5	5.2042	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56600	An answer to a book, spread abroad by the Romish priests, intituled, The touchstone of the reformed Gospel wherein the true doctrine of the Church of England, and many texts of the Holy Scripture are faithfully explained / by the Right Reverend Father in God, Symon, Lord Bishop of Ely.	Patrick, Simon, 1626-1707.	1692 (1692)	Wing P745; ESTC R10288	116,883	290

of the Fish to drive away the Devil and David's Harp to keep the evil Spirit from Saul I cannot devise for I never read nor he neither that they were sanctified any way None of his Fathers tho half of them are young ones in comparison ascribe any supernatural vertue to such things and therefore it is to no purpose to consider what they say of any other kind of Holiness XXXVII That children may be saved by their Parents Faith without the Sacrament of Baptism Answer NOW he falls again to his old trade of downright calumniating our Doctrine For we teach That there is no Salvation for Infants in the ordinary way of the Church without Baptism Insomuch that by an express Canon LXIX every Minister is to be suspended for three months who suffers any Infant in his Parish to dye without Baptism being informed of its weakness and danger of death and desired to come and baptize the same And is not to be restored till he acknowledg his fault and promise before his Ordinary that he will not wittingly incur the like again But we do not tye God to those means to the use of which he hath tyed us and therefore do believe that by his infinite Grace and Mercy those Infants may be saved who without their own fault dye unbaptized And this was the Faith of the Ancient Church as appears from Socrates * L. V. Hist c. 22. who says In Thessaly they baptized only at Easter by which means many dyed unbaptized and by a Decree of Pope Leo I. which shows it was an universal custom in other places to baptize only twice a year which custom he saith hath been changed because a great many departed without Baptism But still this is an evidence they did not think it absolutely necessary nor do the greatest Doctors of the Roman Church such as Gabriel Biel Card. Cajetan and many others I could name condemn children to Hell who dye unbaptized but being the children of Faithful Parents look upon them as within the Covenant of Grace and capable of eternal life For which they give these reasons Frst The infinite Mercy of God who is not tied to the Sacraments which he hath ordained And secondly The like case under the Old Testament when Circumcision answered to our Baptism as this man acknowledges and the children dying unbaptized were notwithstanding saved by the sole Faith of their Parents So S. Bernard Epist 77. ad Hug. de S. Vict. and Cajetan in 3. part Thom. Q. 68. From whence we may gather That even this notion of childrens being saved by their parents Faith without Baptism is no more our opinion than it is theirs Some say so among us and so do some among them Matters therefore being thus stated all his Texts are already answered We say the very same our Saviour doth III. Joh. 5. III. Joh. 5. in the very entrance of our Office of Baptism Where we make it as a reason why the Church should pray That God will grant to the child that thing which by nature he cannot have c. But tho this be the ordinary way we dare not say it is the only God's Grace many of themselves acknowledge supplies the want of Baptism in extraordinary cases Thus even Lorinus a Jesuit in X. Act. 44. and he alledges St. Austin for it who was very rigid in this point that the invisible Sanctification sometimes is sufficient without the visible Sacrament when not by contempt of Religion but by mere necessity they are deprived of Baptism And thus Peter Lombard * L. IV. Distin 4. c. 2. understands this Text it is to be understood of those who can be baptized and contemn it III. Tit. 5. proves no more but that Baptism is the ordinary way and ought not to be neglected where it can be had From XVI Mark 16. he concludes peremptorily That children must be Baptized or not Saved XVI Mark 16. because they cannot believe which is to make Baptism more necessary than Belief Whereas they cannot be baptized but upon a supposition of belief as his own Church acknowledges in the Council of Trent * Sess VII Can. 14. Children wanting Faith in the first act are baptized in the Faith of the Church And therefore the true way of arguing from this place is that as our Lord saith He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved so he would have said had he thought Baptism absolutely necessary he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned But he only saith He that believeth not shall be damned which makes Faith only absolutely necessary And I showed before there are those in his own Church who think the Faith of the Parents sufficient for this purpose And thus the most learned of the Fathers expound those words of St. Paul 1 Cor. VII 14. 1 Cor. VII 14. particularly Theodoret The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife by the husband that is saith he hath hope of Salvation but if either he or she continue in this disease their seed shall partake of Salvation Which is but reason for if the unbelieving husband suppose should not have suffered the child begotten of his believing wife to be baptized who can think this child so dying perished His last Text XVII Gen. 14. XVII Gen. 14. proves no more but the necessity of both Circumcision and Baptism where they could be had as was shewn before For it is evident the children of Israel were not circumcised while they were in the Wilderness V. Josh 5. But who will say that all they who were born and died within that time which was forty years went without remedy to Hell His Fathers which he hath pickt up out of Bellarmine are not worth examining because some of them speak only against those who deny Infants to be regenerate in Baptism as St. Austin Epist 90. Others speak of it in such terms as are not easie to be understood for let him inform us what Irenaeus means in the place he quotes That our bodies have received unity by the washing of incorruption and our souls by the spirit And others speak such words of the necessity of Baptism as the Papists themselves will not abide by but confess St. Austin was too hard in his opinion which must admit of some exception And his opinion is condemned by later Fathers as they call them particularly St. Bernard who disputes against it at large in the Epistle before-mentioned As for St. Cyprian's Epistle to Fidus it is wholly against the opinion which that Bishop had received That children of two or three days old were not to be baptized but they were to stay till the eighth day as in Circumcision But there is not a word of the absolute necessity of Baptism but that none should be denied it tho newly born who the rather should be received because not their own sins but anothers was there remitted to them XXXVIII That the Sacrament

to be raised out of his Grave XXII Luke 18. That which follows also in XXII Luke 18. I will not drink of the fruit of the vine c. plainly belongs to the Paschal Feast as they stand in St. Luke who immediately thereupon proceeds to the Institution of the Sacrament and speaks of the Cup that is there administred as different from the Cup he had before mentioned If this Man had understood his business he should rather have alledged XXVI Matth. 29. where immediately after the Institution of the Sacrament he adds these words But I say unto you I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine c. which St. Luke puts before the Institution But it is a wonderful stupidity to conclude from hence as this Man doth That Christ will drink his own Blood in Heaven or else he concludes nothing because there is no material Bread and Drink in use there Menochius to name no others might have taught him better who thus expounds this passage Our Saviour speaks after the manner of men who being to depart from their Friends for a long time are wont to say We shall Eat and Drink together no more As I shall not drink of this fruit of the vine till that day c. when I shall drink ANOTHER New and Coelestial Wine with you in the Banquet of Eternal Glory And he might have known that we from hence with a wonderful force to use his own phrase conclude That Wine remains in the Sacrament after Consecration because our Saviour calls that which he said before was the New Testament in his Blood the fruit of the Vine that is Wine And so not only we but Origen Cyprian Chrysostom Austin Hierom Epiphanius Bede Euthymius and Theophylact refer the fruit of the Vine unto the Blood of Christ before mentioned as Maldonate himself acknowledges and could not produce so much as one Father to the contrary He might have known also that a great many of his own Church VI. John 51. do not think St. John VI. 51. and other verses of that Chapter speaks of Sacramental Bread as for other reasons so for this that if he did then such as Judas who eat the Sacramental Bread must have Eternal Life Which we find our Lord promises v. 40 47. to those who believe on him and this we take to be the eating he here speaks of as appears by the whole scope of the Chapter For if any such Conversion as they fancy in the Sacrament and call Transubstantiation could be proved out of this Text it would prove the Flesh of Christ is turned into Bread rather than the Bread into his Flesh because he saith The Bread that I will give you is my Flesh To make this good literally it is manifest his Flesh must be made Bread See into what Absurdities these men draw themselves by their perverse Interpretations It is not worth considering what he saith about Beza's interpretation of one word in this Verse there being those of his own Church as well as he that by living Bread understand Bread that gives Life which is must suitable to the words preceding and unto v. 33. We have noted often enough our Saviours words both in XXVI Matth. 26. and XXII Luke 19. And therefore do not say as he slanders us That Christ gave and the Apostles received nothing else but bare Bread for it was the Sacrament of Christ's Body as Druthmarus and a great many more Ancient than he expound those words This is my Body We believe also and thankfully acknowledge that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ But those are St. Paul's words 1 Cor. X. 16. not our Saviours which spoils this man's Observation that our Lord calls it his Body both before and at the very giving of it Which if he had done tho these as I said are St. Paul's words who only calls it the Communion of his Body c. it would prove nothing but that the Bread is his Body which we believe and they are so absurd as to deny Tho we have bidden them note how St. Paul in that very place he next mentions 1 Cor. XI often calls that which he saith is the Lord's Body by the name of Bread v. 26 27 28. But they shut their Eyes and will not take any notice of it Why should we then regard his frivolous Argument to which he at last betakes himself against our true and real receiving of Christ by Faith Unto which Dr. Fulk hath long ago given a sufficient Answer in his Notes upon this Chapter We receive him after a Spiritual manner By Faith on our behalf and by the working of the Holy Ghost on the behalf of Christ So there is no need either of our going up to Heaven or Christ's coming down to us as he sillily argues His Ancient Fathers have been so often viewed and shown to be against them by our Writers and that lately particularly the two first he mentions that I will not go about a needless labour to give an account of them XL. That we ought to receive under both kinds and that one alone sufficeth not Answer VEry true for so Christ appointed so the Apostles both received and gave it so the Church of Christ for above 1000 years practised and wo be to them who alter Christ's Institution Which cannot be justified by such fallacious Arguments as this man here uses instead of giving us express Scripture for it That he promised but alas could find none and therefore makes little trifling reasonings his refuge First from VI. John 51. VI. John 51 53. which I have shewn doth not speak of Sacramental eating but if it did the next Verse but one he could not but see told him that it is as necessary to drink Christ's blood as to eat his flesh To which the Answer is not so easy as he fancies for we have only Dr. Kellison's word for it that the conjunction and is used for or Men may put off any thing by such shifts and it is as sufficient and as learned for us to say it is expresly and in our Bible and not or and you do nothing if you confute us not as you undertook by the express words of our own Bible How strangely do men forget what they promise and what they are about Besides the Fathers from these very words prove the necessity * See late Treatise against Communion in one Kind Ch. 3. of giving both the body and blood of Christ and attribute a distinct effect to each of them Particularly the Author of the Comments under the name of St. Ambrose in I. Cor. XI The flesh of Christ was delivered for the salvation of the body and the blood was poured out for our souls He should have proved not barely affirmed that Christ gave the Sacrament to the Disciples at Emaus XXIV Luke 30 35. XXIV Luke 30 35. We say he did not though

dying but of anointing for the health of the Body and the restoring a man to life Therefore he might have spared his Discourse about the matter and form c. of a Sacrament for their Sacrament is not here described but an holy Rite for a purpose as much different from theirs as the Soul is from the Body and Life from Death VI. Mark 13. Mark VI. 13. His own best Writers confess belongs not to this matter containing only an adumbration and a figure of the Sacrament but was not the Sacrament it self as Menochius expounds the place according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent which saith this Sacrament as they call it was insinuated in VI. Mark Now that is said to be insinuated which is not expresly propounded mark that but adumbrated and obscurely indicated See how ignorant this man is in his own Religion XVI Mark 18. makes not any mention of anointing but only of laying on of hands and yet this man hath the face to ask as if the Cause were to be carried by impudence if they are not sick in their wits who oppose so plain Scriptures When nothing is plainer than that these places speak of Miraculous Cures as they themselves would confess If they would speak the truth to use his words and shame the Devil For Cardinal Cajetan a man of no small learning expresly declares neither of the two places where anointing is mentioned speak of Sacramental Vnction Particularly upon those words of St. James which is the only place the best of them dare rely upon he thus writes It doth not appear that he speaks of the Sacramental Vnction of Extream Vnction either from the words or from the effect but rather of the Unction our Lord appointed in the Gospel for the cure of the Sick For the Text doth not say Is any man sick unto death but absolutely is any man sick And the effect was the relief of the sick man on whom forgiveness of sins was bestowed only conditionally Whereas Extream Vnction is not given but when a man is at the point of death and directly tends as its form sheweth to remission of sins Besides St. James bids them call more Elders than one unto the sick man to pray and anoint him which is disagreeing to the Rite of Extream Vnction Nothing but the force of truth could extort this ingenuous Interpretation from him for he was no Friend to Protestants but would not lie for the Service of his Cause And before him such Great men as Hugo de S. Victori Bonaventure Alex. Halensis Altisiodor all taught that Extream Vnction was not instituted by Christ His Fathers say not a word of this Extream Unction Both Origen and Bede as Estius acknowledges accommodate the words of St. James unto the more grievous sort of sins to the remission of which there is need of the Ministry of the Keys and so they refer it to another Sacrament as they now call it viz. that of Absolution See the Faith of this man who thus endeavours to impose upon his Readers as he doth also in the citing of St. Chrysostome who saith the same with the other two and of St. Austin who only recites the Text of St. James in his Book de Speculo without adding any words of his own to signify the sense As for the 215. Serm. de Temp. it is none of his Next to this he makes us say XLIII That no interior Grace is given by Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders And that Ordinary Vocation and Mission of Pastors is not necessary in the Church Answer HERE are Two Parts of this Proposition in both of which he notoriously slanders us and in the first of them dissembles their own Opinion For we do not say That no interior Grace is given by Imposition of Hands in Holy Orders but that this is not a Sacrament properly so called conferring sanctifying Grace and that the outward Sign among them is not Imposition of Hands but delivering of the Patin and Chalice concerning which the Scripture speaks not a syllable Nor is any man admitted to be a Pastor among us but by a Solemn Ordination wherein the Person to be ordained Priest professes he thinks himself truly called according to the Will of our Lord c. unto that Order and Ministry and the Bishop when he lays hands on him saith in so many words Receive the Holy Ghost c. which is the conferring that Grace which they themselves call gratis data and which the Apostle intends in the Scriptures he mentions 1 Tim. IV. 14. In the first of which 1 Tim. IV. 14. there is no express mention of Grace which he promis'd to show us in our Bible but of a Gift By which Menochius himself understands The Office and Order of a Bishop the Authority and Charge of Teaching And so several of the Ancient Interpreters such as Theodoret St. Chrysostom understands it As others take it to signify extraordinary Gifts such as those of Tongues Healing c. none think it speaks of sanctifying Grace So that I may say alluding to his own words See how plain it is that this Man doth not understand the Scripture And hath made a mere Rope of Sand in his following reasoning for there is this Mission among us of which the Apostle speaks viz. A Designation unto a special Office with Authority and Power to perform it The Apostle speaks of the same thing in 2 Tim. I. 6. 2 Tim. I. 6. where there is no mention of Grace at all but only of the Gift of God which was in him Which if we will call a Grace a word we dislike not it was not a Grace to sanctify but to inable him to perform all the Offices belonging to that Order ex gr strenuously to Preach the Gospel and to propagate the Faith c. They are the words of the same Menochius from whence I may take occasion again to say See how plain the Scripture is against him And how fouly he belies us in saying that we affirm Laying on of Hands not to be needful to them who have already in them the Spirit of God For after the Bishop hath askt the question to one to be ordained Deacon whether he trust that he is inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him that Office and Ministration c. And he hath answer'd I trust so then the Bishop after other Questions and Answers layeth hands on him Which is not to sanctify him for that is supposed but to impower him to execute the Office committed to him in the Church of God The Apostles words V. Hebr. 4. are alledged after his manner to prove what none of us deny That no man may take this Office upon him unless he be called to it They who have a mind to see more may soon find that the rest of the Scriptures some of which are the same again prove nothing but a Mission by laying on of Hands which we practice

himself would not have practised had he not been disigned to an austere sort of Life after the manner of the Ancient Nazarites as Menochius expounds this place It is a wonder when there are so many Texts that speak of Fasting this man should pick out such as these which have no respect unto it The next indeed hath XIII Acts 3. and accordingly we have our Fasts before every Ordination in the Ember weeks XVII Matth. 27. proves nothing but that upon extraordinary occasions there must be extraordinary Prayer and Fasting which we also both affirm and practice The rest of his Scriptures and his Fathers I assure the Reader say nothing that we deny but he had a mind to slander us as if we were Enemies to Fasting when we Fast truly by total Abstinence from Meat and Drink on our Fasting-days they Fast only nominally eating all sorts of Fish and drinking Wine on their Fasting-days Whereby they hope also to satisfy for their Sins and to merit a Coelestial Reward as Bellarmine speaks in his Second Book of Good Works Why did he not prove this end of Fasting and not spend his time about that which is not questioned for we acknowledg that Fasting is good if rightly designed XLVI That Jesus Christ descended not into Hell nor del●vered thence the Souls of the Fathers Answer WHat an impudent Lyar is this to say we deny that which is an Article of our Creed professed by us every day That Christ did descend into Hell Not indeed to deliver the Souls of the Fathers in Limbo because we read of no such thing in any of the Scriptures which he mentions Ephes IV. 8. The Apostle in IV. Ephes 8. says nothing either of their Limbus or of the Souls of the Fathers but of leading captivity captive Which hath no relation to the Souls either of the glorified or of the damned but of such men and women as we are Whom Christ did not captivate when we were free saith Theodoret upon the place but being under the power of the Devil he rescued us and making us his captives bestowed liberty upon us To the same purpose Theophylact but a little larger comprehending all our enemies What captivity doth the Apostle mean That of the Devil For he took the Devil captive and Death and the Curse and Sin and us who were under the Devils Power and obnoxious to the forenamed enemies The next place II. Acts 27. II. Acts 27. only proves our Saviour descended into Hell but saith nothing of the Fathers being there What St. Austin saith is not the business but what the Scripture saith expressly Yet the words which he quotes out of him touch not us who believe Christ's Descent into Hell as much or more than himself And it is worth the noting how in this very place where he calls it Infidelity to deny Christ's going into Hell he overthrows this end of it to fetch the Fathers from then●e for he professes he could find the name of H●ll no where given unto that place where the souls of righteous men did rest There is no mention in 1 Pet. 3.18 19. 1 Pet. III. 18 19. of so much as Christ's descending into Hell but only of his Preaching to the spirits in prison and that not in person but by that Spirit which raised him from the dead St. Austin wishes us to consider in that very Epistle which he just now named XCIX ad Euod lest perhaps all that which the Apostle speaks of the spirits shut up in prison who did not believe in the days of Noah do not at all belong to hell but rather unto those times of Noah whose pattern be applies to our times And this St. Hierom relates as the opinion of a most prudent man and is followed by Bede Walfridus Strabo and others And if this place should not be thus interpreted of his Preaching by his Spirit in the Ministry of Noah unto the old world but of his own Preaching unto the spirits in hell it must be to the damned spirits for we read of no others there as a great many Ancient Writers through mistake of this place conceived And this is as much against his opinion as against ours The XI Heb. 39 40. proves no more but that they had not their compleat happiness yet were not in Hell as that signifies any thing of torment but in Heaven tho not in the highest felicity of it Thus Theodoret and others of the Ancients understand it Tho the combats of these men were so many and so great yet they received not their Crowns For the God of the Vniverse saith he expects till others have finished their race that then he may solemnly declare them all together to be Conquerors Which Theophylact thus farther enlargeth Is not God unjust then unto them if they who have got the start in labours must expect us in Crowns No such matter for this is very acceptable unto them to be perfected with their brethren we are one body and the pleasure is greater to the body if all its members be crowned together c. but God gave to those who preceded us in labours a certain foretaste bidding them wait for the compleat banquet till their brethren come to them And they being lovers of mankind joyfully expect note that that they may be all merry together This plainly shows such men as these did not look upon the Fathers as in Hell but in Heaven in a state of joy tho not consummate but in expectation of its completion I could show this to be the sense which men in his own Church put upon this place but I am afraid of being tedious and therefore shall make shorter work of the rest Jonas mentioned XII Matth. 40. XII Mat. 40. was a Type of Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection and the Whale's belly represented his Grave and nothing else So Menochius acknowledges That tho many by the heart of the earth understand the Limbus of the Fathers yet others take it for the Grave As Ignatius doth in that very Epistle which he quotes presently and St. Chrysostome to name no more St. Matthew XXVII 52. speaks of the Resurrection of many out of their Graves but whence their Souls came neither he nor Ignatius say a word IX Zach. 11. There is no reason to think that IX Zach. 11. speaks of fetching souls out of the infernal prison but Theodoret saith expressly That if by the Pit or Lake we shall understand either Eternal Death or Idolatry we shall not miss the mark For when men were bound in this lake our Lord Christ loosed them and brought them out and bestowed liberty upon them by his Precious Blood and sent them forth into the way of life when he gave them the New Testament And so St. Austin * LXVIII de Civit. Dei c. 25. thinks it is best understood of the profundity of human misery And I assure the Reader that both St. Hierom and St. Cyril to the