Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	bless_a	jesus_n	lord_n	6,161	5	3.6174	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77108	An exposition of the doctrine of the Catholic Church in matters of controversie by the Right Reverend James Benigne Bossuet ... ; done into English from the fifth edition in French.; Exposition de la doctrine de l'Eglise catholique sur les matières de controverse. English	Bossuet, Jacques Bénigne, 1627-1704.; Johnston, Joseph, d. 1723.	1685 (1685)	Wing B3783; ESTC R223808	74,712	98

receiving the Body and Blood of our Saviour which is not performed by Faith and this is what the Catholic Church teaches The second thing granted by the Pretended Reformers is taken out of that Article which immediately follows that which I have already cited out of their Catechism Dim 52. which is That the Body of our Lord JESUS for as much as it was once offered up in Sacrifice to reconcile us to God is now given to assure us we have a part in that Reconciliation If there be any Sense in these Words if they be not an useless found and a vain amusement we ought to understand by them that JESVS CHRIST does not give us a Symbol only but his proper Body to assure us we partake of his Sacrifice and of the Reconciliation of Mankind But if the reception of the Body of our Lord assures us of our participation of the Fruits of his Death this participation of the Fruits must necessarily be distinguished from the reception of the Body seeing one is the pledg of the other From whence to proceed I say If our adversaries are forced to distinguish in the last Supper the participation of the body of our Blessed Saviour from the participation of the fruits of his Grace in his Sacrifice they must also necessarily make a distinction between the participation of this Divine Body and all kinds of Spiritual participation by Faith This latter participation will never furnish them with two distinct Actions by one of which they receive the Body of our Saviour and by the other the benefit of this Sacrifice no man being able to conceive what difference there is betwixt partaking by Faith of the Body of our Saviour and partaking by Faith of the Fruit of his Death They must therefore acknowledg that besides the Communion by which we spiritually partake of the Body of our Saviour and also of his Spirit by receiving the fruit of his Death there is also a Real Communion of the Body of the same Saviour which is to us a certain Pledg of the others being assured to us if we put no impediment to such a Grace by an evil Disposition This is necessarily included in the Principles they admit and they will never be able to explicate this Truth with the least shadow of Solidity if they return not to the Sentiments of the Church Who will not here admire the force of Truth All the consequences which follow from the acknowledged Principles of our adversaries are perfectly understood in the sentiment of the Church Catholicks the meanliest instructed without difficulty conceive that in the Eucharist there is a Communion which JESVS CHRIST which is not to be found any where else It is no difficulty for them to understand his Body is given us to assure us we partake of his Sacrifice and of his Death They distinguish clearly betwixt these two necessary manners of uniting or selves to JESVS CHRIST the one in receiving his proper flesh the other in receiving his Spirit the first of which is granted us as a certain pledge of the second But seeing these things are inexplicable in the sentiments of our adversaries tho on the other hand they cannot deny them we must necessarily conclude that errour has thrown them into a manifest contradiction I have been often astonished they did not explicate their Doctrine after a more plain manner Why did they not always without so many formalities persevere to say that JESVS CHRIST having shed his Blood for us represented to us this effusion by giving us two distinct signs of his Body and Blood that he was pleased indeed to give to these signs the name of the thing it self that these sacred signs were pledges to assure us of our partaking of the fruit of his Death and that we were spiritually nourished by the vertue of his Body and Blood After so many endeavours to prove that signs often receive the names of the things signified and that for this reason the sign of the Body might be called the Body all this connection of Doctrine obliges them naturally to fix there To render these signs efficacious it sufficed the Grace of Redemption was annexed to them or rather according to their Principles that it was in them confirmed to us They needed not have tormented themselves as they have done to make us understand we receive the proper Body of our Saviour to assure us we partake of the Grace of his Death They were well enough satisfied to have the water of Baptism a sign of the Blood which washeth us and it never entred into their fancies to say we there received the proper substance of the Blood of our Blessed Saviour to assure us his vertue is there diffused upon us If they had argued after the same manner as to the Eucharist their Doctrine would have been less embroyled But those who invent and innovate cannot express all they have a mind to They find certain truths and maxims established which incommode them and force a violence upon their imaginations The Arians would gladly have resused our Blessed Saviour the name of God or the only Son of God The Nestorians did not admit but with reluctance that kind of I know not what unity of person in JESVS CHRIST which we find in their writing The Pelagians who denied Original sin would also willingly have denyed that Baptism was given to little children for the remission of sins for by that means they would have been freed from the argument which Catholicks drew from this practice to prove that original defect But as I just now said those who find some truths firmly established have not the boldness or rather impudence to overthrow all Let the Calvinists ingenuously confess the truth they would have been well pleased to acknowledge in the Eucharist the Body of our Blessed Saviour only figuratively and the sole participation of his Spirit in effect laying aside those great words of Participation of his proper substance and the many others which import a real presence and serve only to perplex them It would have been more to their humour to have acknowledged in the Lords Supper no other communion with JESVS CHRIST but what is also common to Preaching and to Baptism without telling us as they have done that in the Lords Supper he is received in plentitude and every where else only in part But however this was their inclination yet the very force of the terms opposed them our Blessed Saviour having said so precisely of the Eucharist This is my body This is my Blood which he never did of any other thing nor upon any other occasion what likelihood was there of rendring that common to all the Actions of a Christian which his express word had annexed to one particular Sacrament And farther the whole order of divine providence the connexion of Doctrine and Holy Mysteries the intention of JESVS CHRIST in his last Supper the words themselves which he uttered and the impression which they