Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	faith_n	lord_n	soul_n	7,621	5	5.0274	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51652	Motives and reasons for dissevering from the Church of Rome and her doctrine wherein after the declaration of his conversion, he openeth divers absurdities practised in that Church, being not matters of report, but such things whereof he was an eye and ear witness / by Chr. Musgrave, after he had lived a Carthusian monk for twenty years.	Musgrave, Christopher, fl. 1621	1688 (1688)	Wing M3143; ESTC R28845	14,573	39

according as Christ himself warned his Disciples saying Do this in remembrance of me And St. Chrysostome ad Cesarium Monachum saith Bread before it be sanctified we call Bread but when the Divine Grace sanctifies it it is delivered from the name of Bread and it is thought worthy the name of the Lords Body though the Nature of Bread remain still This is Theodorets Opinion who saith that the mystical signs after Consecration do not depart from their Nature but abide in their former substance figure and form and may be seen and touched as before And moreover this Opinion is so far dissonant and differing from the Opinion of the Primitive Church that it is generally confessed that before the Lateran Council about four hundred years ago no man was bound to believe it as Tonstall in his Book de Veritate Corporis Sanguinis Christi saith that before that time it was free for all men to follow their own conjecture as concerning the manner of the real presence And also Byel and Scotus two ancient Schoolmen as Swarez doth affirm in his 3. Tom. distinct 5. and also Sotus in his 4. book distinct 9. q. 2. art 4. doth affirm did hold this Opinion to be very new and lately brought into the Church and believed only upon the Authority of the Laterane Council And Peter Lumbard was so far from being of this Opinion which the Church of Rome now holdeth that in his fourth Book of Sentences distinct 2. he saith of himself If it be demanded what manner of Conversion this is whether it be formal or substantial or of another kind I am not able to define Finding therefore this difference betwixt the Church of Rome and the Primitive Church yea betwixt the Church of Rome and Christ himself in this point I thought it more secure for my Souls health to adhere unto the Opinion of him that cannot err then unto the Opinion of Pope Innocent the third upon whose Shoulders our new Opinionists in this point are glad to lay their Burden having no other warrant for their novelty but a poor sinful mans Authority who to make himself great is not ashamed to derogate from Christs Authority and Exposition in this point who telleth us that so often as we eat or drink of this Bread or Wine we shall do it in remembrance only of him feeding on him in our Hearts by Faith with Thanksgiving telling us in the sixth of John verse 36. The Flesh profiteth nothing it is the Spirit that quickeneth And under correction I would demand of a Papist whether the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was instituted for the feeding of our Souls or of our Bodies or of both Now if they answer That it was instituted for feeding and nourishing of both or of the Soul especially then they must confess a thing most contrary to their own Tenents that is That the Body and Blood of Christ is spiritually in the Sacrament to feed the Soul and not substantially to feed the Body because the Soul of man being a Spiritual substance cannot feed upon corporal food which must needs follow if so be that the Body and Blood of Christ be corporally in the Sacrament Now again that it is only a Spiritual and not a Corporal food to feed the Soul and not the Body Christ himself insinuateth in the sixth of John verse 51. saying I am the Bread of Life which came down from Heaven if any man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever which is meant of the Life of the Soul we being almost certain that this our corruptible Body must be dissolved and cannot live for ever but so far as at the day of Judgment it shall participate with the Soul of perpetual Joy or of perpetual misery sustaining in the interim a dissolution because according to our Bodies Earth we are and into Earth we must return again And therefore to preserve our corporal Life we need not the Food of the Body and Blood of Christ we have other material and natural Food sufficient And to feed our Souls therewith we cannot eat it corporally but only spiritually by Faith the Soul of man being incapable of any corporal Food And again if so be that the Body and Blood of Christ be corporally in the Sacrament we cut off one Article from our Creed wherein we Confess that Christ sitteth at the right Hand of God for he being with a true natural Body upon the Altar as the Papists hold is not sitting at the right hand of his Father in his Humanity But because we believe that he is ascended into Heaven and sitteth at the right Hand of his Father in his Humanity we must also believe that he is only spiritually in the Sacrament by his Omnipotency And out of one absurdity they infer another for by holding that Christs Body and Blood is corporally in the Sacrament they make that which is no Sin to be Sin defining that if so be that by any accident or misfortune a Priest should let a consecrated Host fall or shed any of the consecrated Wine it is a mortal Sin be it never so much against your will. Now how absurd this is I refer both my self and others unto the Judgment of Saint Augustine who saith that Omne Peccatum est voluntarium adeo voluntarium quod nisi esset voluntarium non esset peccatum that is that every sin understanding actual sin must be voluntarily that is committed This consideration concerning this point of Transubstantiation was a great motive unto the alteration of my Profession CHAP. V. Concerning Abuses committed in Auricular Confession ANother motive of dislike of the Church of Rome and her Doctrine did arise from the consideration of those manifold absurdities and abuses committed under the colour of Auricular Confession It being a thing which the Church of Rome without any warrant of Gods Word and quite contrary to the practice of the Primitive Church hath taken up at her own hand For first of all to prove that they have no warrant of Scripture for it their own Canon-Law in the 5. distinct de poenitentia in the Gloss saith that Auricular Confession was taken up only by a certain Tradition of the Church and not by any Authority of the Old or New Testament And Petrus Oximensis sometime Divinity-Reader at Salamanca many years ago publickly taught that Auricular Confession had the beginning from a positive Law of the Church and not from the Law of God of the same mind was Bonaventure Medina and others And to prove that the Primitive Church did not use it both Erasmus in his Annotations ad Hieron de obitu Fabiol and Rhenanus in his Annotations ad Tertul. de poeniten being both at that time learned Papists did affirm that neither Christ did ordain Auricular Confession neither the ancient Church used it which is confirmed by the act of Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople who as the three-fold History doth testifie when as auricular