Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	ghost_n	holy_a	jesus_n	15,155	5	6.0417	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A84086	The eating of the body of Christ, considered in its principles. By John Despagne minister of the gospel. Translated out of French into English, by John Rivers of Chaford in Sussex, Esquire.	Espagne, Jean d', 1591-1659.; Rivers, John, of Chaford in Sussex.; Beau, Wil.	1652 (1652)	Wing E3257; Thomason E1309_2; ESTC R209023	55,931	203

Application of Jesus Christ in these two divers regards should still represent it This Application was truly figured also by the Circumcision whereto Baptism succeeded But we have seen that our Sacraments ought not to have any more any thing bloody Moreover as I said Our Saviour seems to have regard to this point that all holy things those which the Law made communicable to every one of the people were applied personally unto him in the one or in the other of these two actions onely viz. either in their Washings or in their Sacred Banquets To these two sorts of actions wherein consists all the participation of holy things answer Baptism and the Eucharist If we contemplate there but a resemblance between the Water the Bread and the Wine of the one part and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of the other this consideration is too wandring and generall and doth not observe distinctly enough the intention of our Saviour Wee know that the Communion of Jesus Christ is represented in Scripture under the Similitude of divers ●onjunctions as of the Head with the Members of the Vine with the Branches of the Husband with the Wife of the foundation with the edifice of the Clothing with the Body of Washing and of Nourishment But it is a question to know why among so many similitudes our Saviour would choose these two viz. that of Washing and that of Nourishment rather than any other whereof to make the Sacraments of the New Testament I believe therefore we must seek the reason in the correspondence which they have with these two actions of the Old Testament wherein only lyes the personall application of holy things which the Law distributed to the people To Conclude I shall adde touching the Water of Baptism that which I said touching the Bread and the Wine of the Eucharist Many Divines dispute Philosophically of the proprieties of Water by reason whereof our Saviour would it should serve for Baptism For say they as Water or watery matter is the principall of all naturall production so the Holy Ghost represented by Water is the principall of our regeneration Also as Water doth fructifie the Earth and make it fit to bear fruit so the Holy Spirit bedewing our Souls makes us capable to bring forth the fruit of good works Moreover as Water doth quench the thirst so the Holy Ghost doth quench the thirst of earthly things To which is referd that which our Saviour saith in St. John 7. If any one Thirst Let him come unto mee and drink But certainly they who thrust 〈◊〉 Similitudes into Baptism are extravagant in divers kinds Water is used in Baptism inasmuch as it washeth and cleanseth not as it refresheth nor as it allayes the thirst being drank Otherwise wee ought to consider it as drink and confound the Baptism and the Eucharist Water is not considered in Baptism but as Washing The other proprieties which it may have are our of the Sacramentall analogy If this Element should have yet more qualities proper to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit they are not of the Sacrament and it is not for us to place them there FINIS AN Epitome of this Treatise comprised in these Aphorismes following I. MAny are learned in the Controversie of the Eucharist who nevertheless have not Knowledge enough of the grounds and mysteries of this Sacrament II. Many Treatises of Devotion which have the vogue among the people namely touching the holy Supper serve rather to foment ignorance than to augment instruction III. They are ridiculous who endeavouring to specifie all the particular Causes of the Circumstances of the Passion give us Allegories for Reasons and Metaphors for Mysteries IV. This ordinary Phrase the Altar of the Crosse is improper and subject to evill Consequences V. The Historicall representation whereby we call to mind a Man nayled to the Crosse is not this Act whereby Jesus Christ is made present to ours Souls VI. The Reason why Jesus Christ invites us to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood is understood of very few viz. why wee ought to drink his Blood forasmuch as it is the Blood of the New Testament why from the Oblation of his Body we conclude the eating of it VII The Reason consists of Maxims opposite to those of the Old Testament For the Law contained certain Ordinances which prohibited that which Jesus Christ commands us in the Eucharist VIII Jesus Christ invites us to drink his Blood for the same reason which forbids us to eat blood For the Law saith Ye shall eat no blood because it is shed for the remission of sins Jesus Christ saith Drink ye this Blood because it is shed for the remission of sins IX It is a Maxim of the Old Testament that none can eat of that which hath bin offered for him for remission of sins But Jesus Christ commands us to eat his Body given for our sin X. In the Old Testament the Priests were to eat the Sacrifice which they offered for the sins of other men But Jesus Christ hath transferr'd this Rite to sinners themselves XI The Communion to which Jesus Christ invites us is marked with the names of two acts whereof one is repugnant to the Ceremoniall Law viz. to eat that which hath bin sacrifised for our sins the other contrary to the Law of Nature viz. to eat the flesh of man XII God had ordained that we should not eat of any Blood untill the Blood of Christ should be shed XIII The Law forbidding Sinners to eat the Sacrifice of their Expiation shewed that the true Sacrifice was not yet exhibited nor their Expiation accomplished XIV In the Old Testament the Eating of the Expiatory Sacrifice was a Sacerdotall Act required for Expiation But at this day this Eating is an effect of Expiation already made XV. In the Scripture the more a phrase is remote from the ordinary Rules of the Language of men the more mysterious it is XVI The Communion of the Body of Christ is represented by the act of Eating not simply by similitude but to retain the Term of this Testamentary Clause which Jesus Christ hath revoked in this Sacrament which forbad man to eat the Sacrifice of his Expiation And this speech means That the Communion of the Body of Christ is in effect that which the eating of Sacrifices was in Figure XVII In the Life Naturall man and his meat are different Kinds but in the Life Spirituall man and his nourishment ought to be of the same kind XVIII The Old Testament had no force in comparison of the New because the Testator was not yet dead XIX Whereas death permits not any man to be Executor of his own Will Jesus Christ is risen again to execute his XX. He who dyed first of all men dyed of a bloody death The death of Jesus Christ was signed with blood XXI The first Blood which was shed on Earth and the Blood of Jesus Christ are opposite one to the

we could object unto them the Souls which they believe to be in Purgatory which according to the saying of the Roman Church enjoy the Communion of Christ and so of his Flesh and Blood A Communion which cannot be otherwise than in spirit For these Souls have neither mouth nor stomack Neither doe I content my self with that which is alleged for proof of the true Communion that sometimes some have fallen into an Extasy in the receiving their host through admiration of pretended wonders which they there presuppose Such Enthusiasmes are neither sufficient nor necessary for the Communion of the Body of Christ For although it be supernaturall yet notwithstanding it is not done by a miraculous transport nor by a motion so vehement as that of the Prophets when they were ravished in Spirit untill they had even lost their sence and remained unmoveable all the functions of the soul except in those of the Intellect being at that time in their intermission Nevertheless we know that a Christian ought to bring the most strong and vehement thoughts that he is able to so high a mystery All other cogitations ought to be suspended all other objects excluded But it comes to pass often that a Christian after having duly prepared himself for the Holy Supper will find himself all on the sudden and unawares surprised with doubts and scruples at the same moment when he receives the Eucharist I omit the inadvertencies the extravagancies and the enormous thoughts which overtake men in this action These phantasms possess the place which ought to be reserved entire for Jesus Christ and although men strive to drive them away it is nevertheless impossible for them This shews that a human spirit is not Master of it self sith that it cannot stop its own thoughts and that they depend not on his will Now although they are not voluntary nevertheless sith that they are ours and that they cross the attention which is due to an action of so great importance they offend the dignity of the body of Christ And in this also is seen the infirmity of man who sins even against the Sacrifice which brings him the remission of his sins But if he condemn these evill cogitations if he strive to scare them as Abraham did the Birds of prey which came to devour his Sacrifice although notwithstanding this they intervene in the instant and at the very act of the eating of the Sacrament Jesus Christ will not refuse to lodge in the soul of this weak Christian For he who is dead for our transgressions hath also expiated those which we commit even in applying this expiation unto our selves CHAP. V. That the act of the Communion consisteth not in mourning for the death of Christ but rather in joy and contentment of Spirit THere is no need of disputing whether the faithfull who lived before the passion of Jesus Christ had reason to be perplexed not knowing whether they ought to wish that the Son might suffer death or rather desire with St. Peter that this might not happen unto him They were invited to the one for the Love of their Salvation and to the other as it seems for the Love of their Saviour Our Lord decided this question both before his death by that sharp censure which he made of it to his Disciples and afterwards when he alleged the Oracles importing that Jesus Christ must suffer to the end he might enter into his glory But it may be demanded whether the Holy Supper be an action of joy or rather of sadness Certainly the death of Jesus Christ wherein we declare the horrible anguishes of his Soul the strokes of that holy Body broken with griefs the effusion of that innocent blood which we there consider as if it were powred forth before our eyes are a subiect of Sadness unto us And that for asmuch more as acknowledging our selves to be the cause of his sufferings we cannot but be touched with regrete that we have procured them Now these resentments seem to exclude from our minds all manner of Joy in the act of the Communion The Law forbade the putting of incense and oyl which is the Symbol of Joy upon the Flesh sacrificed for sins And the Jews at this day observe so precisely that which heretofore was enjoyned them in the feast of expiations viz. to afflict their souls that on all that day they refrain from reading even any passage of Scripture which contains any matter of joy as the comming forth out of Egypt the Conquest of Canaan c. On the contrary their reading is of nothing but sorrowfull things as are the destruction of Jerusalem the cursings of the Law and such like points But omitting that which might be said of this Superstition there is none who knows not that the Eucharist is an acknowledgement of a benefit which is offered unto us in this action which we cannot receive but with joy Also this Sacrament is instituted for our consolation True it is we ought to come unto it with sadness for the Reasons above said That is a necessary fore runner But the proper act wherein lyes the Communion or reception of the Body of Christ consists not in that but in the joy and contentment which our Soul receives in that Jesus Christ hath given himself for it The Superstitious deceive themselves who believe that the Commemoration of his death consists onely in much mourning For in the Eucharist Jesus Christ is not simply propounded unto us as dead but as dead for us To the end that as his death is our life so it should be also our joy CHAP. VI. Of an advantage which we have above those of the Church of Rome in the instruction required for the Communion and of the distinctions which the Orthodox observe in this matter of the Sacrament A Roman Catholick hath need of a great deal more time to learn his Religion than one that is Orthodox hath to understand his Let a man behold a volume wherin is comprised the whole Roman Religion as the Doctors thereof have reduced their Divinity into one Body he shall see that it much surpasseth the ordinary bulk of those wherein ours is contained For I speak not here of writings of Controversy sith that Faith consists not in the Negative of Errors but in the Affirmative of Truths It is to be understood of positive Divinity whose extent if it be compared with that of our adversaries theirs wil be found much more vast and swelling than ours Their Religion is composed of a greater number of articles For they have many which our Theology doth not acknowledge and in those which are common to us both they have heaped up a number of matters which also our Religion nullifies Briefly the Roman Theology contains almost all our Affirmative but over and above that which it professeth to acknowledge with us it hath its own additions From thence it comes that that is more prolix than ours This is seen above all in

They who Analise such passages simply according to their Logick give them a constrained and often a ridiculous sense This stile hath transcendant prerogatives which we ought to understand that we may know the method of the Son of God which otherwise will seem irregular There you finde also similitudes which at the first sight seem rude and monstrous as when the coming of the Lord is compared to that of a thief in the night 1 Thes 5. and in other places In such comparisons we are wont to say that a comparison should never be pressed to the utmost For to things alike in one regard are unlike in another But this caution alone will not content the minde For there hath been alwaies whereat to wonder that two subjects should be compared and put together and the one invested with the name of the other between which indeed there is some conformity yet on the other part there should be so great and so visible a repugnance of qualities that it renders the comparison enormous In this then there is a secret which is not alwaies perceivable In the language of God the more a phrase is estranged from our rules the more it is mysterious That whereof the question is here is one of the most strange in all the Scripture But if instead of be holding onely the superficies we put it in the ballance its weight will make it known for gold of Ophir CHAP. XII The clearing of the fourth Consideration VVHEN mention is made of Eating the Body of Christ that speech is not simply drawn from the resemblance which there may be between Eating and Communicating and ought not to be put into the rank of simple similitudes This phrase is of a higher derivation The intention of our Saviour was to revoke a clause of the Old Testament which was this that a man should not eat the flesh and blood offered for the remission of his sins We have seen the sense and importance of it Jesus Christ would shew that he gives us that which the Law refused us It was therefore necessary that he should express it in the same termes that is to say that he should speak to us of eating the flesh offered for our sins And that he hath done not onely in words retaining the proper termes of the Testament but also by the exhibition of a nourishment whose sensible eating is an expression of this other We ought then to know that this word of Eating denoting the communion of the sacrifice is not simply used because there is a resemblance between the two acts but forasmuch as in the Law this communion is called Eating So Jesus Christ hath not introduced this word for a simple Metaphor or comparison but hath pronounced it as a terme of a Testamentary clause whose repetition was here necessary for the cause abovesaid For this terme being already in the first Testament to express this Communion must be retained in the second It Bootes not to say that the name of Eating which denotes an act of the mouth and of the teeth upon the flesh of Legal offerings is not convenient to the Communion of a humane body as is that of Christs and that the comparison of it is rude For to understand this terme we must take the entire sense which extends it self a great deal farther then a simple comparison In the institution of the Supper this Communion is not simply qualifed Eating of a Body given for Food but of a body given for the attonement of our sins Now this speech means that the Communion of the Body of Christ which we know to be spiritual is in effect what the eating of expiatory Sacrifice was in figure Moreover that the body of Christ having succeeded Sacrifices the Communion of this Body hath taken the place of eating of Sacrifices This title then belongs to it not by simple resemblance but if I may so say both by succession and in the same sort that Jesus Christ is called Passover and Lamb the truth taking the name of the Figure As for the words of Jesus Christ in the sixth Capter of Saint John although they have reference to those of the Holy Supper nevertheless their interpretation requires particular considerations which I omit forasmuch as I treat of nothing here but what our Saviour said in the Eucharist Nevertheless we may observe as we goe that the Communion of the body of Christ is there called Eating not by a simple similitude but is as much as to say that this Communion is in effect and in substance that which the eating of the Manna was in shadow and similitude For the Jews had objected this eating of the Manna Finally for to measure this phrase in all its dimensions it is not enough there to consider the analogy between the eating with the mouth and the Communicating in spirit For this resemblance is not the onely cause of this expression nor the onely point we ought to draw to in conclusion Moreover our Lord would shew that a spiritual life hath principles much different from a life animal Both have this common to them that their subsistance depends on the union of man with some other subject which we call aliment But in the life natural man hath no proper aliments which are not of a kinde inferiour to his own such are plants and their fruits such is the flesh of bruit beasts which we lodg in our intrales mingling their blood with ours and uniting th●m to our own substance Man is constrained to incorporate into himself these vile things and which are much below him On the contrary in a spiritual life he unites himself to a subject infinitely more excellent then himself to wit to the Eternal Spirit for it is the Spirit which quickens Now this Spirit Communicates himself unto us in the Flesh of Christ So that his Flesh is unto us Meat indeed In which is seen this diversity That in the Life Natural man and his food ought to be of different kindes But in the Life Spiritual man and his food ought to be of one and the same kinde Therefore it is that our Saviour expresseth the Communion of his Body by the name of this act contrary to Nature which is to eat the flesh of man for to signifie that a Spiritual Life is maintained by a means quite contrary to that which Nature employs in an Animal Life For to Eat the flesh of the Son of man signifies not onely to have Communicated with him but signifies also that this Communion is not according to the Laws of Nature And the words of the Son of God bear not onely a similitude of qualities but also note an opposition of kinde between the food of the Body and the nourishment of the Spirit All this abovesaid being duely considered we shall finde that this phrase which seemed so strange could not be more pregnant more compleat nor more convenicent for the subject CHAP. XIII The fift Consideration upon the words of

Jesus Christ in the Supper SINCE Jesus Christ speaks of a Testament whose last seal is the Eucharist a Christian ought to learn what this Testament is for to know the importance of the seal which we see put to it and principally it is necessary to have regard to that which Jesus Christ said thereof when he instituted the Supper For he advertiseth us that this Testament is New that is to say succeeds another which is abolished by this latter Moreover that this Testament is with the Blood of the Testator that is to say that he died in this last Will. Now I omit to shew why he would make a second Testament and if there wanted any thing in the first it will suffice to observe thence that the first Testament was of no force in comparison of the second For a Testament hath no vertue during the life of the Testator nor can it send forth its effect unless the death of the Testator intervene Hebrews 9. v. 16 17. So that the Old Testament had no force in its time because that Jesus Christ was not yet dead But the Testament which we have at this day hath been made efficatious by the death of the Testator Some Jew who cannot perswade himself that God would abolish the first Covenant by a second that which nevertheless he ought to have learned of Jeremiah 31. v. 31 c. will tell us that this will make us doubt whether or no there shall be yet a third But this is no reason For the Covenant of God was conceived in form of a Testament or of a donation by reason of Death Now the Testator being once dead there is no place for another Testament The last Will wherein he died remaines irrevocable for ever Finally there is this thing extraordinary that death permitting none to be executor of his own Testament Jesus Christ contrarily is come from death to life for to execute his forasmuch as none was capable of this charge For he is risen again for our justification Rom. 4. v. 25. CHAP. XIIII The sixth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ MY Blood saith he is shed for the remission of sins We know that his death ought to be bloody according to the Maxime which says that there is no remission of sins made without effusion of blood Hebrewes 9. Now we demand not here why this remission could not be obtained otherwise that is to say why it behoved that the death of our Saviour should not onely be violent but also be marked with blood Nevertheless that which I have to observe thereupon deserves to be considered Death which is the wages of sin began by effusion of blood The first that ever died which was Abel died of a bloody death As then the blood of man hath been the first fruits of death so also was it the conclusion and destruction of it Death began by blood and ended by blood Between this first blood which was shed upon the Earth and the Blood of the Son of God there is a very remarkable opposition touched by the Apostle to the Hebrewes Chapter 12. to wit that the Blood of Sprinkling which is that of Jesus Christ speaks better things then that of Abel For this cried out for the the punishment of sin but the other cries for the remission of sins It is also observable that the same man who died first of all is also the first in the holy History who had sacrificed with blood For he was the first that offered the flesh and fat of living Creatures Genesis 4. 4. So the first who felt death brought forth by sin is also the first who offered the bloody Oblation whereby we should be delivered from sin which is the sting of death Finally The Jews who think it strange that the Blood of a Man is our Expiation have nevertheless an imagination which cannot subsist but upon this principle That there must be an humane Sacrifice to wipe away the sins of man They beleeve that God will give them grace in contemplation of the obedience of Isaac who exposed himself voluntarily to be sacrificed And they have prayers wherein they alledge the merit of this Sacrifice as a foundation of the Redemption which they expect Now as for the offering of this Patriarch if it had been capable to expiate the sins of his Off-spring even of those who live at this day why after this Sacrifice of Isaac should there be yet need of so many expiatory Sacrifices To what purpose hath the Law which is since given imposed upon them Sacrifices for the obtaining of pardon But to speak no more of it Isaac was not sacrificed in effect and his blood was not shed in this Oblation Which shews that it is not expiatory For without an actual effusion of blood no remission of sins at all is made The Law tells them that it is blood which makes expiation for the Soul Lev. 17. CHAP. XV. The seventh Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ THE Institution of this Sacrament is comprised in few words whereof not one is vain For Jesus Christ hath said nothing which contains not some great point Now above all things he shewes what is the vertue and dignity of the Blood which he presents unto us and this in four divers respects to wit 1. That it is his own Blood the Blood of the Son of God 2. That it is the Blood of the New Covenant 3. That this Blood purchases unto us remission of sins 4. That this Blood is shed for many As for this last amongst many other matters therein contained I think that our Lord would yet touch upon a difference also between the Blood of the Old Testament and that of the New In the Old Testament the Blood of the Sacrifice was sometimes employed only for the expiation of one man among the people who had need of a particular sacrifice Now this Sacrifice which was offred but for one man alone was many wayes inferiour to that which was offred for many that is to say for the Multitude or for all the Church Principally in this that the Blood shed in Sacrifice for one man alone never came into the Holy Place But that did which was shed for the multitude Jesus Christ therefore advertiseth us that his Blood was shed for many for the Multitude to the end that we might know that his Blood hath penetrated the Holy Places and hath opened them Hebr. 9. v. 12. And in this also is the New Testament more excellent than the Old For the Blood of the Old Testament did not alwayes enter within the Holy Place Moreover the Blood of the Old Testament which was shed for one man alone was not sufficient even to Expiate legally all the sins of such a man but onely a particular offence for which by name there wholly needed a Sacrifice On the contrary the Blood of the New Testament was not onely shed for many men but hath also Expiated universally all the sins of