Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	blood_n	body_n	bread_n	1,966	5	8.1709	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66965	The Greeks opinion touching the Eucharist misrepresented by Monsieur Claude in his answer to Mr. Arnold	R. H., 1609-1678.	1686 (1686)	Wing W3447; ESTC R26397	39,994	38

that Protestants are not obliged to defend the Sentiment of the Greeks and that his business is to enquire what it is not how maintainable And saith elsewhere P 337. That both the Greeks and Latins are far departed from the Evangelical simplicity and the main and natural explication the Ancients have given to the Mystery of the Eucharist Here then 1. as to the later ages of the Church Protestants stand by themselves and the Reformation was made as Calvin confessed it † Epist P. Melancthoni a toto mundo 2. After such a Confession M. Claude seems not to deal sincerely in that with force enough he draws so frequently in both his Replies the sayings of the Greek writers of later times to the Protestant sense and puts his Adversary to the trouble of confuting him And from the many absurdities that he pretends would follow upon the Greek Opinion taken according to their plain expressions saith these intend only * a Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist as to its Vertue and Efficacy opposite to its Reality and Substance and * an Vnion of the Bread there to the Divinity only so far as the Divinity to bestow on it the Salvifical Virtue or Efficacy of Christ's Body and * a conjunction of the Bread there to Christ's natural Body born of the Blessed Virgin but to it as in Heaven not here to it as a Mystery may be said to be an Appendix or Accessary to the thing of which it is a Mystery But all this is the Protestant Opinion 3. Again seems not to deal sincerely in that whilst he affirms the modern Greeks to retain the former Doctrine of their Church as high as Damascen and the 2d Council of Nice ‖ l. 3. c. 13. p. 315. and again † l. 3. c. 13. p. 326. l. 4. c. 9 p. 488. Damascen not to have been the first that had such thoughts viz. of an Augmentation of Christs Body in the Eucharist by the Sanctified Elements as it was augmented when he here on earth by his nourishment but to have borrowed them from some Ancient Greek Fathers naming Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catechet c. 37. See this Father's words below § 321. n. 14. and Anastasius Sinait who explained their Doctrine by the same comparison as Damascen and the Greeks following him did yet doth not freely declare both these the Ancient Greeks as well as the later either to differ from or to agree with the Protestant Opinion § 4 4. Having said this That however the Greek Opinion varies from the Protestants it concerns him not Next he declares That what ever the Greeks may be proved to have held concerning some transmutation of the Bread and Wine into Christ's Body and Blood or concerning a Real or Corporal presence and their understanding Hoc est Corpus meum in a literal sense neither doth this concern his cause who undertakes only to maintain that these Churches assert not Transubstantiation at least assert it not so as to make it a positive Article of their Faith His words upon D. Arnauld's resenting it That whereas he contented himself ●nly to shew that the Real presence was received by the Oriental Schismatical Churches M. Claude diverted the Controversie to Transubstantiation His words I say are these * l. c. 1. p. 157. In the Dispute concerning the Greeks our business is only about Transubstantiation and not at all about Real presence For it was to this only and Adoration that I formerly limited my self in my last Answer But then as if this might do him some prejudice he as it were cautiously addeth Yet I would have none draw a Consequence from hence that I acknowledge a Real presence established in the Greek Church But here to make his words true he adds again in that sense as the Roman Church understands it And what sense is that surely by the way of Transubstantiation And so you see he pares his words till they say no more than just what he said before That he acknowledgeth no Real presence viz. by way of Transubstantiation established in the Greek Church And this is to say only that he acknowledgeth them not to hold Transubstantiation Next concerning the Greek their receiving or opposing Transubstantiation he hath one Hold more Ibid. It is not saith he our business to know whether the Greeks formally reject Transubstantiation Or whether they have made It an Article of Controversie between them and the Latins but only whether they comprehend it amongst their points of Faith or no Our Dispute is only concerning this matter One would think that he had been chaced very much and driven up to the wall that to preserve himself safe he makes so many outworks and contracts the Subject of his Disputation within so narrow a Compass But doth he not here for the Greek Church also thus decline and tacitly as it were yield up that to the Catholicks which they have always professed to be the main Controversie with Protestants on this Subject viz. The Real and Corporal presence of our Lord and the perpetuity of the Christian Faith as well East as West in the constant Belief of this for all the later times of the Church Catholick which consent found in the later times is the truest proof from which we may collect also the true sense of the former And from this Corporal presence once established whether a Transubstantiation be or be not necessarily follows also the lawfulness of a Soveraign Adoration which renders the Dispute concerning one of the two Points he contesteth needless and decideth it against him since an Adoration of the Mysteries practised among the Greeks he is content to allow but not Soveraign Now Real presence makes it out a Soveraign one § 5 5. His way thus far made and his cause pretended not to be concerned in that the Greeks have a different Sentiment of the Eucharist from Protestants Nor that they take Hoc est Corpus meum as also the Latins in a literal sense and hold a Real presence Nor that they do not reject the Roman Transubstantiation Or make any Controversie with the Latins about it And so all Authorities save those that press Transubstantiation being removed from giving him any trouble Next For the Greeks asserting a Transubstantiation the alledging such Testimonies as these which follow and frequently occur in their Authors will not be admitted by him as good or to the purpose That by the Consecration the Bread is changed and converted into the very the proper the True or in veritate in reipsa Body of Christ which Body also is the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin and that suffered on the Cross That the Eucharist is not a Figure or Image only of this Body but the very Body of our Lord united to his Divinity as the Body born of the Blessed Virgin was Neither are these now two but one Unum corpus unus Sanguis cum eo quod sumpsit in utero Virginis

the Bread to the Divinity of our Lord and by the Divinity to his natural Body by means of which Vnion or Conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and made the same Body with it with his natural Body Again for preserving the literal sense That they bring the comparison of Nourishment made One with our Body and that they have invented this way of Augmentation of the natural Body of Christ It seems also That the Modern Greeks understand some real or Physical impression of the Holy Ghost and of the vivificating vertue of Jesus Christ upon the Bread with some kind of inherence i. e. of the vertue Although I will not saith he ascertain positively that this is the General Belief of their Church though the expressions seem to sway on this side But however it be this is not our opinion We believe that the Grace of the Holy Ghost and vertue of Christs Body accompanies the lawful use of the Sacrament and that we partake the Body of Jesus Christ by Faith as much or more really than if we received it in the mouth of our Body But we do not understand there this Real impression or inherence i. e. of the Supernatural Vertue of the Body of Christ ‖ See p. 338. viz. that born of the Virgin of the Greeks Whence it is that our Expressions are not so high as theirs And this Opinion of theirs he makes to be as ancient as ‖ l. 3. c. 13. p. 315. Damascen This Opinion of the Modern Greeks saith he seems to be taken from Damascen some of whose expressions I think fit to produce For it is certain that to make a good Judgment of the Opinion of the Modern Greeks we must ascend as high as him And M. Arnauld himself hath observed That John Damascen is as it were the S. Thomas of the Greeks Thus He. § 10 But lest he should seem to fasten such a gross Opinion upon the Greek Church as they will not own nor others easily believe they maintain for he confesseth that it hath something in it that appears little reasonable and especially as to the Augmentation of Christ's natural Body to be assez bizarre ‖ p. 336. and lest he should make it liable to so many odious absurdities as that a Transubstantiation which he endeavours to avoid may seem much the more plausible and eligible of the two perhaps I say for these considerations he undertakes to qualifie and render a credible and likely sense to it on this manner In saying 1. That they hold indeed an Vnion of the Divinity to the Bread and that in an higher manner than to any other Sacred Sign or Ceremony but yet not Hypostatical 2. That they hold the Bread changed into an augmentative part of Christ's natural Body but it remaining still entire Bread as before and altered only in a Supernatural Vertue added to it 3. Hold it to be joined to Christ's Body and augmenting it but so as to be not individually the same but numerically distinct from it as also those new parts we receive by nourishment are distinct from all the former parts of our Body 4. To be joined to this natural Body of Christ not locally or to it as present in the Eucharist but as in Heaven How this As saith he a Mystery may be said to be an Appendix or Accessory to the thing of which it is a Mystery And to these four Qualifications this Author seems necessitated because otherwise Adoration and Transubstantiation in some part though not a total Existence of the Accidents without a Subject The same Body at once in many places and several other Consequents thus appearing also in the Greek's Opinion would have given too much countenance to the Roman § 11 Where you may observe that there are three things wherein his explaining of this Opinion he imputes to the Greeks to render it more remote from the Latins falls short of that which according to the Comparison and the expressions they use he is justly obliged to maintain 1. The first That the Vnion of the Divinity to the Consecrated Bread is Hypostatical or Personal For such an Union had our Lord's Divinity to the Nourishment to which this is compared received by him and added to his natural Body born of the Blessed Virgin ‖ See M. Claude 2d Answ part 2. c. 2. p. 249. And no less Union than this will serve to make the Eucharistical Bread one and the same with it a thing constantly affirmed by the Greeks at least as to the Suppositum or to make both these the Body of the same Person The difference of the Vnion saith M. Claude ‖ l. 6. c. 10. p. 867. is discerned by the difference of the effect it produceth in the things Now what thing more is requisite to stile it an Union Hypostatical Hypostasis and Subsistentia or Persona with the Greeks importing the same thing than this effect that it renders this Body to which it unites it self and that Body born of the Blessed Virgin the same Body of one Person and this Union gives to this new Body the self-same vivificating vertue Physically inherent as it doth to the other Natural And then such an Hypostatical Union if granted will infer the same Dignity of this breaden body with the other the same Ceremonies of Honour and Adoration due Things which this Person is unwilling to hear of and that would ruine his Cause § 12 The 2d That there is a Substantial change of the Bread i. e. of the substantial form of Bread at least in that this Bread is truly made the Flesh and Blood and animated with the humane soul of our Lord as well as united to his Divinity For so the Nourishment received by our Lord on Earth and added to his Body born of the Virgin remained not still Bread but was truly changed into his Flesh and so also is ours And the Expressions of the Greeks are sutable and cannot without an unjust force and straining be otherwise explicated To instance in one or two Such is that of Theophilact in Matt. 26. Non enim dixit Haec est figura sed Hoc est Corpus meum Ineffabili enim operatione transformatur etiamsi nobis videatur Panis quoniam infirmi sumus abhorremus crudas carnes comedere maxime hominis carnem ideo Panis quidem apparet sed revera Caro est And in Marc. 14. Et quomodo inquis Caro non videtur Sanguinem propositum carnem videntes non ferremus sed abhorremus Idcirco misericors Deus nostrae infirmitati condescendens speciem quidem Panis Vini servat in virtutem autem carnis sanguinis transelementat Where if Theophylact had meant by Caro vere est Caro tantum in virtute est he would never have given this reason in his comment on Matt. Panis apparet quod vere est Caro quoniam infirmi sumus abhorremus crudas carnes but rather would have removed