Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	father_n	holy_a	spirit_n	2,571	5	5.5598	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49577	Six conferences concerning the Eucharist wherein is shewed, that the doctrine of transubstantiation overthrows the proofs of Christian religion.	La Placette, Jean, 1629-1718.; Tenison, Thomas, 1636-1715.	1687 (1687)	Wing L430; ESTC R5182	76,714	124

Joan. tract 36. pronunciatur the body of Jesus Christ risen must be in one only place But why must it be so and why may he not be in several places at a time if he be there in effect as your Creed bears The most famous among the Fathers have used the same Arguments against the Macedonians These Hereticks affirmed the Holy Spirit to be but a Creature of a like nature to that of Angels The Holy Fathers to refute them alledge That an Angel cannot be in several places at a time whereas the Holy Spirit was in the same time in several places extream distant from one another seeing he never forsook the Apostles although for the Preaching of the Gospel they were dispersed over all the Earth Thus does St. Athanasius argue or one under his name in the dispute he is said to have against Arius (a) Apud Athan Didymus of Alexandria (b) Didym de Sp S. St. Basil (c) Basil de Sp. S. cap 2. St. Greg. Naz. (d) Naz. Orat. 3.7 St. Ambrose (e) Amb. de Sp. S. lib. 1. cap. 7. Pascasius Deacon of Rome (f) Pasc Rom. de Sp. S. lib. 1. cap. 12. Anastasius Sinait (g) Anast Sin. lib. 1. de dogm fid Rupert (h) Rup lib. 10. cap. 22. and others very ill as you see were it not supposed impossible for the same Body to be in several Places at a time Were not this held then for undeniable they would without doubt have been answered That there 's no more difficulty in supposing a Spirit in several Places than a material Body as that of our Saviour was But in effect it appears the Fathers have ever believed this could not be seeing hereby he refuted the exravagant Opinions of both Hereticks and Pagans Moreover your great evasion which consists in distinguishing what may naturally be and what may happen by an effect of the Almighty Power of God this evasion I say will not serve in this occasion for in fine the Question was not in these Disputes what might or what might not naturally be but what might absolutely be The Pagans did not pretend That by means of natural Causes the Gods were placed in Statues consecrated to them The Manichees did not subject our Saviour to the Laws of Nature The Macedonians did not believe the Holy Spirit was sent by some created Cause All these People made the Divine Power intervene in these occasions and consequently the Fathers affirming that what these extravagant People said was impossible they meant 't was so in all senses and that 't was a mere contradiction It appears then from all I have now said That according to the truest and best Reason according to your own Authors and according to the Fathers it 's a pure contradiction to suppose Christs Body in several places at a time But the contradiction will be still more manifest if we add That supposing this Divine Body in several places one may say of it things directly opposite to one another Considering it such as it is in Heaven you believe it has its three dimensions each of which you believe may be measured and compared with those of other Bodies which are greater or lesser You believe it has its parts one out of another That it possesses a place whose parts answer those of this sacred Body That he is therein visible and palpable acts c. You say the direct contrary of this same Body such as you suppose it in the Eucharist You believe it there exists after the manner of Spirits that it is therein reduced to one point that it has its parts one in another that 't is therein invisible and without action You also believe that to consider it only as 't is in the Eucharist it 's removed out of one place and let to rest in another here he is lifted up and there he is let down Are not these Sir so many contradictions Is not this to affirm and deny the same thing of the same Subject in relation to the same parts and time and what do you call contradictory if this be not so A Body in two places says Mr. N. is equivalent to two Bodies and one may say of it the most opposite things without contradiction I must acknowledge one cannot do it when we speak of a Body existing only in one place But when we speak of a Body or generally of a Subject which exists in diverse places at a time there 's no contradiction in affirming and denying the same things of it This is no new answer and I suppose you have read it in our Authors Your Authors I confess have made use of it repli'd I but I affirm their answer was insincere it being not what they thought but what the interest of their cause required And for a proof of what I say is it not true That when the Question was of things wherein they were not interessed and which they regarded as absolutely independent from the Eucharist they have not stuck to maintain 't was a contradiction to say things opposite of a Body in two places For example because it 's held among you that Christs Body is not circumscriptively that is to say after the manner of Bodies in such a manner that each of its parts answers to that of the place which it possesses because say I 't is believ'd that the Body of Jesus Christ is not in this manner but in Heaven and that 't is supposed in the Eucharist only Sacramentally which is to say after the manner of Spirits totum in toto totum in qualibet parte The Thomists * See Masius Phys lib. 4. cap. 5. quest 5. assert 3. have imagined That it mattered not as to the Eucharist to know whether a Body may be circumscriptively in two places They thought they might freely explain themselves on this Question without fearing the judgment they might make of it should prove of dangerous Consequence to the Doctrine of the Real Presence Being in this manner withheld by no consideration and applying themselves to nothing but what appeared to them to be true they pronounced it impossible for one Body to be circumscriptively in two places and their strongest reason is that hereby it might happen that this Body might be in motion in one of these places and at rest in another here it might be cold and there hot and so of the rest It 's according to them a pure contradiction to say That a Body which shall be circumscriptively in two places shall be at the same time at rest and in motion but if this be a contradiction why is it not as considerable a one to say these same things of a Body which is Sacramentally in two places or Sacramentally in one and circumscriptively in the other For in fine are not rest and motion as opposite and inconsistent when the Bodies which they affect are Sacramentally in two places as when they be therein circumscriptively Moreover