Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	catholic_n	church_n	visible_a	2,907	5	9.9387	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33378	The Catholick doctrine of the Eucharist in all ages in answer to what H. Arnaud, Doctor of the Sorbon alledges, touching the belief of the Greek, Moscovite, Armenian, Jacobite, Nestorian, Coptic, Maronite, and other eastern churches : whereunto is added an account of the Book of the body and blood of our Lord published under the name of Bertram : in six books.	Claude, Jean, 1619-1687.	1684 (1684)	Wing C4592; ESTC R25307	903,702	730

but supposes on the contrary they are not consecrated for if the Greeks believed they were consecrated it would be in vain for the Latins to demand wherefore they joyn them with that which is consecrated It appears likewise by Arcudius that Gabriel of Philadelphia maintains this Opinion of the non-Consecration of these Particles not only as the bare Opinion of Simeon of Thessalonica but as that of the whole Greek Church for he recites these words of Gabriel What is it which perswades me Arcud lib. 5. cap. 11. of this 'T is first the Faith and in the next place the Authority of the Holy Fathers but in fine I am perswaded of this because 't is the Doctrine which the Catholick Church dispersed over the Face of the whole Earth teacheth and confirmeth By this Catholick Church he means that of the Greeks In like manner the Jesuit Francis Richard an Emissary speaking of this Belief touching the non-consecration of the Particles tells us that he has had several Relation of the Isle of St. Erini Disputes with the Papa's that embraced this False Opinion and that the People for want of Instruction know not what to believe Had Mr. Arnaud carefully perused Leo Allatius his chief Author who has furnished him with the greatest part of his Materials touching this Dispute about the Greeks he might have found this Sentiment to be the same with that of the Monks of Mount Athos All the Monks say's he that inhabit Mount Athos are of this Epist 2. ad Nihus Opinion as testifies Athanasius Venoire the Archbishop of Imbre who dwelt a long time with them and I my self have seen several who were Priests that zealously maintain'd the same thing BUT be it as it will Mr. Arnaud and I would draw from one and the same Principle very different Conclusions the Principle is that the Greeks do not believe that the Particles are consecrated his Conclusion is that they then hold Transubstantiation and mine on the contrary that they then do not believe it Let us now see which of these Conclusions is the truest HE tells us that when any Object against the Greeks that if their Opinion be true it would follow that they which communicated of these Partcles Lib. 4. cap. 1. pag. 330. would not receive the Body of Jesus Christ they answer there is put into the cup part of the Host truly consecrated which is mixt with its Particles not consecrated out of which afterwards they distribute in a spoon the Communion to the Laity so that it commonly happens that all in general receive some part of the Body of Jesus Christ and when it should fall out otherwise it would only follow they communicated but of one kind BUT this pretended Answer of the Greeks hath no other Foundation than Mr. Arnaud's Authority who alleges no Author to confirm it and Arcudius who manages this Dispute against Simeon and Gabriel and whence Mr. Arnaud has taken all he knows makes no mention of it HE adds That this Errour invincibly proves the Greeks hold Transubstantiation and that we need but consider after what manner they express it And he afterwards produces the Passages of Simeon and Gabriel The Church upon just Grounds say's Simeon offers these Particles to shew that this lively Sacrifice sanctifies both the quick and dead but she makes them not Gods by nature He means that as the Saints are united to God by Grace but become not Gods in their nature so these Particles are united to the Body of Jesus Christ altho they do not therefore become his Body And this he clearly expresses in these words The Saints being united to Jesus Christ are deifi'd by Grace but become not Gods by nature so likewise the Particles which are offered upon their account obtain holiness by the participation of the Body and Blood and become one with this Body and Blood by this mixture but if you consider them separately they are not the very Body and Blood of Christ but are only joyned to them The Archbishop of Philadelphia say's the same thing in using the same comparison as the Souls of the Saints say's he being brought to the light of the Divinity which enlightens them become Gods only by participation and not by nature so these Particles altho united to the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ are not changed but receive holiness by participation After this Mr. Arnaud concludes in these words it is as clear as the day that all this has no sence but only as it relates to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that as these Authors suppose these Particles are not transubstantiated so they suppose the greatest portion which is offered in the name of Jesus Christ and from which alone is taken what is reserved for the sick is effectually transubstantiated and becomes the very Body of Jesus Christ BUT I shall not stick to tell him his Philosophy deceives him for these Authors do not dispute on this Point that is to say whether these Particles are transubstantiated or not But whether they are made the Body of Jesus Christ in the same manner as the great Portion And this does in truth suppose that the great Portion becomes this Body but not that it is transubstantiated The comparison they use does not favour this pretended supposition for they mean no more by it than this that as the Saints are indeed united unto God and partake of his holiness but become not Gods by nature so the Particles which represent the Saints are really united with the great one which represents our Saviour Christ and partake of its Sanctification but they become not effectually what the great one is made to wit the Body of Jesus Christ And this is their reasoning which does not satisfie us how the great Particle is made this Body whether by a Substantial Conversion or otherwise And thus does Mr. Arnaud's Logick conclude nothing LET us see now the Conclusion I pretend to draw hence First we are agreed that in Simeon's sence these little Particles are bread in Substance and represent the Saints Now if we suppose the biggest ceases to be Bread and is made the proper Substance of Jesus Christ there can be nothing more impertinent than the Ceremony of the Greeks to place in the same Mystery round about our Saviour who is in his own proper Substance not real Saints but little morsels of Bread which represent them Now methinks there is a great deal more reason in saying that the great Particle is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and the small ones according to their way mystical Saints than to say that the great one is substantially Jesus Christ and the small ones are only Bread in Substance and Saints in the Mystery MOREOVER what means Simeon when he tells us that the small Apud Arcud lib. 3. cap. 11. Particles become one with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by mixture which is to say that when they joyn them with

hearers receiving more or less but it remains indivisible and wholly intire in all when they should be several thousands in number altho it be but one Body for a voice is nothing else but verberated Air. Let no one then doubt but that after the Holy Sacrifice and Resurrection of the incorruptible and immortal Body of our Lord and his holy and living Blood are applied to the Anti-Types by their Consecration but that they do I say as much imprint his proper virtue as the things I offered by way of example do and that he fully and intirely exists in them I know not what Mr. Arnaud thinks of these words but certainly he ought not to suppress them as he has done He mentions what precedes and follows them but leaves out those that are in the middle 'T is probable he could not well brook this comparison of the Seal that imprints its Image on several things nor that of the voice which multiplies it self in the Air without losing its Unity for in effect there happens no change of Substance neither in the Matter that receives impression nor in the Air which receives the voice and these several Matters to which the Seal communicates its Image or those several parts of the Air into which the voice is carried are one and the same thing amongst themselves and with the Seal or the first Air in respect of the Characters or Articulation but not at all in respect of the Substance whence we may conclude the same thing concerning the parts of the Sacrament which is to say that the Bread altho it receives the impression of the virtue of Christ's Body yet does it keep its Substance after the same manner as the Body of Jesus Christ retains his the virtue remaining the same in all the parts of the Bread 'T is probable he did not like that in proposing the comparison of the Seal Eutychius has observ'd that 't is not changed into the things to which it communicates its Characters whence it follows that they are not likewise changed substantially into him 'T is likely he could not well rellish this expression that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are applied to the Anti-Types and that they imprint no less in them their proper virtues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than the Seal does in things and the voice which a man utters in the Air. In effect I am much mistaken if this does not represent the Idea of a Body of Jesus Christ in virtue and efficacy against which Mr. Arnaud has so great an aversion I am greatly deceived if these expressions be not inconsistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or the real Presence For what mean this Body and Blood applied to the Anti-Types by Consecration and which as a Seal imprint on them their proper virtues if we suppose these Anti-Types to be really changed into this Body and Blood and become the same numerical Substance But be it as it will Mr. Arnaud ought not to retrench all this Discourse from the midst of the rest or if he design'd to do it not to reproach me for that in my Answer to the Perpetuity I did not mention at large the Passages of Nicetas and Zonarus I can easilier justifie my self concerning this particular than he can himself for it will appear at the end of this Chapter that 't would have been very advantagious to me to represent them at their full length and the reason why I did it not was because I was unwilling to tire the Reader with Passages which are very long and the sum of which may be represented in few words besides I have caused them to be printed at large in the Margent of the last Edition of my Book We must then attribute this reproach Mr. Arnaud makes me to his humour and not to his Judgment for had he taken time to consider he would have spared us the reading of so frivolous a matter But when we call to mind that he himself has suppressed one part of Eutychus his Discourse this must be said to be an effect of his Judgment and not of his humour for he seems to be naturally an Enemy to Com pe diums IN fine Nicetas having made the Greeks of the first party speak their sence he introduces the other and adds these following words Which things being alledged by these and they producing several other Testimonies of the Church the others replied on the contrary That the Mystery is not an acknowledgment of the Resurrection but only a Sacrifice and consequently is corruptible being without Soul or Understanding and that the Communicant does not receive Jesus Christ intire but in part For were it say they incorruptible it would be indued with Spirit it would be alive it could neither be touched seen nor chewed with the Teeth and in its cutting it would be insensible of pain TO know whether these People believed Transubstantiation or the real Presence we need only inquire whether they had common sence for unless they were deprived of it they could never believe that the Substance of the Bread is changed into the dead and inanimate Body of our Lord which is seen handled cut and chewed with the teeth and which altho inanimate yet is grieved and pain'd to see it self thus used If Mr. Arnaud can make us believe this he may make us believe any thing How apparently impious and contradictory would this their Opinion be to expose our Saviour again to grief and pain to imagine they see him and chew him with their teeth and cut his flesh in pieces that every one may partake thereof to believe he is without Life and Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet that he is pained and grieved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 BUT It will be perhaps then demanded what is their sence seeing Mr. Arnaud assures us That all this would be ridiculous if we understand it as meant of Bread which is only the Figure of our Saviour and which contains only his virtue I answer 't is no hard matter to give their words a national sence in supposing they only believe a change of Mystery and Virtue for they mean that we receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist as dead and sacrific'd for us and that for to thus represent him the Symbols are taken from the number of those things which have neither Life nor Understanding from amongst those things I say which we see handle and chew with our teeth and which relate to the first visible State of Jesus Christ when he lived on Earth and was subject to pain and misery whereas were he represented in it in his incorruptible State wherein he is no more visible to our eyes nor liable to the ill usages of his Enemies our Lord would without doubt employed other Symbols wherein these dolours are not so lively represented And as to what they say concerning our not receiving Jesus Christ wholly entire but in part this supposes nothing else but that they believe the whole Body