Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	fix_v	grant_v	mind_n	4,207	5	10.7860	5	true

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

things FIRST then Mr. Arnaud makes me contradict my self He says That Lib. 6. cap. 4. pag. 550. if it be not true I admitted the confused Belief during ten Ages if I included it in the 9th and 10th it follows that I knew that during eight Centuries the Faithful had a distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist I acknowledg this Consequence to be just enough But adds he Mr. Claud bethinks himself and finds 't is more for his advantage to grant nothing to the Author of the Perpetuity and even to affirm that during these eight Centuries the Faithful had no distinct knowledg of the Presence or Real Absence Why does Mr. Arnaud call this recollecting a man's self What contrariety is there between these two things Not says he but that there 's an equivocation in all this If there be any equivocation Mr. Arnaud ought not to make a contradiction of it nor say I am at discord with my self But the truth is there is neither equivocation nor contradiction in it for we have already told him that to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is neither to know distinctly the Real Presence nor Real Absence and that there 's a difference in these things To know distinctly the Real Absence in the sense wherein we take this term in this Dispute is to reject formally and by a positive act this invisible Presence as an error But to know distinctly the mystery of the Eucharist is according to us to know clearly that the Eucharist is Bread and Wine as to the substance of it that by Consecration this Bread and Wine are made signs or mystical figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that this signification is grounded on several relations which are between the Bread and Wine and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that those who receive these Symbols with Faith and Devotion towards Jesus Christ who died for us and rose again and is reigning in Heaven they spiritually eat of his Body and drink of his Blood that these Symbols are called the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ by a Sacramental way of speech because they do both represent them to our Faith or because there 's a great conformity between them and the things which they represent or because they communicate them to us and several other like Articles In a word to understand the mystery of the Eucharist is to know positively wherein consists the nature and essence of a Sacrament which does not include any distinct knowledg either of the Real invisible Presence or Real invisible Absence I acknowledg 't is not easie to surprize people that are in this capacity nor persuade them that this Real Presence has been ever believed in the Church especially if they have Pastors that are learned and honest who acquit themselves of their Duty and watch diligently over their Flocks But howsoever this is not to understand distinctly the Real Absence in question IN the mean time to the end Mr. Arnaud may no longer equivocate on this subject let me tell him that when we attribute this distinct knowledg of the mystery of the Eucharist to the eight first Centuries we would not be understood either that they had it in a degree always equal and uniform or that all persons who lived in each of those Ages have been equally enlightned We know the light of those Ages was diminished by degrees so that the 7th and 8th had much less of it than the first six We know likewise there has been always in the Church I mean even then when 't was most flourishing a great number of pious Christians in truth but little advanced in knowledg and with them multitudes of prophane worldly wretches who little concerned themselves touching what they believed of the mysteries of Christian Religion IN the second place Mr. Arnaud reproaches me with having done two things which would be strange enough were they true the one that I ill explain'd the Author of the Perpetuity's sentiment and th' other that I granted him in effect whatsoever he pretended to He grounds these two reproaches on that I said somewhere to the Author of the Perpetuity That if Answer to the second Treatise part 2. chap 3. he meant that the Faithful who took the instructions of the Fathers in a metaphorical sense believed Jesus Christ present corporeally in Heaven without thinking on what has been said since that he is at the same time in Heaven and on Earth there after the manner of a Body here after the manner of a Spirit I acknowledged that the Faithful had in this sense a most distinct idea of the Real Absence which is to say they did not at all believe that he was substantially present in the Sacrament applying their whole mind to the presence of his Grace and Merit setting themselves to meditate on his infinite love c. without exerting their thoughts to this presence of substance invented of late by the Roman Church But if by having an idea and distinct belief of the Real Absence that Author meant they knew and rejected distinctly this means of existence of the Body of Jesus Christ on the Altar in multiplying his Presence in several places I affirm'd they had it not at all BUT these two reproaches are without grounds for in respect of the first it appears from what we have seen in the preceding Chapter that the Author of the Perpetuity must have pretended to that which I charge him with to wit that the Faithful have had the distinct idea of the substantial invisible Presence such as the Church of Rome believes and that they formally rejected it as an Error For there 's only this manner of believing the Real Absence which can have place in this Dispute seeing that of the three which Mr. Arnaud has proposed the first as we have seen is impossible and the third useless for the design of the Author of the Perpetuity so that necessarily his sense must fall upon the second which is precisely that which I have attributed to him And as to the second reproach 't is clear that if the Author of the Perpetuity pretended to no more than what I granted him his Argument will fall to the ground for it does not follow from persons not fixing their minds on the presence of an invisible substance such as the Church of Rome teaches and their applying themselves only to meditate on a presence of Grace which is precisely what I grant him it does not hence follow I say that they are led by this alone to reject the Real Invisible Presence as a novelty contrary to the Faith of the Church There needs something more than this I mean there needs greater lights to inevitably effect this rejection For a man must have for this not only the idea of this substantial invisible Presence such as is fancied in the Church of Rome but likewise distinctly know that such a Presence was never taught in the Church For

Precaution our selves to prevent being surpriz'd by it When the Christian Religion came into the World and reform'd the Abuses of Men who believed their Idols were Gods She at the same time Corrected their Expressions She no longer suffered Men to speak of Gods in the Plural nor of Jupiter and Mercury and these other false Divinities as formerly especially in the Pulpit and Sermons or in the Decrees of Councils AS to the Example of Philosophers we must not wonder if they accommodate their Expressions to the Language of other Men altho it be contrary to their Hypotheses For they are not the Masters of it the necessity of making themselves understood and the fear of passing for Extravagants should they affect a new Style obliges them to express themselves as the World does seeing they cannot make it unlearn their Language and accustom it self to speak according to their Opinions This shews their Opinions did not reign when humane Language established it self and that moreover at this Day they are not Popular but this does not shew 't was the same in the Christian Religion in respect of the Eucharist The Language of the Church touching this Mystery was not found ready made it was formed on the Sentiments Men began to have of it as soon as ever 't was Mention'd Supposing then that from the first rise of Christianity it were believed the Testimony of our Senses was False and Deceitful and that the Substance of Bread was really changed into that of the Body of Christ Men would have avoided speaking according to Sense and Religion which was the Master of it would never have suffer'd it And so much the rather if the Supposition be made which I mentioned it must be necessarily acknowledged that this Mystery is popular there being none of the People but ought to know that the Substance which he receives is not that of Bread but of the Body of Christ Besides this there is a great deal of Difference betwixt Religion and Philosophy Philosophical Opinions do not so greatly concern the World in general nor in particular those that hold them that Men ought to be so much troubled about common Expressions how contrary soever they may be to these Opinions and lyable to Error No Man will be damned for believing a dead Body is the material Part of Man which remains that Animals are not Automates but real living Bodies nor that Colours really in the Objects nor for believing the Sun and Firmament move and not the Earth These Carthesians and Coperniciens have not yet asserted their Sentiments to be necessary to Salvation nor obligatory on the Conscience So that if the contrary Sentiments be erroneous they are not believed to be so dangerous as that humane Speech must be therefore altered But if Christian Religion has proposed Transubstantiation or the Substantial Presence it is to be supposed she has offered it as an Article of Faith necessary to be Believed in order to Salvation as an Article which obliges the Conscience and rejected the contrary Opinion as a damnable Error inconsistent with Salvation and consequently she ought to warn Men touching the Expressions and not leave to our Sences that is to say to Cheats and Impostors the Power of making a Council say in a Determination of Faith that we offer in the Eucharist a Substance of Bread TO say in fine this Council only denoted the Matter of the Eucharist as Mr. Arnaud does is an Unjustifiable Evasion For when we denoted P. 693. the Matter of it by the Term of Substance of Bread we consider it before its Consecration supposing 't is believed that by the Consecration 't is no more the Substance of Bread but that of the Body of Jesus Christ Yet these Fathers considered it after the Consecration as appears by their whole Discourse Those of Nice have thus observed it for they censure them for calling the Eucharist an Image after Consecration Now in the same place wherein those of Constantinople call it Image they call it likewise a Substance of Bread If the Censure of those of Nice be just the Eucharist must be according to the Council of Constantinople an Image after Consecration What likelyhood is there Mr. Arnaud should at this time understand better the Sence of this Council of Constantinople than the Fathers of Nice who had amongst them several Bishops that Assisted at that Assembly and amongst others him who presided over it But I will grant the Nicene Fathers were mistaken and that Mr. Arnaud understands the Point better than they yet it is certain they ought to have Censured the Expression of Substance of Bread seeing they could not take it but as spoken of the Eucharist after its Consecration These of Constantinople call the Eucharist in the same Place and Period Image and Substance of Bread They take the Name of Image as a Quality attributed to the Eucharist after Consecration They must then necessarily have taken the Substance of Bread as an Attribute applyed likewise to the Eucharist after the Consecration Yet those of Nice Censure the first and do not in any manner Censure the other they are Offended at the one and not at the other which concludes as I already said that their Hypothesis was not Transubstantiation THE Bishops of Constantinople comparing the Eucharist with Christ's natural C. 7. p. 6 6. Body say that as the natural Body is Holy being made Divine so that which is his Body by Institution to wit his Image is Holy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I Translated these last Words being made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace Mr. Claude say's Mr. Arnaud has falsly Translated that the Eucharist is made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace If this be a Fault in me 't is the same with the Latin Translator of the Council in Binius his Edition for he has inserted these very Words Utpote per quandam sanctificationem gratiae santificata and in the Margin deificata that is to say Word for Word As being Sanctifi'd or made Divine by a certain Sanctification of Grace Mr. Arnaud who justifi'd heretofore Forbesius saying he could not be justly accused for falsifying the Passage of Jeremias the Patriarch of Constantinople seeing he only followed the Translation of Socolovius has he so soon changed his Mind and forgot his own Maxim without any other Reason than that there it concerned Forbesius and here my self Was that which was then Unjust become now Just and Reasonable by the only Difference of Persons But let us see whether it is in effect a Falsification He say's it should be rendred Being made Divine by a Favour intirely Gracious by means of a certain Consecration because we must joyn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but why rather to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why rather Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gracious Favour than Grace Why rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consecration than

naturally arises in the minds of all men May it not happen that the same expression has been used in divers ages and amongst divers people under different respects and yet have been used for different ends and on different occasions 'T is not good reasoning to conclude there has been an universal and uniform reason in all Ages and amongst all people that has obliged them to make use of a term under pretence that it has been every where and at all times used For how many ancient terms are there which are at this day in use altho the reason of their being at first used no longer subsists The use of terms is a thing unaccountable enough and sufficiently subject to change either in regard of divers People or Ages and the occasions the reasons or principles of this use are no less unaccountable too SUPPOSING this expression has been generally received by a general reason why must this reason be a general doubt that naturally arises in the minds of all men Is it not sufficient that it was a general interest which all Christians had to establish the truth of the Nature and Humane Substance in the Person of Jesus Christ and to make thereof a common confession in the Sacrament it self of his Incarnation I mean in the Eucharist for so the Fathers have called it Is it not sufficient 't was a general interest which they had in all places and in all Ages to receive with a profound respect the words of Jesus Christ who has said of the Bread This is my Body and to acknowledg publickly the truth of them These two interests are general belong to all times and all Nations and are a sufficient reason of this expression in question were it as general as Mr. Arnaud says it was BUT in fine supposing it was a general doubt that occasion'd these terms of true and truly I say 't is sufficient 't was a doubt likely to happen in the minds of weak persons and not necessarily in those of all men For there have been weak Christians at all times and in all places the Church having never been without 'um and of whom there ought always to be a particular care taken Now this doubt touching the virtue of the Eucharist that it can spiritually communicate to us the Body of Jesus Christ that it procures us the remission of our Sins the Grace of Sanctification the hope of Everlasting life that by it we obtain the Communion of our Saviour this doubt I say easily arises in the minds of weak persons who as I have already said are sufficiently puzled at the simplicity of this Sacrament wherein there only appears Bread and Wine Supposing then one should say that the terms of the true Body of Jesus Christ or of truly the Body of Jesus Christ were only used to prevent this doubt to strengthen the weak in this regard and conciliate more respect to the Sacrament what can Mr. Arnaud find in this which is not reasonable and conformable to the sense of the Church WERE there any body now says he tempted with this doubt and Page 783. needed to be strengthened against it does not common sense shew that he would express it in proper terms to make himself understood and disacknowledg it by expressions which are directly contrary to it He will say for example that he doubts whether God works on our souls by means of the Bread of the Eucharist and whether he fills it with his efficacy He will say that he does not doubt but the Eucharist is endowed with the virtue of the Body of Jesus Christ but he will never think of expressing this doubt in these terms I doubt whether the Eucharist be the Body of Jesus Christ nor of rejecting it in these here I believe the Eucharist to be the true and proper Body of Jesus Christ LET Mr. Arnaud tell us if he pleases why these pretended doubters whom he introduces without any occasion or reason would not consult common sense whereby to express their doubt in intelligible terms supposing they doubted of Transubstantiation or the substantial presence Why should they not say We doubt whether the substance of Bread be changed into the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ or we doubt whether the substance of the Body of Jesus Christ be contained under the vail of the appearances of Bread Those that have now their minds possessed with these doubts do they think of proposing them in these equivocal terms which need a Commentary to explain them We doubt whether the Eucharist be the Body of Jesus Christ Clear and proper terms are not so hard to be found had the Church then believed the substance of Bread to be converted into the substance of Jesus Christ and the common opinion it self against which they would form their doubts would have furnished them with requisite expressions Let Mr. Arnaud likewise tell us why this doubt was not repelled in formal terms by saying We must believe that the substance of Bread is changed into that of the Body of Jesus Christ and that under the accidents of Bread is contained the proper substance of this Body Let him shew us from Antiquity his pretended doubt explained in requisite terms according to the sense he gives it and I will shew him that which he finds so ridiculous stated according to my sense in Palladius How are the gifts said a Religious Pallad Hist Laus cap. 75. person able to sanctifie me I will shew him that this is in effect the doubt which was heretofore design'd to be prevented as appears by Cyril of Alexandria God says he changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh Apud Vict. Ant. Miss AND WE NEED NOT DOUBT BUT THIS IS TRUE and by Elias of Crete God changes the things offered into the efficacy of his Flesh Elias Cret in Greg. AND DOUBT NOT BUT THIS IS TRUE Let him shew us the Fathers have said that the Eucharist is the true Body or truly the Body of Jesus Christ in reference to the question of the Conversion and the substantial Presence and I will shew him they have said it in reference to the question touching the virtue For Walafridus Strabo an Author of the 9th Century having given this Title to one of the Chapters of his Book De Virtute Sacramentorum says afterwards in the Text of the same Chapter Valafridus Strabo de rec Eccles cap. 17. Rupert in Mat. cap. 10. by way of confirmation That the Mysteries are truly the Body and Blood of our Lord. And Rupert altho he lived in the 12th Century that is to say in a time wherein Transubstantiation had introduced it self into the Latin Church yet said That the Bread is rightly called and is TRVLY the Flesh of Jesus Christ because in reference to us it effects the same thing as the Flesh of Jesus Christ Crucified Dead and Buried Moreover Mr. Arnaud has no reason to be so positive in affirming