Selected quad for the lemma: head_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
head_n	body_n	member_n	mystical_a	10,421	5	11.0632	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47617	An answer to the Bishop of Condom's book entituled, An exposition of the doctrin of the Caholick Church, upon matters of coutroversie [sic]. Written originally in French.	La Bastide, Marc-Antoine de, ca. 1624-1704, attributed name.	1676 (1676)	Wing L100; ESTC R221701	162,768	460

the Eucharist he alwayes supposes that real and corporal are but one and the same thing and that a thing is not real if it be not corporal The eating or partaking of the body of Jesus Christ is very real according to us as real and effective as the expiation of our sins but it doth not follow for all that that there is a necessity that this participation be corporal that is to say that we must receive the proper flesh and the proper bloud of Jesus Christ with the mouth of the body according as in Baptism we doe agree both the Gentlemen of the Roman Church and we that we do partake of or that we are truly and really united unto Jesus Christ and unto his sacrifice and yet for all that this union is not corporal In fine there is a kind of incompatibility or of contradiction in the Bishop of Condom's arguing He would have it that as the Jewes did effectively eat of the sacrifice offered for their sins we also should effectively eat the body of Jesus Christ our sacrifice and he doth not consider that as the sacrifices which the Jewes did eat were dead so it would be necessary that the body of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament were in a state of death that it might be eaten as a sacrifice whereas the Church of Rome teacheth that he is there in a state of life that is to say living and not dead As to what is the Bishop of Condom's other proposition that there is no relation betwixt the bread and the body of Jesus Christ is it not openly to gainsay what hath been already alledged out of St. Austin and Theodoret that the Sacraments doe not take the name of the things whereof they are Sacraments but because of the relation which there is betwixt the Sacraments and the things themselves that without this relation they could not be Sacraments that it is formally because of this relation that the bread and the wine are called the body the bloud of Jesus Christ for these are St. Austin's own words and that to conclude Epist 23 ad Bonif. As Jesus Christ had said that he was bread and a vine he said afterward that the bread was his body and the wine his bloud giving as it were reciprocally the names of the one unto the other Dial. 1. as Theodoret speaks In summe our Saviour seeing his Disciples bent upon the things of this life taking an occasion by the miracle of the Loaves did himself strongly establish the resemblance which there is betwixt him and bread saying that he is the bread which came down from Heaven John 6.41.51 55. that this bread is his flesh that his flesh is meat indeed and his bloud is drink indeed shewing plainly that as the bread doth nourish our bodies Jo. 6.68 so his flesh and his bloud is the life and nourishment of our souls This word seemed hard to many who forsook him but the Apostles understood very well from that time the relation or similitude which made Jesus Christ say he was bread and that his flesh was this bread unto whom shall we go Lib. 1. de Offic. Eccl. cap. 18. Com. en Marc. 14 saith St. Peter thou hast the words of eternal life St. Isidore Bede and many others very far from saying that there is no relation betwixt the Sacraments and the body and bloud of Jesus Christ as doth the Bishop of Condom say on the contrary that the bread is called his body because bread nourisheth and fortifieth the body and that the wine is called his bloud because wine breedeth bloud in our flesh and rejoyceth the heart There is another resemblance also well known which the Fathers have explained not onely betwixt the bread and wine and the flesh and bloud of Jesus Christ Theoph. Antioc 1 Comment in 4 Evan. pa. 359. St. Cyprian Ep. 63. but betwixt the Sacraments and that other mystical body of Jesus Christ whereof he himself is head to wit the Church that as the bread is made of many grains and the wine of many clusters of grapes so the mystical body of Christ is composed of many Believers which are his living members So that we may plainly see so far is it from there being no relation betwixt bread and the body of Jesus Christ as the Bishop of Condom supposeth that we find on the contrary the two relations which he calls natural relation and relation of institution and of which he demands but one or the other that the sign may take the name of the thing and that it might be proper to bring down the Idea into the mind to wit a relation of the natural virtue of bread unto that of the body of Jesus Christ the body of Jesus Christ being the nourishment of our souls as bread is the nourishment of our bodies and the relation which Jesus Christ had established before in the minds of his Apostles Jo. 6.52 by the use which he had made of this likeness having accustomed them unto this manner of speaking even before the institution of the Sacraments and confirming or establishing anew this relation by the very words of the institution it self But there is here yet something else to be understood The Bishop of Condom doth curteil if I may so say the words of institution or rather the sense and secretly makes a kind of Sophisme in dividing the words and examining them in a sense separate the one from another instead of taking them altogether Here it concerned not to enquire the relation there is betwixt bread and the body of Jesus Christ barely this relation consists as it was said in that the one doth nourish our bodies and the other doth nourish our souls The likeness betwixt the bread broken and the body broken should have been searched into for Jesus Christ gives us not his body properly but in this regard and Jesus Christ sayes not onely this is my body he saith in the same breath my body which is broken for you And suppose that these first words had not clearly enough intimated the relation which there is betwixt the bread and the body of Jesus Christ these others which our Saviour adds are as a second touch of a pencil or a new colour which heighthens the draught and better expresses the resemblance betwixt the Image and the Divine Original that is to say that as the bread is broken in pieces to serve us for nourishment and as the wine is poured out to serve us for drink so the body of Jesus Christ was broken and his bloud was shed upon the Cross to be the spiritual nourishment of our souls Here we must observe the perpetual errour or the continual source of the errour of the Roman Church upon this point The Roman Church makes the Essential the Principal the force and virtue of the institution of the Sacrament to consist in these first words This is my body which are the onely ones she

that we have part in the fruit of his death Sunday 46 47. This is that which our Catechism says elsewhere in other terms to wit that the Sacraments are seales of the Promises of God in our hearts according to the doctrine of the Apostle that Jesus Christ gives himself unto us to the end we might enjoy him and that all that he hath may be ours and here the same Catechism saith that his body is given unto us to assure us that we have part in the fruit of his death so that this first consequence of the Bishop of Condom's is not a consequence at all for it adds nothing almost unto our sense nor unto our words He forgets even under this head to comprehend what we but now touched which is not in question neither but yet is thus far of this place as that it conduces to form a compleat sense of these words namely that not onely the body of Jesus Christ or the union which we have with him doth assure us of the part which we have in the fruit of his death but that the Symbols themselves also assure us after their manner or according to the use for which God hath appointed them For God makes use of these exteriour signs to affect our senses and to confirm our faith and our confidence The dispute is onely of the manner whereby Jesus Christ gives unto us his body with the signs and here the Bishop of Condom doth not at all engage in this first proposition In exchange he goes too far or strays too much in the second Now saith he if the reception of the body of our Lord pa. 110. assure us of participating of the fruit of his death it must necessarily be that this participation of the fruit be distinguished from the reception of the body because one is the earnest of the other Here is it that the intricacy and obscurity begins To reason right and more intelligibly it had been needful to have resumed as was begun If Jesus Christ not onely gives us the Symbol of his body but his body also or his proper body to assure us that we have part in his sacrifice and in the reconciliation of mankind we must then here distinguish the communion which we have of the body of Jesus Christ from the part which we have in the fruit of his death seeing that the one doth assure us of the other These are the terms of the Bishop of Condom's first proposition which agree with them of the Catechism now the Bishop of Condom changes them against the rule of disputation and this is it which creates not onely the intricacy but also the Sophisms for that when we pass from consequence to consequence how little soever one term imports more or less than another or expresses it with any difference in the sense or in the force of the word we divert or astray and this is called to take or give the change When the Bishop of Condom saith that the reception of the body is an earnest to us of the participation of the fruit of the death of Jesus Christ these three terms of Reception of Participation and of Earnest which were not in the first proposition though they seem to answer to them which are there being so imployed by opposition one to the other as they are here do not so little alter the sense but that this change alone is the sole foundation of this Argument and of all that there is captions in it If the Bishop of Condom resuming his first terms had onely said that the communion of the body of our Lord assured us of the part which we have unto the fruit of his death he had not had a word to say because that evidently imports but one and the same action which causes that we are united unto Jesus Christ in the Lords Supper and that being united unto him we hold our selves assured of having share in the fruit of his death Nothing is more simple and easie to be understood than this to have part in the fruit of the death of our Lord is not here properly an action it is properly but a right acquired But in substituting to these words those other terms of Reeeption of the body and of participation of the fruit as the Bishop of Condom doth it is a little colour by the sound of words for supposing two different actions in this communion and afterwards adding this expression that one is the earnest of the other this seems yet to make a greater diversity This foundation being once laid in a nimble manner and almost imperceptible to those who only read cursorily there is a long continuance of consequences to attain unto two different communions of the body of Jesus Christ The mind of him that reads perceives confusedly that he is led he knows not where nor how he onely findes that he is not led on evenly if it may be so said or that he is led amiss But let us not forget to resume the Bishop of Condom's consequences in the same terms that he hath conceived them for the better making known the defects If the reception saith he of the body of our Lord doth assure us of the participation of the fruit of his death then this participation of the fruit must necessarily be distinguished from the reception of the body In good time let the mind distinguish the communion which we have with the body from the part which we have in the fruit because it is true that the body of the Lord and the fruit of his death are two different things and may be conceived distinctly as an inheritance which is given unto us is different from the revenue which it brings us But it is not necessary for all that to distinguish the communion of the body from the part which we have in the fruit as if we had not both one and the other of these two things but by two different actions even as to make an inheritance and the fruits of the inheritance to be ours it is not at all necessary to have two Titles or two different contracts the one for the inheritance it self and the other for the fruits because that the same Title serves for one and the other He proceeds If we must distinguish the participation of the body of our Lord from the participation of the fruit of his death we must also distinguish the participation of this Divine body from all that participation which is made spiritually and by Faith for that the participation by Faith cannot accommodate two different actions by one of which we should receive the body of our Saviour and by the other the fruit of his sacrifice We have already seen that we must not separate the communion of the body of the Lord from the part which we have in the fruit of his death as if there were two different actions although there be two several objects which may be distinguished to wit the