Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	blood_n	body_n	holy_a	11,079	5	5.1892	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41431	The sum of a conference had between two divines of the Church of England and two Catholic lay-gentlemen at the request and for the satisfaction of three persons of quality, August 8, 1671.	Gooden, Peter, d. 1695.	1687 (1687)	Wing G1099; ESTC R34918	23,435	41

chang'd they appear to our Sense as to their Nature Substance c. to be seen and touch'd as before but are believ'd to be somewhat else i. e. what they are made And this Belief is not Chimerical or Imaginary but the things are really what they are believ'd to be and for that they are so are Ador'd so that they must be really chang'd into Christ's Body for else they could not be Ador'd without Idolatry The very Words as they lay convinc'd the Magdeburgenses that Theodoret held Transubstantiation and I suppose had not these two Words Nature and Substance been in the Quotation but only Figure and Form we had never heard of it at this time If therefore I shew you that Nature and Substance are frequently taken to signifie that which is as consistent with our Exposition and the Catholic meaning of Theodoret as Figure and Form in this place are I shall not only make it cease to be clear against us but also shew that it will be clear for us Nature and Substance do sometimes signifie what the Philosophers call properly Substance as distingush'd from Accidents i. e. Matter and Form. And thus taken it can be no Object of Sense can neither be seen nor touch'd Sometimes it signifies the Properties natural Qualities and Accidents with which those Substances are cloathed Physicians frequently say that they have the Substance of Herbs in their Medicins when they have only the Vertue of those Herbs and not all the Matter and Form So we say of Meat that it has but little Juice or Substance when it has but little Vertue or good natural Qualities The Fathers say that the Substance of Man was deprav'd by Original Sin i. e. the Inclinations and natural Affections St. Paul says that by Nature we are the Children of Wrath that the Gentiles by Nature perform the Law In all which Speeches and a hundred other Nature and Substance do not signifie strictly as Philosophers use those Words when they are oppos'd to Accidents but Popularly and Vulgarly and signifie no more than Properties Conditions Qualities c. Now supposing Theodoret to take Substance and Nature in this place in the latter Sense and to mean by them no more than the exterior Substance or visible and sensible Qualities of Bread and Wine the Text is evidently for us And that the Father must take the Words in this popular Sense is evident from the whole Discourse For he says first That before Consecration they are one thing and after Consecration they are chang'd and made another thing Now if they be chang'd and made another thing the change must be either in the Interior or Exterior Substance but it is most plain they are not chang'd in the Exterior Substance for as to that they remain visibly the same and do not recede from their Nature as Sense assures us Ergo it must be in their Interior Substance which is not liable to Sense and therefore as the Father in this very place says They are seen and touch'd as before but are believ'd to be another thing i. e. what they are made and are ador'd as being what they are believ'd The Doctor has told you in the late Book I mentioned the danger of adoring any thing but God therefore according to him this Father must hold these Symbols he here speaks of to be chang'd into the Body of our Lord before they become the Object of Adoration or else he must be guilty of Idolatry in teaching that something besides God ought to be Ador'd i. e. Worship'd with Divine Honor. As to the place quoted out of Gelasius the same distinction above of the sense of the Words Nature and Substance solves that And that there must be such a distinction in the Words of this Father is most evident for without that he contradicts himself in the Words quoted for he has two Words five times in ten lines and if in all these Places they must signifie strictly the Father talks Nonsense and so far enough from being a good Authority to justifie a Separation But if the Words must be taken in divers Senses and it not being evident which Sense is applicable to this or that place then it is at least uncertain and dark and consequently not fit as not being so clear as it should to justifie a Separation But if the Place it self from its own terms disposes us to apply the strict Sense in this or that Part and the popular Sense in this or that other so as to countenance Transubstantiation then this Quotation will be very far from doing them any Service Now let us consider the Words He says By the Sacrament we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature yet the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine do not cease to be If Nature must be taken strictly and philosophically in both places then we are made Partakers of the Divine Nature strictly and philosophically and not only effectually or virtually then the Divine Nature must be actually there and yet the Nature of Bread and Wine will not cease to be there so that this perhaps thus far might favour Lutheranism but can no way help the Church of England Then follow these words And surely the Image and Similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the Action of those Mysteries We do own this Expression and do acknowledge it is frequent amongst the Fathers to say that the blessed Sacrament is a Figure of Christ's Passion and that the Exterior Substances which we see are a Figure to us of the Interior Substance of Christ's Body and Blood which we see not but are to believe to be contain'd under those Species Then he goes on and says Therefore it appears evidently enough to us that that is to be understood by us in our Lord Christ himself which we profess in the Image of him Observe that Image is here us'd as we said above We celebrate and take them and even as they pass into this to wit the Divine Substance by the Power of the Holy Spirit remaining notwithstanding in the Property of their Nature c. We spoke to the signification of the Word Nature above speaking to the foregoing Words of this Father Now let us consider the Word Substance which the Protestants must have to signifie strictly and philosophically in the Words before or else this Quotation proves nothing But that being suppos'd they must shew us that it signifies otherways in these last Words They pass into the Divine Substance or else they must grant that it signifies strictly here also and then it is Nonsense for it amounts to thus much The Elements of Bread and Wine pass into the Divine Substance strictly and philosophically and we are made partakers of the Divine Nature strictly c. Yet the Substance and Nature of Bread and Wine do not cease to be strictly and philosophically Can any Body understand this What does pass into the Divine Substance Nothing sure if the Nature and

himself For Gelasius disputing against the Eutychians who maintain'd that the Human Nature of Christ was chang'd into the Divine Nature so that there was but one nature in Christ confuted their Heresie by shewing that the Human Nature was no more chang'd into the Divine Nature than Bread was chang'd into the Body of Christ that is not at all for Gelasius has these express words Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christi divina res est propter quod per eadem efficimur divinae consortes naturae tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis vini certe imago similitudo corporis sanguinis in actione mysteriorum celebrantur which is in English thus Truly the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which we take is a Divine thing and by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature and yet the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine do not cease to be and truly the Image and Similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the Mysteries Where it is evident that the substance of Bread and Wine is not chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ Theodoret proves the same thing for he says the Mystical Signs after Consecration do not recede from their Nature but do remain in their former Substance Figure and Form and may be seen and touch'd as before this evidently contradicts Transubstantiation Cath. To the Company We desire you to remember that you must have clear proofs to justifie the Alteration much clearer than those in possession can bring for the Doctrin they continue to hold and which the others would Reform Be pleas'd to consider these two Quotations here brought I suppose the clearest they have if not all they have and if they do not appear clear against them I am confident they will appear either Non-sense or Contradictions and far enough from being clearer for them than any we can bring for our Doctrin which yet they ought to be to excuse their Schism from being wilful and Criminal We will examin Theodoret first He writes against Eutyches as the Doctor has told you which he do's by way of Dialogue between Eranistes an Eutychian and Orthodoxus which is himself in these words Eranist It happens luckily that you speak of the Divine Mysteries for even from that very thing I will shew you that the Body of our Lord is chang'd into another Nature answer me therefore to what I ask Orthodox I will answer Eran. What do you call that Gift which is brought before the Invocation of the Priest Orth. That which is made Nourishment of a certain Grain Eran. How do we call the other Sign Orth. A Common Name which signifies a kind of Drink Eran. But after Consecration what do you call them Orth. The Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ Eran. And do you believe that you are made Partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ Orth. I do believe it Eran. As therefore the Symbol of the Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before the Invocation of the Priest and after the Invocation are chang'd and are made another thing So the Body of our Lord after Assumption is chang'd into the Divine Substance Orth. Thou art catch'd in the Net which thou thy self hast woven For the Mystical Signs after Consecration do not recede from their Nature but do remain in their former Substance and Figure and Form and may be touch'd as before but are understood to be what they are made and are believ'd and are Ador'd as being the same things which they are believ'd Cath. I pray be pleas'd to ask the Doctor whether this whole Discourse now cited be not built and founded upon the Supposition of Transubstantiation Drs. I do acknowledge the Argument is founded upon that Supposition but it is brought by an Heretic an Eutychian which is not much for the credit of your Doctrin Cath. Yes we account it much for the credit of our Doctrin that you cannot name any Age in which you are not forc'd to allow that it was Profess'd You say it was Profess'd in this Age only by Heretics Make that out if you can more clear than I will the contrary I do assure you your two Quotations will not do it as I will shew you presently but the contrary seems evident viz. That the Heretics did not differ from the Catholics in this Point For Eutyches who was Condemn'd at a General Council for maintaining one Nature only in Christ would certainly have been Condemn'd at the same time for holding Transubstantiation had it been esteem'd an Error by that Age especially so Absurd Monstrous and Idolatrous an one as Doctor calls it in his new Book but he was not Condemn'd nor so much as Accus'd of Error in this Point either by Council or any particular Writer of those many which have wrote against him and yet you do acknowledge that he and his Adherents held Transubstantiation Besides you confess that his Argument was against an Orthodox Catholic founded upon this Supposition therefore most certainly he took it for granted that the Catholics allow'd the Supposition for it would have been ridiculous to dispute upon a Supposition which he knew his Adversary deny'd I should account it absurd for me to argue against a Protestant upon supposition of Transubstantiation which I know they deny and so it would have been in Eranist if he had not known that his Adversary own'd that Doctrin which he made the Foundation of his Argument Besides Theodoret himself an Orthodox Catholic making this Discourse by way of Dialogue would make himself ridiculous to frame it upon a Supposition which he deny'd After all this the place now cited is so far from being so clear against us as it ought to be to vanquish our standing Possession that the Century-Writers of Magdeburg who were great Enemies of Popery and Transubstantiation do condemn Theodoret of that Doctrin from this very place and do say he speaks dangerously of the Lords Supper in saying that after Consecration the Symbols of our Lords Body and Blood are changed and made another thing And the words next after these which you quote as such clear ones against our Doctrin must either import Idolatry according to the aforesaid new Book or Nonsense if they do not imply the Actual Presence of Christs Person by Transubstantiation for he says they the Mystical Signs are understood what they are made and believ'd and are Ador'd as being the same things they are believ'd So that the whole Sense is thus The Symbols of our Lord's Body and Bloud are one thing before and another after Consecration yet they continue so in their Nature Substance Figure and Form as to be seen and touch'd as before but are understood to be what they are made by Consecration and are Believ'd and are Ador'd as being the same thing they are believ'd i. e. notwithstanding they are