Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	age_n	time_n	write_v	2,053	5	5.4074	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

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

is eaten for it were impossible to think that the Father could be in that doubt and trouble which he expresses about the Question whether Christ were to be Ador'd or no He is concern'd about the Footstool which he endeavors to make so plain that he repeats the same thing over and over again and tells his fear of Adoring or not Adoring At length he says By Footstool because Earth is the Footstool is meant Christs Flesh in which Flesh he walk'd here which very Flesh he gave to us to Eat which very Flesh no Man Eats but he first Adores what The Flesh of Christ sure And if that Flesh he gave to Eat be the same Flesh he took from our Blessed Lady and in which he walk'd as the Father says here most absolutely then surely Flesh to be Eaten is as much the Object of Adoration as that he took and walked in which I hope the Doctor will not deny but was to be Ador'd So that now says the Father having just before spoken of the Flesh which Christ gave us to Eat and which no Man Eats without first Adoring I have found out how such a Footstool ought to be Ador'd and that we do not only not sin by Adoring but we sin by not Adoring such a Footstool to wit Flesh which was given us to Eat Besides the Adoration the Doctor speaks of may be given at any time and before any thing as well as Bread and Wine in the Sacrament for if it be only the person of Christ sitting in Heaven which ought to be Ador'd and is Ador'd when we are put in mind of him by such Instruments we might as well fall down and Adore the Person of Christ in Heaven when we see an Image of him because that puts us in mind of him which yet the above named Doctor says is Idolatry or take a piece of common Bread at ones House remembring by it what Christ once did with Bread fall down and Adore before that Bread. Nar. St. Ambrose who was somewhat Elder than St. Austin and his Master has the Plainest Quotations to prove this Point that can possibly be in his Book De iis qui Mysteriis initiantur Cap. 9. in his fourth Book de Sacramentis Cap. 4. Cap. 5. which Books we desir'd but the Doctor being in his own House tho' he confess'd he had the Books he might chuse whether he would let us have them or no. And indeed for one reason or other we had them not nor St. Chrysostom of the same Age out of whom we would have shewn only his 83 d. Homily upon the 26th of St. Matthew and his Sermon of the Eucharist in Encoeniis to prove our Doctrin we would have shewn very many places from that Father but having not these Books nor others we ask'd for we were forc'd to quote some places without Book as one out of St. Gregory Nyss Orat. Catechet Cap. 37. Verbo Dei Sanctificatum panem in Dei Verbi Corpus credo transmutari c. hoc autem fit virtute Benedictionis in illud transelement at â eorum quae apparent naturâ I do believe the Bread Sanctified by the Word of God to be chang'd into the Body of God the Word c. but this is done by the Power of Consecration or blessing the nature of those things which appear being Transelementated into it St. Cyril of Jerusalem we had out of whom we desir'd the Doctor to read these following words in English Cum igitur Christus ipse sic affirmet at que dicat de pane HOC EST CORPUS MEUM Quis deinceps audeat dubitare Ac eodem quoque confirmante ac dicente HIC EST SANGUIS MEUS quis inquam dubitet dicat non esse illius sanguinem Aquam aliquando mutavit in Vinum quod est Sanguini propinquum in Cana Galileae sola voluntate non erit dignus cui credamus quod Vinum in Sanguinem transmutasset Si enim ad nuptias Corporeas invitatus stupendum miraculum operatus est non multo magis Corpus Sanguinem suum Filiis sponsae dedisse illum confitebimur Quare cum omni certitudine Corpus Sanguinem Christi sumamus Nam sub specie Panis datur tibi Corpus sub specie Vini datur Sanguis ut sumpto Corpore Sanguine Christi efficiaris ei comparticeps Corporis Sanguinis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christopheri erimus hoc est Christum ferentes cum ejus Corpus Sanguinem in membra nostra receperimus atque ita ut beatus Petrus dicit Divinae Naturae consortes efficiemur c. Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens Panem hunc qui videtur à nobis non esse Panem etiamsi gustus Panem esse sentiat sed esse Corpus Christi Vinum quod à nobis conspicitur tametsi sensui gustus Vinum esse videatur non tamen Vinum sed Sanguinem esse Christi Sir if you please I will spare you the trouble and render them my self and pray tell the Company when I wrong the Text The English then of these words is thus When therefore Christ himself affirms and says of Bread THIS IS MY BODY Who afterwards will dare to doubt And the same also confirming and saying THIS IS MY BLOOD Who I say may doubt and say That it is not his Blood He once chang'd Water into Wine which is next to Blood in Cana of Galilee by his only Will and shall he not be worthy that we believe him that he chang'd Wine into his Blood For if being invited to a corporal Wedding he wrought so wonderful a Miracle shall we not much more confess that he gave his Body and Blood to the Sons of his own Spouse Wherefore let us take the Body and Blood of Christ with all assurance for under the Species or Appearance of Bread the Body is given thee and under the Species of Wine the Blood is given so that the Body and Blood of Christ being taken thou art made to him a Fellow-partaker of his Body and Blood. We are made Christophori i. e. Bearers of Christ when we take his Body and Blood into our Members So as blessed St. Peter says We are made Partakers of the Divine Nature c. Knowing this and holding it for most certain that the Bread which we see is not Bread though our Tast judges it to be Bread but the Body of Christ And the Wine which we see though it may appear Wine to our Sense of Tasting yet is not Wine but the Blood of Christ Doctor Is this plain English and is the Father faithfully Translated Drs. We do not deny but the Fathers now cited have the Words quoted in their Writings nor do we deny but that they are well enough English'd but we do confess all they say for we of the Church of England do own and acknowledge a very great Change and Alteration in the Sacrament and do not deny but that the Fathers