Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	body_n	bread_n	wine_n	2,739	5	7.9963	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09107	A relation of the triall made before the King of France, vpon the yeare 1600 betvveene the Bishop of Eureux, and the L. Plessis Mornay About certayne pointes of corrupting and falsifying authors, wherof the said Plessis was openly conuicted. Newly reuewed, and sett forth againe, with a defence therof, against the impugnations both of the L. Plessis in France, & of O.E. in England. By N.D.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.	1604 (1604)	STC 19413; ESTC S121884	121,818	242

which is a most absurd imposture for so he might say also that they doubt whether God be God or whether God can create any thing for that they putt this question Vtrum sit possibile Deum aliquid creare whether it be possible for God to create any thing of nothinge and presently yt ensueth by way of obiection Videtur quod non yt seemeth that yt cannot be But after all arguments ended they resolue that yt is so to witt that there is a God and can create things of nothinge and do solue all the arguments alleaged by themselues to the contrary And so doth Scotus in this matter settinge downe his full determination in these words Dic● quod corpus Christi esse ibi verè realiter est simpliciter de substantia fidei I do say that it is simply a substantiall article of our faith to beleeue that Christs body is truly really there vnder these accidents And he proueth the same by two places of scripture to witt Math. 26. where Christ saith This is my body and Iohn 6. where he saith My flesh is truly foode This then is the first imposture which Plessis is proued to haue vsed in alleadginge Scotus against his owne meaninge discourse and resolution The second is for that he saith that Scotus argumēts against the reall presence were the quantity locality and circumscription annexed to a true body wheras these are not argumēts of Scotus but of heretiks refuted by Scotus as appeareth by himselfe in the same places where he addeth also these words If heretiks would expound the forsaid words of Christ This is my body to be vnderstood figuratiuely yt is quite against the intention of our Sauiour These 2. corruptions then being so manifestly laid forth out of this first place of Scotus and shewed that they could not be of ignorance but of willfull malice to deceaue the reader Plessis was sore pressed but yet had diuised a certayne way of some kind of escape yf yt may be called an escape and not rather a greater ●ntanglement which was to say that he affirmed not simply that Scotus doubted of the reall presence but rather of the manner of Christs body being there to witt by Transubstantiation and for that respect he named the Councell of lateran in his speach which Councell first of all had determined the said article of Transubstantiation But the Bishopp shewed this to be a very sleight euasion for that the Councell of Lateran determined as well the article of the reall presence as of Transubstantiation as appeareth in the said Councell and that Scotus was as resolute in the one as in the other And finally that Plessis words before recyted are plaine inough without a comentary that Scotus durst to call into question whether the body of Christ were really in the Sacrament or no vnder the ●ormes of bread wyne yea to dispute that yt was not which words do speake plainly as yow see of the reality Soe as these shifts are but a new abusing of the Reader And as for the places he would seeme to alleage out of Scotus as somwhat soundinge against Transubstantiation yt was told him first that yt was from the purpose for so much as his citation of Scotus was against the reall presence and secondly that these other places made no more for him then the former but wholy against him and so yt was proued by readinge and examininge publikely the said places wherin there was an houre spent And the Bishopp perceauinge that Plessis desired to draw out the tyme vrged the deputyes to giue sentence vpon the falsisication of the places alleaged which they differred to do vntill the next place of Durand was examined for that they vnderstood the case was in a manner all one or much like in both schoolemen And so yt was in deed for that in both of them yow shall heare the sentence giuen afterward that Plessis had taken the obiection for the resolution which was a great a disgrace yf you marke yt as could be to such a man that presumed to vnderstand what he read The second Place examined out of Durandus about Transubstantiation The next place of the 19. chosen by Monsieur Plessis to be examined was out of Durandus Plessis his words as they ly in his booke pag. 870. are rhese Durandus called by our Sorbonists the mostre solute Doctor hath these words in his 4. booke vpon the sentences dist 11. To the contrary saith he supposinge the substances of bread and wyne after the consecration do remayne there ensucth therof but one difficulty and this neyther very great nor indissoluble to witt that two bodyes remayne togeather vnder the same accidents but yf yow put the contrary to witt that there is Transubstantiation there ensue more difficultyes that is to say how those species or accidents without their substance can nourish or be corrupted and how any thinge can be generate therof seing all generation is of matter or substance therfore it seemeth that we ought to sticke rather to the first way to witt against Transubstantiation c. So he Out of this place the B. of Eureux did argue Plessis of the same falsity and deceytfull dealinge as before in Scotus or rather more plaine and euident and consequently more wicked and dishonorable to him for that all these words heere alleaged out of Durandus are not his owne but the words of others that do obiect the same which he dissolueth afterward when he hath put downe his owne sentence in these words Primum est dicendum quod substantia panis vini conuertuntur in substantiam corporis Christi First we must say and hold notwithstandinge the former obiections arguments to the contrary that the substance of bread and wyne are turned into the substance of the body of Christ. This is his resolution quite contrary to that which Plessis would haue him seeme to hold And then hauing set downe this resolution accordinge to the common faith of the Catholike Church he passeth to answere the former obiection sayinge to the former argument to the contrary about difficultyes vve must answere that in those thinges that appertayne vnto faith we must not allvvayes choose that vvhich seemeth to humayne sense to haue lesse difficultyes but we must hould that which is consonant to the sayings of holy Fathers and to the tradition of the Church So Durand Which words being recyted in the hearing of all yow must imagine in what a pittifull plight poore Plessis was to see one man looke vpon another and ether smile or byte their lippes at such manifest grosse trumpery but yet necessity made him take hart to aduenture a new euasion saying that albeit this were but an obiection in Durand yet it seemed to him such an obiection as might hould the place of a resolution yf the authority decision of the Church had not withheld him And for

contentment to Plessis and those of his party wherein it might be for which cause he said further as before that he desired this conference might passe with all quietnesse possible and that the Bishop should abstayne as much as he could from vsing the word false or falsification and other such like as might be offensiue for that his intent was to pacifie and gaine men by this triall and not to exasperate And the same he said also vnto the Lords deputyes there present requiring them that yf they should see any man wax into bitternesse choler they should restraine him seeke to end all with good words and substantiall matter After dynner about one of the clocke the said conference was begone in presence of his Maiestie and of a great number of the cheefe nobles of France which were long to name for before the K. satte the L. Chancelour and the deputyes of both partyes before named and at his right hand satt the Archbishopp of Lyons and sundry other Bishopps and on his left hand the 4. secretaryes of State behind the King sate the Princes namely the Dukes of Vaudemont Nemeurs Mercury Dumayne Niuers Elbeuse Aignilon Ianuile and others and after them againe the officers of the crowne Counselors of State and others of the nobility and about 200. other hearers within the chamber aboue 500. in a gallery and garden without expecting the resolutiō from passage to passage wherof there were many Protestants and diuers Ministers of the new Keligion All being sett the L. Chancelour made first a briefe speech confirmed afterward by the King himselfe that the meaning of this meeting was to try out the truth of certaine allegations that were called in controuersy in the L. Plessis booke and not to dispute of any article of Religion at all to which effect also the Bishop had a breefe speech alleaging the example of Eugenius Archbishop of Carthage who being required by Hunnericus King of the Vandalls in Africa to dispute with the Arrians he refused the same without consent of other Bishopps and especially of the B. of Rome as head of all Monsieur Plessis also made a very short preface saying that as he had wrytten his books with intent to do God seruice for the reformation of his Church and would thinke himselfe happy yf he could help any thing therin so was he so farre of from all intention of willfull falsifyinge that yf he knew his right hand to haue done yt he should be the first to burne the same He made mention againe and shewed greefe that 4. thousand places should be noted as falsified by him in his booke and finally protested that howsoeuer it succeded with him his cause was particular and touched not the reformed Churches in France which were before him and would be after him c. The B. repeated againe the matter of 4000. places corrupted and offered to stand vnto yt and to verifie them as well as those 500. new agreed vpon and repeated againe breifely the whole story of this action and how guilfully Plessis had proceeded in cullinge out 19. places only of 60. offered him and of these had put in the first ranke Scotus and Durand two schoolemen about the controuersie of the Sacrament leauing out other places of S. Cyprian S. Cyrill S. Chrisostome other ancient Fathers obiected to haue bin corrupted by him in the very same controuersie of the reall presence amongst the number of these three score which fraud to the end the iudges and deputyes might see and behould he laid downe vpon the table that stood before them the whole Catalogue of the said 60. places sent the day before to Plessis which being done the King comaunded the foure secretaryes of the crowne to wryte only the conclusions and iudgments that should be giuen and not the whole speaches for yt would be ouerlonge and so the conference began the B. sayinge at the opening of the first booke Domine labi● mea aperies os meum annunciabit laudem tuam Monsieur Plessis also prayed briefly with his hatt before his face c. OF NINE PLACES EXAMINED IN THIS FIRST DAYES conference and how they were all iudged by sentence of the deputyes to haue byn corrupted by Monsieur Plessis CHAP. II. IN this first dayes conference which endured 6. houres there could be examined only 9. places of the 19. which Plessis had chosen to defend of which nine also the first two by his art and fraude as in the former Chapter hath byn seene were of 2. schoolemen or scholasticall wryters Scotus and Durandus which being only named for exāple sake by the B. of Eureux in his catalogue of 60. places but yet after many more important then they of the anciēt Fathers which Plessis thought good to thrust backe all the said ancient Fathers and namely S. Cyprian S. Cyrill of Ierusalem S. Iohn Christostome and others cited in the same controuersie and many more in other questions to aduāce forward to the first second places of triall the said Scotus and Durandus thinking therby partly to weary his Maiesty the audience and to make the conference lothsome and contemptible by so base a beginning partly also presuming that he might more easily trifle out the tyme in wranglinge about these as he did a whole houre about the first place only of Scotus and would haue done the whole day yf he might haue byn permitted but the Bishop discouering this fraud vnto the auditorye shewed withall that his deceyt and false dealing was all one in corrupting meane authors as the best and greatest therfore that it was not so much to be cōsidered by the iudges what the wryter was that was falsified but how much with how great fraud he is falsifyed And with this they passed to the particulars The first place examined out of Scotus about the reall presence This preamble being made the B. began to read out of Plessis booke pag. 869. accordinge to his forsaid edition in 4. printed at Rochell by Hierome Hautin these words out of Scotus about the Sacrament of the Altar Iohn Duns saith he called Scot almost 100. yeares after the Councell of Lateran was not afraid to call in question if the body of Christ be really conteyned vnder the species or accidents of bread and he disputeth that it is not and his arguments are for that the quantity doth not permitt yt nor yet the locality and circumscription annexed to the nature of a true body such a one as Christ had c. Thus he And then for proofe he quoteth in the margent Scotus vpon the 4. booke of Sentences dist 10. quaest 1. Out of which place the B. did inferre two willfull and malitious deceyts of Plessis the first that he would make his Reader beleeue that Scotus the rest of the Schoolemen when they propose any matter to be disputed to and fro do doubt of the truth therof