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
A67103	Truth will out, or, A discovery of some untruths smoothly, told by Dr. Ieremy Taylor in his Disswasive from popery with an answer to such arguments as deserve answer / by his friendly adversary E. Worsley.	E. W. (Edward Worsley), 1605-1676.	1665 (1665)	Wing W3618; ESTC R39189	128,350	226

fit sanguis Christi nec tamen aliquid additur corpori vel sanguini nec augetur corpus Christi vel sanguis To which we answer thus Christ's Sacred Body is not said after that manner made by a Heavenly word that 't is framed a new in the Virgin but because the substance of Bread and Wine which before were not the Body and Blood of Christ by the Heavenly Word of Consecration is made that Body and Blood and therefore Priests are said to make Christ's Body and Blood because by their work or Ministry the Substance of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ and the Substance of Wine is made his Blood yet nothing is added to that Body and Blood neither are made more or encreased Thus Lombardus answers the Objection which the Doctor only sets down and therefore in plain English he deals with his Reader as Sr. Morney Plessy once did with Cardinal Peron he gives you the Objections for Lombards own doctrine that this is most evidently Lombards Doctrine lit D. clears all chiefly towards the end Non sunt tamea multa corpora Christi sed unum corpus unus sanguis ideoque sive plus sive minus quis inde percipiat omnes aequaliter corpus Christi integerrimè sumunt post consecrationem ergo non est substantia panis vel vini licet species remaneant est enim species panis vini sicut sapor unde aliud videtur aliud intelligitur Yet there are not many bodies of Christ but one only Body and Blood and therefore though any take more or less all equally and wholly take the Body of Christ After the Consecration then there is no substance of Bread and Wine although the species of Bread and Wine remain as also the tast wherefore one thing is seen and another is understood Never did Lateran Council or any Catholick Author speak more plainly for Transubstantiation To be sure of what I here affirm I have read two Editions of Petrus Lombard that which was Printed at Loven anno 1546. and the other most usual with Albertus Magnus his Commentaries The Doctor next quotes Durandus lib. 4. sent distinc 11. qu. 1. Sect. Propter tertium who saies he Publickly maintained that after consecration the very matter of Bread remain'd although he saies by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held I Answer That Durand in all that first question hath not a word like what the Doctor asserts read him Art 3. he plainly maintains the Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantiation and absolutely concludes that the Substance of Bread and Wine are converted into Christs Body All he hath Sectio propter tertium is that the Words of Christ might be verified although the Body were present with Bread which is a Theological disputation and neither clears the Doctor for his abusing Durand nor advanceth him one whit in his cavils against Transubstantiation Page 40. and 41. he gives you a few weak Authorities against our Doctrine and thinks to confute all by the Testimony of St. Gregory Nazianzen cited page 42. Orat. 2. in Paseha The Oration is long and the Doctor well might either by page or number have helped his Reader to find the place but thus he deals with you often and far worse afterwards Well St. Gregory in his Works Printed at Antwerp 1612. Orat. 2. in Pascha pag. 261. nu 5. saith Iam vero Paschalis participes erimus nunc quidem adhuc typice tametsi apertius licet quam in veteri legale siquidem pascha nec enim dicere verebor figurae figura erat obscurior These words the Doctor gives you in English and what conclude they against Transubstantiation nothing for were the Sacred Body of our Dearest Lord present in the Eucharist with the substance of Bread were it as it now is really present without the substance of Bread In St. Gregori's sence Christ concealed under the species of Bread may be rightly called a Figure of its own self more clearly hereafter to be shewed us in Heaven For as the legal Pascha was a Figure because it more obscurely pointed out this true one in the New Law So this also where Christ Jesus is concealed from our sences may be rightly called a Figure because it exhibits not most clearly that Saviour we shall see with greatest clarity in Heaven This sence is gathered out of St. Gregories next ensuing words which the Doctor wholly omits Figurae erat figura obscurior saith the Saint aliquam post autem perfectius purius tum videlicet cum verbum novum illud nobiscum in regno Patris bibet pate faciens docens quae nunc plane demonstravit The legal Pascha was a more obscure Figure of this Figure which we shall afterward see perfectly and with greater clarity to wit when the new Word shall drink it with us in his Fathers Kingdom laying open himself and teaching us those things which now he hath fully demonstrated Mark these last words very useful to explicate other Authorities where mention is made of a Sign a Type and Figure in this matter but they are neither for or against Transubstantiation unless the Doctor shews which he shall never that Christs Sacred Body is so barely Figured in this Pascha that it is not also really present Theodoret and Gelasius cited pag. 43. are answered in every Book by our Writers The nature of the Symbols or Signs are not changed that is the Species or accidents of Bread and Wine remain these recide not from their nature Grace is added What is here against Transubstantiation I pass by those witty questions which the Doctor moves pag. 45. What if a Priest says Hoc est corpus meum over all the Bread in a Bakers shop doth he turn it into Christs Body the like question is And what if a Minister say the same words over the same Bread doth he turn it into Holy and Sanctifyed Bread may the People kneel down and take this as Christs Body Again Whether a Church-Mouse doth eat her Maker And what if a Mouse or a viler Creature had bit the Sacred body of our Saviour laid in Bethlem Stable had they bit their Maker Away with these Trifles they become not a Doctor of Divinity And be pleased To reflect on one doubty Argument he hath page 46. which is indeed pressing but how to shew that he knows not our Catholick Doctrine Since secondly saith he they say that every consecrated wafer is Christs whole Body and yet this wafer is not that Wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs Body or else Christ hath two Bodies for there are two Wafers My God! what is here out of two Wafers he inferrs two Bodies as if one from the two parts in man his Head and Feet should infer a necessity of two Souls or conclude there are two Gods one in Heaven and the other in Earth because Heaven and Earth are more distinct then two Wafers That known

He professedly acknowledgeth the power of casting out Devils given to Christians yes and after he had taxed Celsus of injustice and open calumny for ascribing their ejection done by Christians to Incantations and Sorcery He answers thus n. 6. Non enim incantationibus pollere videntur sed nomine Jesu cum commemoratione ejus factorum nam his verbis saepenumero profligati sunt daemones ex hominibus That is Christians do nothing in this matter by any Charms or Enchantments but prevail against Devils by naming Christ Jesus and commemorating his glorious works Thus these wicked spirits are driven out of possessed persons And truly the like we do yet in our Catholick adjurations 3. It is madness to think that one so well versed in Scripture as Origen was had such a horror of this word Adjuro that he judged it unseemly in the mouth of a Christian for the Apostle himself useth it writing to the Thess Epist 1. cap. 5. v. 27. Adjuro vos per dominum ut legatur Epistola haec I adjure ye by our Lord c. And mark it is a word of command 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yes and the same that the Devil used against our Saviour Mar. 5. v. 7. Adjuro te per Deum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I adjure thee by Almighty God Briefly therefore distinguish a double adjuration the one of no Efficacy because either vain or Judaical and this Origen rejecteth The other is Christian used in our Catholick Exorcisms with the sacred Name of Jesus and this he approves The Doctor may object that Origen speaking of the High Priest adjuring our Saviour makes this Argument Si enim jurare non licet quia nec alterum adjurare licet If it be not lawful to swear neither lawful is it to adjure another I answer This confirms all we have said hitherto in Origens defence For as none can judge that so great a Doctor as Origen condemned all swearing which God allowes in Scripture Vivit Dominus Jurabit Dominus Per nomen ejus jurabis c. but only such as is irreligious and profane So none can infer upon this proof that he thought all adjuration illicit though he professedly opposed irreligious and Judaical Exorcisms Thus much in behalf of Origen if these Treatises on S. Mat. be his for Erasmus in the preface to them saith Neque enim Hieronimus agnoscit hoc opus S. Hierom acknowledgeth them not The Doctor pag. 142. having done with Origen quotes S. Chrisostom for this sober saying we poor wretches cannot drive away flies much less Devils And remits you to the Saint in illa verba qui credit in me major a faciet I answer that S. Chrisostom may perhaps have these words qui credit in me c. 40. times over in his Large and Voluminous writings Must I therefore run over all these Tomes to meet with this sober saying for most certainly it is not where any Reader would expect to have it I mean in S. Chrisostoms 73. hom in cap. 14. Joan. there are the words of Scripture qui credit in me c. And S. Chrisostoms large Explication on them but not so much as one syllable of either Flie or Devil or any poor wretch unable to cast out Devils but much to the contrary Hoc vestrum jam est saith the Saint miracula operari ego abeo It belongs to you my Disciples to work miracles I am now on my departure The Chrisostom I cite is the Paris print anno 1588. his Comments on the words qui credit c. are page 293. and other Editions accord also with it even the Greek by Sir Henry Savil. CHAP. XXIV The blessing of Water prov'd by Irrefragable Authority Of Miracles done by Holy Water No proof against it THe Doctor pag. 143. and 11 Section thinks with a few empty words and a like number of insipid jeers to unhollow such Creatures as the most ancient Fathers of Gods Church have reputed holy because made so with a sacred benediction Such are Holy Water the Paschal Candle Oyl and Holy Bread sleighted by him without proof at all Truely I am astonished at our Doctor having at least read Bellarmin de cultu Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 7. and perused the Arguments of this Learned Authour for the blessing of Water Oyl c. That he neither affords us so much as a word of answer to the Arguments nor yet endeavours to gainsay them by one Syllable of Scripture by any Authority of Councils of Fathers or the Antient practice of the Primitive Church Bellarmin first proves out of Scripture that creatures are capable of benediction Every Creature is good saith the Apostle 1. ad Tim. 4. Sanctificatur autem per verbum Dei orationem And is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer He showes you also out of S. Dennis Alexander the first Optatus S. Cyprian S. Basil and others that Water anciently was blessed in the Church The like of Oyl by the Authority of S. Clement Dennis and Basil The benediction of Bread besides the Eucharist is taught by S. Austin Tom. 7. lib. 2. De peccatorum meritis remissione cap. 26. speaking of the Catechumens Et quod accipiunt saith the Saint quamvis non sit Corpus Christi Sanctum est tamen sanctius quam cibi quibus alimur And what these Catechumens take although it be not Christs Body yet it is holy yes and more holy then the meat wherewith we are nourished Hence I argue if Bread can be hallowed Water may And this I prove by three irrefragable Arguments The first is taken out of the Ancient Synesius Bishop of Ptolemaijs or Cyrene in his book printed at Paris anno 1633. we have it also in Bibliotheca Patrum read these words in that Treatise he intitles Catastasis * De clade pentapolitanâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. with me pag. 304. Ego in loco meo in ecclesia permanebo Lustralis ante me aquae sanctissima vasa collocabo c. Illic ego sedebo vivus mortuus jacebo I le remain in my place that is the Church I le place before me the hallowed Vessels of Water there I le sit alive and ly when I am dead Yet more read his 121. Epistle to Anastasius pag. 258. If saith Sinesius the Administration of the Common-wealth resides in Bishops these are the men that must do justice on wickedness Quandoquidem publicus gladius non minus quam lustralis aqua quae in templorum vestibulis collocatur civitatis est piaculum Seeing that the publick Sword no lesse purgeth a City then Holy Water doth that is placed in the entry of our Churches And thus it is kept in Churches to this day The second Testimony we have is in the more ancient Epiphanius Tom. 2. lib. 1. contra haereses haeresi 30. with me pag. 61. in the Basil print where the Saint tells us that Josephus the Jew seeing fire contrary to its own nature made unactive