Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	call_v	church_n	time_n	2,817	5	3.2368	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36764	A treatise, written by an author of the communion of the Church of Rome, touching transubstantiation wherein is made appear, that according to the principles of that church, this doctrine cannot be an article of faith.; Traitté d'un autheur de la communion romaine touchant la transsubstantiation. English	Dufour de Longuerue, Louis, 1652-1733.; Wake, William, 1657-1737.	1688 (1688)	Wing D2456; ESTC R229806	68,872	84

any regard to the nature of the things that are seen but that they should believe by the change of Names the change that is made by Grace For having called his Body Wheat and Bread and having called himself a Vine he honours the visible Symboles with the name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding Grace to their Nature He could not more fully express that he did not hold Transubstantiation Arnobius junior Arnobius the younger who wrote in the year 431. upon the 4th Psalm saith Accipimus frumentum c. Quod nunc habeat intra se Ecclesia videamus c. speaking of the Sacrament We have received Wheat in the Body Wine in the Blood and Oil in the Chrism On the 22d Psalm and on the 51st and 54th Psalms Let us see what the Church keepeth She hath a Table from which she gives Bread to Believers she hath Oil wherewith she refresheth the Head in libertatem conscientiae praesumenti c. On Psalm 103. We receive Bread because it strengthens the Body Accipimus panem quod confirmat c. we receive Wine because it rejoyces the Heart and having received double comfort in the Heart our Faces are made shine by the Oil of Chrism Exurgens a Mortuis c. To conclude on Psalm 104. he saith these words speaking of the Lord That the Lord in the Eucharist gives us the species of Bread and Wine as he doth the species of Oil in Baptism which cannot be understood of appearances and Accidents as the terms of species of Oil cannot be taken for the Accidents and appearances of Oil. Moreover he observes we receive in the Eucharist Bread and Wine as we receive Oil in the Holy Chrism Now in the Holy Chrism it is true Oil that we receive Arnobius then could not reason so if he believed Transubstantiation The Author of the Books of the Promises and Predictions of God Prosper attributed to St. Prosper by Cassiodorus and which were written about the year 450 under the Empire of Valentinian the 3d relates a History of a young unchast Girl that was possessed with the Devil who in Communicating had received a little morsel of the Lords Body which the Priest had moistned it was half an hour before she could swallow it down till such time as the Priest touched her throat with the Chalice then she cried out instantly that she was healed After which Prayers being made for her she received a portion of the Sacrifice and was restor'd to her former health These terms of some portion of the Sacrifice and of a little part of the moistned Body of the Lord by the Priest cannot be understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ of necessity then the Bread by this Author must be called by the name of the Body of Jesus Christ and by consequence he believed it remained in the Sacrament after Consecration Hesychius one of the Priests of the Church of Jerusalem Hesychius in the year 480 saith in the second Book on Leviticus ch 8. This Mystery speaking of the Eucharist is at once Bread and Flesh Illud Mysterium simul panis caro In this same place he saith it was the custom of the Church of Jerusalem in his time to burn what remained after the Communion Procopius of Gaza Procopius Gazaeus who in all likelihood wrote in the end of the fifth Century expounding these words of Genesis where Jacob saith of Juda His eyes be red with wine and his teeth white with milk c. applying them to our Blessed Saviour in the Mystery of the Sacrament saith that 't is a metaphor taken from those that having drank are the merrier for it c. and saith that the holy Scritures would denote the gladness which the Lord left to his Disciples in giving them the Mystical Wine by the words of Institution Take drink ye all of this These words saith he do shew that Jesus Christ doth with mercy look on all those that believe in him because 't is the nature of wine to make every one merry And upon these words his teeth are white as milk milk saith he doth denote to us the whiteness and purity of the mystical nourishment for Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples the Image of his true Body not desiring any of the bloody sacrifices of the Law he would by the white teeth signifie to us the purity of the food wherewith we are nourished for according to holy David Sacrifice and burnt-offerings thou wouldest not but a Body hast thou prepared me When Procopius speaketh of the Mystical Wine that rejoyced the Disciples it being the nature of Wine to make merry this Mystical Wine is not the Blood of Jesus Christ for 't is not the nature of Blood to rejoyce It must therefore be meant that Procopius said by the Wine which Jesus Christ distributed to his Disciples was to be understood true Wine Procopius and by the whiteness of the Mystical food he meant the whiteness of the Bread which is both food and Image which cannot be understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ is neither the Image of himself nor bodily food nor of the accidents which cannot nourish the Body because nourishment proceedeth from matter The same Procopius in his Commentary on Esay expounding these words of the Prophet Chap. 3. The Lord of Hosts will take away from Judah and Jerusalem the staff of Bread and Water saith that in the first place these words of the Prophet may be understood of Jesus Christ and of his Flesh and Blood. The Bread being to be understood of him of whom David saith He gave them bread from Heaven and the waters of those of which Jesus Christ said to the Samaritan Whosoever drinketh of this water it shall be a fountain flewing unto everlasting Life Then he adds There is another bread which giveth life to the world which was taken from the Jews and another water which is that of Baptism Now by this other bread which was taken from the Jews he means that of the Eucharist and whereas he distinguishes it from the bread which is the Lord as he distinguisheth the water of Baptism from that which was given to the Samaritan it follows that the Bread of the Eucharist is something that is distinguisht from Jesus Christ himself the Bread of Heaven Gelasius Bishop of Rome P. Gelasius in the year 492 wrote a Treatise of the two Natures against Nestorius and Eutyches and he excludes Transubstantiation when he saith that the substance or nature of Bread and Wine doth still remain This Work is assuredly of Pope Gelasius as is confessed by Cardinal Du Perron because first Fulgentius cites four passages of this Treatise as being writ by Pope Gelasius Resp 1. ad 2 Interrog Ferr. And Pope John the Second in Epist ad Amaenum also cites some passages of this Work as being writ by Gelasius and though he doth not give

under the old Testament did and we now do eat a corporal food and that we drink a corporal liquor Now by this corporal meat and drink we must understand either the accidents of Bread and Wine or the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or the Bread and Wine it self It cannot be spoken of the first because the accidents of Bread and Wine are only qualities or dimensions now qualities and dimensions are not corporal The quality is something which is incorporeal saith Nemesius of the Soul as concerning dimensions S. Austin de genesi ad literam saith We call that a Body which taketh up some space by its length by its breadth and by its depth Nemesius gives the reason of it because saith he nothing that is immaterial is a Body for all Bodies are material There being nothing material then in the Eucharist as is suppos'd there being nothing that takes up place that is large or long or deep There is nothing corporeal in the Sacrament and by consequence nothing that can be termed corporal meat or drink Moreover when Jesus Christ speaks of corporal nourishment and drink in the Eucharist as the Fathers under the old Testament had done he speaks of bodily meat and drink S. Austin did not understand the corporal meat and drink spoke of by the Fathers of the old Testament to be only the accidents of one and the other so that S. Austin speaking in the same terms of bodily meat and drink in relation to that of the Antients he did not mean meer accidents or qualities The Body of Jesus Christ nor his Blood cannot be this corporal nourishment which S. Austin compares to that of the Fathers under the Law for by bodily meat and drink which he saith we receive in the Eucharist he means a visible subject aliud illi aliud nos sed specie visibili sispeciem visibilem intendas aliud est It remains then that in S. Austin's sense we understand by the corporal nature of the Eucharist the visible Bread the visible Wine and not their qualities and accidents The same Father in the third Book of the Trin. cap. 10. speaking of things that are taken to signify saith a thing is taken to signify either after such a manner as that the thing should subsist and remain some time as did the Brazen Serpent lift up in the Wilderness or as do the letters of the Alphabet or in such a manner as the thing taken to signify is not to subsist any long time but is to pass away and be destroy'd when the thing 't is to represent is passed away as the Bread of the Sacrament which being taken to signify passeth away and is consumed in receiving the Sacrament S. Austin there saith That the Bread of the Sacrament which is taken to signify passeth and is consumed in receiving the Sacrament Now if the Bread be destroyed and Transubstantiated by these words This is my Body then it passeth not away and is not consumed in the act of receiving The same Doctor in the seventeenth Of the City of God saith To eat Bread is in the New Testament the sacrifice of Christians and against the Enemy of the Law. l. 7. c. 20. Those saith he which read know what Melchisedeck offered where he blessed Abraham and those which are partakers see that the like sacrifice is now offer'd through all the World. How is it that the Sacrifice of Christians is to eat Bread if the Bread do not remain How is it that communicating one is partaker of what Melchisedeck offer'd if in communicating one do not receive neither Bread nor Wine The same Father in the third Book against Parmenian reproving the Donatists for forsaking the Church tells them S. Cyprian and the other Bishops did not separate themselves because they would not communicate with covetous persons and Usurers but that on the contrary they did eat with them the Bread of the Lord and drank his Cup. This passage sheweth that when S. Austin said to the new Baptised as hath been shewn that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it could not be understood but figuratively for here the Bread is said to be of the Lord now saith S. Athanasius that which is another's is not that other himself to whom it belongs Id quod alicujus est non idipsum est cujus est And S. Austin elsewhere distinguisheth betwixt the Bread which belongs to the Lord and the Bread which is the Lord. In Joan. Tract 59. Speaking of Judas and the other Apostles he saith of the Apostles they ate the Bread which was the Lord and of Judas He did eat the Bread of the Lord against the Lord they ate life he Death for 't is said by S. Paul That he which eateth unworthily eateth his own judgment and condemnation Seeing then that the Eucharist is distinguish'd from the Lord it necessarily follows That Bread remains in the Sacrament after Consecration The same Father in his 33 Sermon of the Words of our Lord saith The Lord gave to his Disciples the Blessed Sacrament with his own hands but we were not at the Banquet nevertheless by faith we daily eat the same Supper and do not think that it had been any great advantage to have been present at that Supper that he gave with his own hands to his Disciples without Faith Faith afterwards was of greater advantage than treachery was then St. Paul who believed was not there present and Judas who betray'd his Master was present How many be there now that come to the Communien that although they did not see that Table and though they never saw with their Eyes nor tasted with their Palate the Bread which the Lord held in his hands nevertheless because the same Supper is still prepared do there eat and drink their own damnation It plainly appears That the Bread which St. Austin saith our Saviour had in his hands during the Sacrament was true Bread because St. Austin saith that those who at present participate of the Sacrament do not Tast nor Eat the Bread which our Saviour held in his hands and which he distributed and of which the Disciples did formerly eat The same Father teaching that the Good might participate of the Divine Sacraments with the Wicked saith Lib. Con. Donat c. 6. de ipso quippe Pane de ipsa Dominica Manu c. Judas and Peter had each of them a part of the same Bread which they received at the same hand of the Lord and nevertheless what society or likeness was there betwixt Peter and Judas In the 7th chap. the wicked and the good hear the same Word of God do partake of the same Sacraments and eat the same holy nourishment Now what is this holy Food What is this Bread whereof one receives one Portion and another another Part Are they Accidents But Accidents are neither Bread nor Food It is not the real Body of Jesus Christ for it cannot be received by Parcels it must then

him the Title of Pope 't is because his name was well enough known at Rome when John the Second lived That the Fathers of the SIXTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation AGE vi SAint Fulgentius saith Fulgentius The Catholick church doth continually offer to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost De fide ad Pet. Diac. c. 19. a Sacrifice of Bread and VVine throughout all the VVorld For in the fleshly Sacrifices of the Old Testament there is a type of the Flesh of Jesus Christ which he was to offer without spot for our Sins but in this Sacrifice there is a Thanksgiving and Commemoration of the same Flesh which he offer'd for us and of the Blood which he shed for us He saith That this Sacrifice consists in offering Bread and VVine there must then be true Bread and VVine in this Sacrifice to be offer'd Ephrem de Conte of the East made Bishop of Antioch Ephrem in the Year 526. wrote Books which he intitled Sacred Laws Apud Pho. Bibl. cod 229. in the first of which disputing against the Eutychians he saith When our Fathers said That Jesus Christ is compos'd of two Natures they meant two Substances as by two Substances two Natures No body of any sense but may say that the Nature of that which is to be felt and not felt in Jesus Christ is the same Nature Thus it is that the body of Jesus Christ which is received by believers doth not quit its sensible Nature and remains without being separated from the intelligible Grace The which he confirms by the Example of Water which doth not lose its Nature by Consecration This Argument is of the same kind of that we see of Theodoret and of Gelasius whereby these three Authors prove that in the Incarnation the presence of the VVord did not destroy the human Nature in Jesus Christ as the presence of the Holy Ghost doth not destroy the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist We may say of this Triple and same Argument Funiculus triplex difficile rumpitur Mons de Marca Ecclesiast 4. v. 12. saith in reference to this passage and of those we have instanced in of Theodoret and St. Chrysostom that these three Authors have owned a real change of the bread which nevertheless leaves the Species in their natural Substance Facundus Bishop of Hermiana in Africa in the year 552. Facundus whose Books Lib. 9. De viris illustribus c. 18. which he wrote in Defence of the Three Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon are justly praised by Victor of Tunes in his Chronology and by St. Isidore of Sevil and which Father Sirmond the Jesuit got out of the Vatican Library going about to excuse Theodore de Mopsuest who taught that Jesus Christ had taken the Adoption of the Children of God Facundus from whence it might have been concluded Lib. 9. that he believed that Jesus Christ is only an adoptive Son saith Baptism which is the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption as we call the Sacrament of his Body and Blood which is in the consecrated Bread and Wine his Body and Blood not that the Bread is properly his Body and the Cup his Blood but because they contain in them the Mystery of his Body and Blood. Therefore as the faithful Servants of Jesus Christ receiving the Sacrament of his Body and Blood are very rightly said to receive his Body and Blood so also Jesus Christ having received the Sacrament of the Adoption of Children might very well be said to have received the Adoption of Children Certainly if the Sacrament of Bread and Wine is not properly the Body of Jesus Christ as Facundus saith but barely Body and Blood as Baptism is Adoption the Bread and Wine are not Transubstantiated into the Eucharist and are but simple signs and something that is distinguished from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Primasius Bishop of Adrumetum in Africa Primasius in his Commentary upon the 10th Chapter of the 1st to the Corinth saith As the Bread which we break is the Participation of the body of Christ so also the Bread of Idols is the Participation of Devils Now as the Participation of the Bread of Idols is no Transubstantiation or real change into Devils so also the Participation of the Bread of the Lord is not a real and substantial change of Bread into the Body of the Lord. The same Doctor on the words of the 11th Chap. of the same Epistle where 't is said That the Lord took Bread the night in which he was betrayed relates That Jesus Christ thereby gave to us the commemoration of his Body And on the following words The Lord saith he hath given us an Example to the end that as often as we do this we should think in our minds that Christ died for us It is for this end that 't is said to us the Body of Christ that so thinking of it we should not be ungrateful and unthankful for his Grace As if any one at his Death should leave to his Friend a pledg of his Love could he when he saw it refrain from Tears if he really loved his Friend There must therefore needs be in the Sacrament Bread and Wine to be Pledges of Jesus Christ for he cannot be a pledg of himself That the Fathers of the SEVENTH and EIGHTH CENTURY 's did not believe Transubstantiation AGE vii ISidore Bishop of Sevil Anno 600. saith Isidorus Hispalensis That by the command of Jesus Christ himself we do call Body and Blood that which being the fruits of the Earth Orig. l. 6. c. 19. is sanctified and made a Sacrament by the invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost In the 1st Book of Ecclesiastical Offices he saith ' That the Bread is called the Body of Jesus Christ because it strengthens the Body and that the Wine is called his Blood because it increaseth Blood in the Body and that the Bread and Wine are two visible things which being sanctified by the Holy Ghost do go on to be the Sacrament of the Divine body Now a Sacrament signifies a holy Sign It would therefore be a strange kind of way of Isidore if he had believ'd the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated to say the Bread and Wine are two things visible which being sanctified by the Holy Ghost do become the Sacraments of the Divine body By this Language it might as well be said That the Fathers believed that the Water of Baptism was transubstantiated after their Consecration The same Bishop saith Melchisedeck In Alleg. Veter Test that offer'd of the Fruits of the Earth a Sacrifice to God thereby represented the Priesthood or Reign of Jesus Christ which is the true King of Peace of whose Body and Blood that is to say the oblation of Bread and Wine is offer'd throughout the World. And in the Treatise De Vocat Gentium cap. 26. These are not any longer Jewish

ready drawn up it not appearing that the advice of the Assembly was taken on each of them as is usually practis'd in all free and lawful Councils Mathew Paris on the year 1215. speaks in these terms Every one being Assembled in the place abovesaid and each having according to the custom of General Councils taken their place the Pope having first made an Exhortatory Sermon there was read in full Council Sixty Articles which were liked by some and disliked by others Godfry a Frier of St. Pantalion at Cologne saith Ad Ann. 1215. there was nothing worth the remembrance done at this Council only that the Eastern Church submitted to the Western which before was never known Nauclerus and Platina in the Life of Innocent the 3d. affirm the same for they mark that several things were there propos'd but that nothing was clearly determin'd And Kings and Princes have no Reason to allow of this Council because in the 3d Chap. of the said Council power is given to the Pope to deprive Princes and Lords of their Lands and to give them to others Guy le Gros Archbishop of Narbonne in the year 1268. did not believe Transubstantiation for being at Rome and discovering his mind to a certain Doctor being return'd to Narbonne Pope Clement the IV. wrote him a Letter telling him that a certain Doctor inform'd him that discoursing with him he held that the Body of Christ was not essentially in the Sacrament and no otherwise than as the thing signified is in the Sign and that he said also this Opinion was common at Paris This appears by the Register'd Manuscript of the Letters of Clement the IV. And to shew that the Arch-Bishop of Narbonne said this Doctrine was very frequent at Paris we find that two years after that is to say in the year 1270. which was in the year St. Lewis died Stephen Bishop of Paris by advice of some Doctors in Divinity condemned those which held that God cannot make an Accident to be without a Subject because it is of its Essence to be actually in its Subject 2ly That the Accident without a Subject is not evident unless it be equivocal 3ly That to make the Accident subsist without its Subject as we think it does in the Eucharist is a thing impossible and implies a Contradiction 4ly That God cannot make the Accident be without its Subject neither that it should have several Dimensions Which Maxims being inconsistent with Transubstantiation doth plainly shew that even at that time Men were divided on the Subject of Transubstantiation One William saith the Frier Walsingham in the Life of Richard the 2d King of England on the year 1381. Preached at Leicester on Palm-Sunday That the Sacrament of the Altar is real Bread after Consecration and that the Bishop of Lincoln going to punish him for it the People appearing concern'd for him made the Bishop not dare do any thing against him which doth plainly shew that in that time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had not taken any deep root in the minds of the People Reginald Peacock Bishop of Chichester in England In Richard. 2. Anno 1282. in the year 1457 did not hold Transubstantiation seeing Baleus reports on the Credit of Thomas Gasconius and Leland Tom. 2. Ch. 19. that he had no sound thoughts touching the Eucharist and that he asserted the Doctrine of Wickliff Now the Doctrine of Wickliff Tho. Waldens in Epist ad Mart. 5. as is related by this Frier Walsingham and Thomas Waldensis was That after Consecration by the Priest in the Mass there remains true Bread and Wine such as they were before nevertheless saith Walsingham the Lords and Nobles of the Land favour'd Wickliff In Rich. 2. which shews plainly that the belief of Transubstantiation was not generally received Guy of Cluvigny Doctor in Divinity of the Order of Carmelites and Reader of the Sacred Palace did not hold Transubstantiation but held the Opinion of Rupert de Duits to wit the Impanation and said That this Opinion was so agreeable to him that if he were Pope he would establish it Tom. 2. Ch. 64. Thomas Waldensis reports the same thing having receiv'd it from John of Paris It 's certain that John of Paris teacheth so in his Manuscript Treatise in the Library of St. Victor having for its Title Determinatio fratris Joannis de Parisiis Praedicatoris de modo existendi Corpus Christi in Sacramento Altaris alio quam sit ille quem tenet Ecclesia The same John de Paris wrote the Treatise above mention'd about the year 1300. he was a Jacobin and Doctor of the Sorbon he held that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ as Rupert de Duits and Guy of Cluvigny did to wit by Assumption Jesus Christ having taken the Bread into the Unity of his Suppositum as he took the human Nature into the Unity of his Person And towards the end of the Manuscript it is said That the faculty thought fit that the manner of explaining the Eucharist by Assumption of the Bread or by Conversion was a probable Opinion but that neither the one nor the other was decided as a matter of Faith and that whoever said otherwise did not say well and run the risque of Excommunication In praesentia Collegii Magistrorum in Theologia dictum est says the end of the Manuscript utrumque modum ponendi Corpus Christi esse in Altari tenet pro Opinioni probabili approbat utrumque per. Et per dicta Sanctorum Dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesiam idcirco nullus cadit sub fide si aliter dixisset minus bene dixisset qui aliter dicunt minus bene dicunt qui determinate assereret alterum praecise cadere sub fide incurreret sententiam Canonis vel Anathematis Thomas Waldensis attributes this Opinion to John de Paris There is commonly found in the Library of the Franciscan Friers a Book called the Poor's Reckoning writ by one called De Goris a Doctor of Tholouse and Native of Arragon he Dedicated his Book to Alphonsus of Arragon Arch-Bishop of Sarragossa He chargeth John de Paris with the Opinion of the Impanation and doth not condemn it It is on the 4th Book of Sentences Dist. 11. q. 3. The Continuator of VVilliam de Nangis his Manuscript Chronicle in the Library of St. German de Pres that John de Paris is stiled Doctor of great Knowledg and Learning * De Script Ecclesiast Trythemius and Auctuar ‡ Auctuan le Mire give him also the same Epithets I observe That in this Manuscript John de Paris to confirm his Opinion makes use of the Authority of the Master of the Sentences in 4th Sent. Dist. 21. I take it to be Dist. 12. as if the Master of the Sentences should there say That the Impanation is a probable Opinion He also cites to the same purpose Dominus Hostiensem c. Super Corpus juris