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	name_n	write_v	6,549	5	5.6975	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62255	Rome's conviction, or, A vindication of the original institution of Christianity in opposition to the many usurpations of the Church of Rome, and their frequent violation of divine right : cleerly evinced by arguments drawn from their own principles, and undeniable matter of fact / by John Savage ...	Savage, J. (John), 1645-1721.	1683 (1683)	Wing S769; ESTC R34022	148,491	472

act of Divine Faith whose material Object is the Incarnation of the Divine Word The formal Object is Gods asserting of it Whence it ensues that though Faith have a greater certainty then Science yet it is destitute of Evidence as well in attestato as in attestante that is can neither demonstrate by Human Reason the Revelation it self nor the Mystery revealed We all agree that those words Hoc est corpus menm were spoken by Christ himself But we differ in giving the true sense and meaning of them The surest Rule that may guide us herein is to consult the Belief of the Primitive Church they certainly received from the Apostles the true Interpretation of them For it would derogate from Christ's goodness and providence to imprint an erroneous belief upon the first Professors of Christianity What then remains but that we consult Antiquity and inquire what their beliefe was of this Mystery And when this appears it would be a vain attempt of any one after a long continued series of Centuries to start a new Interpretation of those words for that must needs be an Erroneous Innovation and Adulterated Doctrine as repugnant to the general belief of all Christians from Christ's time I should swerve from my intended brevity should I here cite the several Texts of the antient Fathers and Doctors of the Church in opposition to the Real Presence for speaking of the Eucharist they frequently call it the Sacrement of the Body and Blood of Christ and St. Augustine tells us Aug. de Civit Dei L. 10. C. 5. That a Sacrament signifies a Sacred Sign which cannot be the thing signified They also call it the Resemblance the Similitude the Type the Antitype the Symbole the Sign the Image the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ and consequently not the Body it self Consonant to these expressions of the Fathers was the Universal Belief of the Church none positively affirming for above 800 years after Christ that the Body of our Saviour was really contained in the Sacrament Though in the year 637 A Monk of Mount Sinai one Anastasius among other Contemplations which he had in his Cell would needs disapprove of the former way of speaking which had been ever used till his time and so rejected the expression of Figure and Antitype but used no attempt to settle any point of Doctrine repugnant to the belief of Antiquity Yet what Anastasius began by way of altering the Tearms another Monk of Corbie in France one Paschasius Ratbert compleating by his Doctrine Taught That the Body and Blood of Christ were truly and really present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which he declares in his Treatise of the Body and Blood of our Saviour which he Composed in the Ninth Century after Christ in the year 818. And for this we have Bellarmines own Testimony Bellarm. de Script Eccles who acknowledgeth that Paschasius was the first Author that ever Wrote a serious Treatise of the Truth of the Body and Blood of our Saviour in the Eucharist This Doctrine being then new never any before attempting to assert it by any set Treatise it found great opposition so that most of the Learnedest Men in those times employed their endeavors severally to oppose it and cry it down which Paschasius himself acknowledgeth for being moved by his intimate Friend Frudegard Paschasias Epist ad Frudegard Pag. 623. about this Doctrine he Answers him You question me about a difficulty whereof many People do doubt to wit of the Real Presence so in his Letter to Frudegard And in his Commentary upon the 26th of St. Mark Idem in 26 Matth. L. 12. pag. 1094. he says I have Treated of these Mysteries more amply and expresly because I have been informed that I have been Censured by many as if in the Book which I Wrote of the Sacrament and Published I had attributed to the words of Christ more then the truth of the words would permit This being a thing so well known in History I shall not here inlarge upon it but only reflect upon the Doctrine of one of our own Nation which is venerable Bede Bede in Luc. C. 22. Idem in Ps 3. Idem hom de Sanc. in Epiph. Idem in Ps 133. To. 8. Idem de Tahern L. 2. C. 2. asibi who in several places of his Works declares his Opinion against the Real Presence for he tells us That our Saviour hath given us the Sacrament of his Body and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine And that our Saviour gave to his Disciples in the Last Supper the Figure of his Body and Blood That the Creatures of Bread and Wine pass into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood by the ineffable Sactification of the Holy Ghost That our Saviour changed the Sacrifices of the Legalia into the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine And that in lieu of celebrating the Passion of our Saviour in the Flesh and the Blood of Victims as the Antients did we celebrate it in the Oblation of Bread and Wine These and the like expressions which are frequent in the Works of this Author do manifestly declare that in those times none held the Real Presence but all believed the Eucharist to be a Figure or a Sacrament that is a Sign of the Body and Blood of Christ Hence there arose in the Church a high debate about this new Doctrine Paschasius got some Abetters of his Opinion but the greatest number and the most considerable vehemently opposed it as a Novelty others stood indifferent expecting the issue others again held a third Opinion which in substance was Consubstantiation for they Asserted The Body of Christ in the Eucharist to be united to the substance of Bread The contest about these several Opinions grew fervent some adhering to the one part others to the other and this mutual Contest lasted all the Ninth Century Whereupon that Great Emperor Charles Surnamed the Balde who was then Emperor of Germany and King of France finding his Subjects dissected into opposite Parties and contending against each other with so much rancor and animosity resolved to Consult the Learnedst Men he had in his Dominions upon the Question which was the ground of the debate Pursuant to this Resolution he calls to him one John Scot whose right Name was Erigene by Nation an Irish-man or a Scotchman I am not certain which This was a person of profound Learning and eminent Vertue and therefore highly esteemed by the Emperor and was vulgarly called The Holy Philosopher Another which the Emperor designed for his intended purpose was one Bertram but by the Writers of his time was called Retram which was his true Name He was a Monk and Priest of the Church of Rome of the Monastery of Corbie and afterwards for his Fame and rare Parts was created Abbot of Orbais who Wrote several Books and among others one of Predestination against Paschasius whom he Learnedly impugnes and censures him of

hath been already said But this is not all for out of this decision of their Councils there issueth another Quaery for supposing the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist a Natural doubt ariseth What is become of the substance of Bread that was there before Here Authors are divided into three different Classes some place the Body of Christ here by Transubstantiation others by Consubstantiation others by Impanation The first Teach that the substancee of Bread as well Matter as Forme is destroyed by a Natural Exigence of Christ's Body being placed there because two compleat Corporeal Substances cannot be naturally in the same place the same time The two last Opinions Teach That the substance of Bread remaineth together with Christ's Body and differ only in this That they who hold Consubstantiation assert the Body of Christ to be with the substance of the Bread whereas the Authors of Impanation Teach The Body of Christ to be contained in this Sacrament invisibly because the substance of bread with its proper accidents as it were covers and veiles it so as to render it uncapable of being perceived by any Corporeal Sense So that the body of Christ being Miraculously Superinduc't is imbib'd within the substance of the bread and penetrated with it and therefore not pervious to Sensation In this variety of Opinions Who shall be the Umpire Certainly none more accommodated for this Function then the great Oracle of the Universe The Church of Rome whose grand Prerogative of Infallibility will take off all ambiguity of the truth of her decisions Thus then speaks the Council of Trent Quoniam autem Christus Redemptor noster corpus suum id quod sub specie panis offerebat verè esse dixit ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit idque nunc denuo sancta haec Synodus declarat per consecrationem panis vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Christi Domini nostri totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus quae conversio convenientèr propriè 〈◊〉 Sancta Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio est appellata The same is contained in other Councils and Texts of the Common Law as Concil Rom. 6. Concil Lateran 2. In cap. Qui manducant de consecrat dist 2. cap. Iteratur Cap. semel Christus cap. singulis with other Texts above cited for the Real Presence And this definition of the Council is backt by a severe Canon able to strike terror into the disbelievers The Canon runs thus Si quis dixerit in Sacrosancto Eucharistiae Sacramento remanere substantiam panis vim unà cum corpore sanguine Domini Nostri Jesu Christi negaveritque mirabilem illam singularem conversionem totius substantiae panis in corpus totius substantiae vini in sanguinem manentibus duntaxit speciebus panis vini quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia optissimè Transubstantiationem appellat Anathema sit Here is a heavy Curse fulminated against all those that shall deny any part of this Canon which not only condemns the two former Opinions but is likewise extended to all these that deny the Real Presence And to make it the more plausible the ●ens of their best Divines are industriously imployed to work their Adherents and Proselites into the Belief of it So Valerius Reginaldus in parte fori p●●ni L. 29. n. 36. Vasque 3 Part. To. 3. D. 180 nu 108. alibi Ledasn tra●● de Euch. C. 6. Concil 2.3 passim alii For is it hereby made an Article of Divine Faith and all are enjoyn'd to believe it as such under the most rigorous Commination of being Condemned to the Eternal Flames of Hell Fire if they call in question this Decree and Canon of the Council or any part thereof SECT II. Other Subtilties arising from the former Decisions not fully determin'd OTher Difficulties of like nature are frequently discussed by their Divines but not yet determin'd by the Church as First By what means the Body of Christ is made Corporeally present in the Eucharist Whether by a new production really distinct from that which conserves his Sacred Body in Heaven or else by a new ubication which they call adduction if the first then the Body and Soul of Christ must be created anew and the Natural and Hypostatical Unions must terminate new eductive actions really distinct from those whereby they exist in Heaven I remember to have Read a Book Written by one Tho. Barton alias Anderton an English Jesuite wherein he earnestly contends to establish this Opinion but I also heard others of the same Order to object against him That according to his Opinion the Divine Word would be as often Incarnate again as there should be Hosts Consecrated for every Consecration argues a new Incarnation because though the Hypostatical Union be still the same yet the action which produceth it is wholly new So that the common Opinion of their Divines is That all the parts of Christ in the Eucharist acquire only new ubies or ubications whereby the Body the Soul c. together with their respective actions the very same that are in Heaven are rendred present in the Sacrament and without leaving their Station in Heaven they do by every Consecration acquire a new place and whereas they existed but in one place before they now exist in two places at the same time Hence ariseth a Second Difficulty relating to the nature of this ubi whereby the Body of Christ is existent under the Species of bread and the Question is Whether it be ubi circumscriptivum or ubi definitivum that is Whether the body of Christ exist in the Eucharist as it doth in Heaven having all its parts duly ordered and collocated in their distinct stations with their natural distances conjunctions and contiguities to each other as human bodies are here framed so as that the Hand imployes one part of the space the Foot another part the Head another c. or else whether the whole body be in the whole space of the Host and the same whole body in every distinct part and particle of the Host as a reasonable Soul is wholly in every part of a Human body if so then the Body of Christ in the Sacrament hath a definitive ubication whereby all its parts are penetrated and so involved and implicated within each other that an Angel cannot cull out a particle of the Host how small soever it be and that no sense can perceive it but it contains all Christ And this Opinion they incline to A Third Question occurreth How long the Body of Christ together with the Soul the Divinity c. remain in the Consecrated Host There are various Answers to this Question but the common gives this Rule That as long as the natural Species of bread remains in the Host so long and no longer the Body of Christ is there present so that what alteration soever is made in the Host by