Selected quad for the lemma: book_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A19948
|
A discourse of the conference holden before the French King at Fontain-bleau between the L. Bishop of Eureux, and Munsieur de Plessis L. of Mornay, the 4. of May 1600. Concerning certaine pretended corruptions of authors, cyted by the sayd Munsieur de Plessis in his booke against the Masse. Faithfully translated out of the French.
|
|
1600
(1600)
|
STC 6381; ESTC S109408
|
46,856
|
60
|
the which many good men had long grieued If to that purpose it might doe any seruice hee should thinke himselfe most happy with whatsoeuer losse otherwise that himselfe could be the first man to wish it burnt yea euen with his own hand Howbeit that he did hope that vpon vpright examination all the world should finde that hee had vsed all sincerity and great diligence albeit it was not greatly to be maruailed that among 5000. places or more there might passe some few wherein his eye his memory or euen his iudgement might waner which yet were such as could be of no importaunce to hurt the truth that he therein handled For savd he were all the bookes of the Doctors of the Romish Church that haue bin written within these hundred yeares as rigorously examined where should wee finde one that could abide the proofe Besides with his Maiesties leaue he protested that this was a perticuler action consequently could not preiudice the Doctrine of the reformed Churches of the Realme which was before him and should be after him and so continue for euer And then did they enter into the matter The first place out of Scotus THe first place that the Lord of Eureux did set vpon The 4. book of the Eucharist c. 9 p. 869. l. 26. of the first edi P. 936. lyne 2. of the 2. edition P. 7â—â— l. 25. of the 3 edition was taken out of the 869 Page lyne 26. of the Lord Plessis booke of the institution of the Eucharist namely within eyght leaues of the ende heere let the reader iudge what methode this is to examme a book according to the first edition in quarto which heer we will follow sauing that we will also in the margent quote the pages of the second or third editioÌ„ where we read these words Iohn Duns called Scot neere a hundred yeares after the counsel of Latran durst bring into question whether Christes body be really contained vnder the formes disputeth that he is not Against which place he pretendeth two matters the one that Scot maketh it not a controuersie whether the body of Christ bee really contained vnder the formes except in like manner as the SchoolemeÌ„ vse to dispute of matters most resolued as Whether there be a God Whether there be but one god c. The other that the L of Ples had taken the opposition for the resolution in both these matters he pretended hainous vntruths To the 1. the L. of Ples aswered that wheras he said that Scot had brought into questioÌ„ Whether the body of christ be really contained vnder the formes he vnderstood it by the way of transubstantiation and his meaning did sufficiently appeare first in that in the Chap which is the ninth of the fourth booke he entreateth of the absurdities contradictions proceeding of the transubstantiation Secondly because in the same it is sayd A hundred yeares after the Councell of Latran that is to say after the Article of transubstantiation was established To the second that albeit the Schoolemen doe dispute their questions in vtramque partem yet doe they withall shew their owne inclination yea sometimes their perticuler resolution sauing that they make it to stoop to the Church of Rome And this did the Lord of Plessis vpholde to appeare in Scot in the de duction of this matter namely where he handleth the second member of this question Qualiter illud est possibile quod creditur How the realty that is beleeued is possible For after many disputations growing to the resolution he vseth these wordes which were shewed to the Lord of Eureux a Scorus printed at Paris by Io. Granion Spon the 4 of the SeÌ„ dist 10. quest 1 pa. 63. b. lit E. Concerning this article it seemeth vnnecessary to haue recourse to the conuersion of the bread into the body of Christ especially considering that euen from the beginning that this matter of the Sacrament was beleeued it was continually beleeued that the body of Christ altereth not out of his place in heauen to be heere and yet was it not thus manifestly beleeued at the beginning of this conuersion as it shall bee sayd dist xi And let the reader note that ouer agaynst this Article that beginneth Quantum ad istum artien'â— nonvidetur necessarium sugiendum esse ad conuersioneÌ„ panâ—s in corpus Christi precipuâ— cuÌ„ a priâ—cipio exquo res imius sacrameÌ„â— fuit credita fuit sempercre ditum quod corpus Christi â—â—n mutatur de loco suo in câ—elo vt sit hic tamen non fuit in principio ita manifeste credituÌ„ de ista conuersione vt dicetar dist 11. Quantum it is quoted in the Margent Resolutio-Scoti Scots resolusion So that by Scots resolution the Church did not alwayes beleeue the conuertion the conuersion is not necessary in the Sacrament Therefore did not the Lord of Plessis in this place take Scots opposition insteed of his resolution And this was gathered very briefe by such as writ for either side namely the Lords of Grigny Pasquier and Vassaut as likewise was all the rest that ensued Howbeit in that which the Lord of Plessis consequently dyd alleage concerning the xi Dist of the 4. booke q. 3. Scots opinion did yet more clearely appeare For after he hath cited Jnnocent the 3. de offic Missae par 3. cap. 26. to prooue three opinions vpon this argument The first b Sâ—ctus in 4. sentent D. 11. qu. 3. fol. 31. lit B. Circa hoc erant tres opiniones Vna quod panis manet tamencuÌ„ ipso vere est corpus Christi Alia quod panis non manet tamen non coÌ„uertitur sed decinit esse vel per annichilationeÌ„ vel per resolutioneÌ„ in materiam vel per corruptioneÌ„ in aliud Tertia quod panis transubstantiatur in corpus vinum in sangumem That the bread remayneth and yet the body of Christ is with the bread The second That the bread remaineth not and yet is not conuerted but ceaseth to be whether by being made nothing whether by being resolued into the first matter or corrupted into any other thing The third That the bread is transubstantiated into the body the wyne into the bloud He consequently commeth to ground the first opinion verye substantially in that hee sayth c 〈…〉 potest 〈◊〉 ista Transubstantiatione That the truth of the Eucharist may be kept without transubstantiatioÌ„ Secondly d Et pancis interâ—ctis Substantia pants cum suis accidentil 〈◊〉 a que potest esse signum si â—ut sola accidentia imò magis quia substantia panis subspeciebus magis est nutrimentum quà m accidentia Ergo magis repraesentat corpus Christi in ratione nutrimenti spiritualis That the bread with the accidents thereof doth rather represent the body of Christ by an anologie of the bodily sustâ—naâ—â—nce with the spirituall then they â—â—oe by the only accidents Thirdly e Et
Haerony in Ezechiele lib. 4. c. 14. ex editione Christ Plantini 1578. Quod si in aliquo fiducia est insolo domino considamus Maledictus n omnis homo qui speÌ„ habet in homine quaÌ„ uis sancti sint quamuis Prophete Legimus Nolite coÌ„sidere in homimbus Et iterum Bo num est considere in Domino quam coÌ„sidere in principibus NoÌ„ in princip ibus tantuÌ„ scaeculi sed in principibus Eccleasiarum qui suas taÌ„ium aoimas si iusti suerint liberabunâ— Filios autem ac silias quos in Ecclesia genuetint si fuerint negligentes saiuare non poterunt If trust sayth he bee to bee reposed in any let vs repose our trust in one only God for cursed is the man that trusteth in men be they Saints be they Prophets Wee must not trust Principtbus Ecclesiarum in the Principles of the Church who albeit they bee righteous shall deliuer but their owne soules not the soules of their children Against this place also the L. of Eureux pleaded omission because these word Sinegligentes fuerint if they be negligent were omitted Which the L. of Plessis consesseth to be true as he will alwaies do where like matter failes our not of any bad intent for what should he get by it but because as it seemeth he relyed vpon the aduersaries owne allegation For in their ordinary glosse euen vpon this very place of Ezechiel this place is alleaged and these very wordes omitted and as we may well thinke without fraude b Hierâ—ny in Glossa ordinaria â—â—â—duni 159â— in illuel Ezecâ—ielis c. 1â— Non uberabunt filâ—â—â—euaefiuas c. â—onum esâ—ce fidere in Domino quam confidere in principibus c. Non seculâ— tantum sed 〈…〉 iusti ruerint tantuÌ„ animas suas liberabuÌ„â— noÌ„ finos vel fiâ—as quos in Ecclesia genueruÌ„t It is good saith he to trust in the Lord rather then to trust in Princes not of the world onely but euen of the Churches who albeit they be righteous shall deliuer but theyr owne soules not their Sonnes nor their daughters whom they haue begotten in the Church Also this place of Ezechul doth S. Hierome vnder-staÌ„d in like sence as Chrisostom doth the place of Noah Daniel and Job returning into this world Heere againe did the L. of Eureux instantly vrge what maketh this place against the inuocation of Saintes deceased sith it speaketh properly of the liuing Whereto he was answered as in the former but the rather because in the L. of Plessis booke entreating vpon this place of S. Hâ—â—rame vpoÌ„ Ezechiel ensued these words that answered him c 〈…〉 Obseurchâ—â— docentur 〈◊〉 haue senteÌ„â—â—â—lam nou 〈…〉 quod lautat Deum in praesenti saeculo sumus siue orationibus siue consiliis inuiâ—eÌ„ posse nos coadiunari CuÌ„ autem ante tribunal Christi venerimus noÌ„ â—ob non Daeniel nec Noe rogare posse proquoquam sed vnumquemque portare onussuum And to the end we should not thinke that he meant not to speake but of the liuing writing vpon the Epistle to the Galathians vpon these words Euery man should beare his burden marke what he saith By this short sentence we doe learne albeit darkely a new Doctrine that is hidden that so long as we remaine in this world wee may bee holpen by the prayers and counsailes one of an other But when wee come before the Tribunall seate of Christ neither Iob nor Daniel nor Noah can pray for any man but euery man shal beare his owne burden Now the L. of Plessis vrged him to way these words siue orationibus siue consiliis Whether with prayer or with counsell But he would not heare him saying hee had not to doe but with this place The sixt place out of S. Cirill THe sixt was a place out of S. Cirill of Alexandria in his sixt booke against Iulian 〈◊〉 2 de Euâ—â—â— c. 3. ed. 1. p. 233. l 5. edit 2. p. 239. l. 30. ed. â— p. 139. l. 25. taken out of the pa. 223. l. 5. where the L. of Plessis sayth That he answereth the Emperour Iulian who obiected the honour done to the Crosse That the christians doe yeeld neither adoration nor reuerence to the signe of the Crosse Ouer largely peraduenture for the words though surely not for the sence And therefore the L of Eur. pretending vntruth grounded vpon these wordes He answereth because he answereth not precisely in these wordes Heereto the L. of Ples answered that by his owne text it appeared that he neuer meant to alleage the wordes of Cirill onely hee gathered the sence out of a discourse of a leafe in quantity that indeed the oration was not direct but by the way the Character of the text not of any allegation Therefore that they ought to seeke the sence and not the wordes and the rather because it hath been often sayd that the vntruth should not be concluded vpon the diuersitie of woords in case the sence were to be found And as for the sence sayth hee Julian sayd vnto the Christians a Cirill Alena contra IulianuÌ„ lib. 6. p. 134. to 3. Basill apud Ioan. Heruagium 1566. Et ô miserihomines cum serueÌ„tur arma qure magnus demisit Iupiter hoc est pater Martis pignore dato non verbo sed re quod ciuitatem nostram perpettio protecturussit cessatis adorare colere interim crucis lignum adoratis imagines illius in fronte antedomus pingentes Yee wretches as yee are yee worship not Ancilia de coelo lapsa our bucklers fallen from heauen which Iupiter hath giuen vs for the protection of our Citty and yet yee worship the tree of the Crosse and paint the Images thereof in the forefronts and before your houses Heereunto if the Christians in those daies had worshipped the tree of the Crosse what was there to be said sauing we worship it because it deserueth worship and not Dulia onely but also Hiperdulia a more especiall seruice euen so forre foorth as to bend both the knees yea to bow with the belly to the earth euen to inuocate it as liuing c. But what aunswere doth S. Cirill make him b Et paucis interiectis Absque labore demonstrabimus elusmodi sermones à malis cogitationibus profectos extremam sapere imperitiam But sayth he we can easily proue that these speeches proceed of bad thoughts and relye vpon extreame ignoraunce And wherein Sauing in that hee did imagine that because they painted the Crosse they did it to worship it And therefore euen at once he bringeth him backe from the Crucifixe to the crucified from the signe to the thing signified from the pretended oderation of the wood to the mistery of our redemption 〈…〉 Nam 〈…〉 doâ—â—â—â— qua 〈…〉 omnibus 〈…〉 aequalia 〈◊〉 indiâ—unitatis solio considere non capinam tameÌ„ arbitratus est se esse aequalem Deo sed serpsum humiliauit formam serui accipiens