Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	blood_n	body_n	wine_n	1,436	5	7.7621	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12490	A confutation of a certen booke, called a defence of the true, and Catholike doctrine of the sacrame[n]t, &c. sette fourth of late in the name of Thomas Archebysshoppe of Canterburye. By Rycharde Smyth, Docter of diuinite, and some tyme reader of the same in Oxforde	Smith, Richard, 1500-1563.	1550 (1550)	STC 22819; ESTC S105000	121,196	338

his holy people as the head in the membres Loo this holy doctour my lord vnderstode by the fruete of the vyne of which S. Luke maketh mention not wyne of the vyne as ye do but christes very bloud and sayeth that he dranke it when his membres the godly people draÌ„ke it in the church as the head drinketh in his membres Nowe I aske of yow my lord where drinketh christ his bloud daily in the churche when his membres the god men drinke it except it be iÌ„ the holy sacrameÌ„t Is not this argument then anusweared sufficieÌ„tly It is very false also that The bysshop Li. 2. fo 20 ye say that christ vsed al such termes and circumstances which shold make vs beleue that bread and wyne remayned stil in the sacrament For the terme of his body and saynge that he gaue euen that same his bodye that should be crucified for vs his bloud that he wold shed for vs and that he vsed the neutre gendre when he sayed This is c which can not be referred vnto the bread that is both in latine and also in the Greake the masculine gendre ought to make vs beleue that he spake then of his oune very natural body and bloud I let passe here your malitious rayling vpon the catholike priestes which declareth plainly by what spirite ye are led ye write also this Saint Pol called bread bread and wyne wyne and neuer altered The bysshop lib. 2. fo 20 pagina 2. christes wordes heryn The bread which we breake sayeth he is it not the communion of christes body It is The confutation not true that Saint Pol called bread bread and wyne wyne for he called christes blessed body precious bloud bread wyne because bread wyne were turned in to them at the tyme of the consecration and because there remayned stil the qualitees and properties of bread and wyne and thirdly be cause that christes body and bloud do feede the soul as material bread and wyne doth the body When ye say that S. Pol must neades be vnderstanded when he sayeth the bread that we breake c. of material bread because christes body is not broken I say that ye erre in so saying for the formes quantites of bread are broken christes body lying vnder them takyng no har me at al as Saint Thomas did putte his hand yn to christes side without al hurt vnto it beyng then immortal Ioan. 20 vnapte to suffre harme Saint Pol I graunt maketh ofte mention of bread and wyne but what therof Is that sufficient to proue that he spake of material 1. Cor. 10. 11 bread and of wyne of the vyne Maketh he not also often mention of christes body and bloud Why then Marke reader may not we say that he spake of theÌ„ and ment by the bread and wyne christes body and bloud in to which the bread was chaunged and the wyne also and whose properties and qualitees remayned stil in the sacrament Ye say that pol neuer spake of transubstantiation yf ye meane expressely and by that name I grauÌ„t it but that proueth nothing for your purpose for he spake of the thing signified ment by that word that is to say he taught vs that christes body and bloud are in the sacrament and not bakers bread as it is proued afore Agayne Saint Pol neuer sayed that material bread remayneth stil in the sacrament as ye teach my lord therfore pol by your oune reason maketh no more for yow theÌ„ he doth for me Also the scripture speaketh not namely expressely of this word ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ homousios nor that the father is ingenitus nor that there are three persons in the trinite Wil ye mi Marke lord therfore conclude that scripture setteth not furth the selfe same thing by other termes and wordes No god forbid Is it not then sufficient for our doctrine that the scripture teacheth vs the same thing that this word transubstantiation signifieth althoughe it maketh no mention of that word Now ye speake much against altering of christes wordes But who doth my lord so much alter them as ye do For christ sayed This is my body that shal be geuen for yow and ye say that it was not his body in dede but bread of corne Ã signe or Ã figure of it only can there be my lord any greater altering of Ã thinge then to denie it and Mrrke to say it is not it but only Ã figure of it Christ sayed it was he selfe same body that he gaue for vs to death we say euen the same where ye say it was not it but bread Haue ye not then blamed vs in that thing in which ye your selfe is most to be blamed Wel let The bysshop fo 21. The confutation this passe Now ye fal to reasoning and say thus Now let vs consider how the same is also against reasoÌ„ and natural operation c. What then Are not lyke wyse al the articles of our fayth against both reason and natural operation For what can be more against reason and natural operation than Ã virgen to conceaue and beare Ã child without decay of her virginite than maÌ„s Matth. 1. Lucae 1. 1. Cor. 15. flesh to rise agayne than al thinges to be made of nothing than death to be ouercome by death than that there be three persons and but one god c. Why theÌ„ denye ye not as wel al these articles of our faith as the real presence of christes body in the sacrament Haue ye forgetten S pols sayng A maÌ„ which foloweth natural reason and argumentes made by his oune wyt perceaueth 1. Cor. 1. Theophilactus in 10. 3 not thinges belonging to god and those that are aboue reason Dyd not Nichodemus think it was impossible that Ã maÌ„ should be borne agayne because he lacked faith and folowed natural reason only Exhorteth not vs Coloss 2. S Pol to take heede that no man disceaue vs by vaine reasoning and philosophie Did not the heithen and paynyms iudge it folly to beleue in christes 1. Cor. 1. death because they thought it against reason that Ã man shold be saued by Ã mans death How much reasoned Saint pol against the natural philosophers to proue the resurrectioÌ„ 1. Cor. 15 of the flesh Which they wold not beleue because it was against reason and natural knowlege Do ye not geue meÌ„ Ã great occasioÌ„ my lord by your reasoning in this your booke to denye al the articles of our fayth seyng they are against natural reason operation I pray god that ye bringe not the people vnto such madnes Athanasius Libro 4. ad Theophilum contra potentinum sayed vnto one pontentine Thow alone doest dissent in this matter from the catholikes against the scriptures and the whole world whiles thow folouest the philosophers doctrine May we not my lord say the same of yow

disceaue vs and so it appeareth that this your reason my lord is of none effecte nor force at al. We opeÌ„ no gate as ye say falsely that we do vnto valentinianus heresy nor to any such other For althoughe we do say that our senses are not to be trusted yn this matter of the holy sacrament yet we denye not but that some credence may be geuen wel vnto them in natural thinges hauyng their natural condition and state And as concernyng the heresy of them that sayed christ was not Ã very man or that he had not very flesh and bones the contrary was not proued sufficiently by their senses which sawe hym but by many textes both of the old and also the newe testament Moreouer the scriptures are manyfest enoughe in many places against Basilides and such other that sayed christ was not crucified for vs but Simon Cyrenaeus by which scriptures that article and the beliefe of it is approued and not by oure senses RomanoruÌ„ 10. for S Paul sayeth that fayth commeth of the hearyng of gods word and not of hearyng seyng feeling or of any of the other our senses for they may often tymes disceaue vs as Saint Homi. 93. in Matthaeum Ioan. 14. Chrysostom wytnesseth where gods word which is the trueth itself can neuer disceaue vs. Wherfore the senses are not to be trusted heryn and so is al that reasoniÌ„ge which ye make my lord here wythe so many wordes not worth Ã bleue point Ye say also thus And yf there be no trust to be geuen The bysshop fo 22 pa. 2. to oure senses in this matter of the sacrament why than do the papistes so stoutly affirme that the accidentes remayne after the consecration which can not be iudged but by the senses Syr we do affirme that there is no The confutation trust to be geuen to our senses in matters of our faith especially where they do iudge agenst goddes word as they do in this matter For the scripture sayth that christ promysed to geue his apostles bread which should be his owne very flesh that he wold geue for the lyfe of the world and that he gaue Ioan. 8. Matth. 28. 1. Cor. 11. to them his bodie which was crucified for them the senses did iudge that it was but bread of corne Agayne our senses do iudge only the accidentes properly as al learned men do wel know whiche every maÌ„ may affirme to be yn the sacrament but notthinke ther of that their substances do remayne althoughe the scripture expresselye sayeth not that there remayneth no bread but that it is christes bodie which he gaue for vs to death and so it can not be breade forthat was not geueÌ„ for vs vpon the crosse The sacrament is not an elusion of our senses as ye say althoughe in yt appeare bread Gen. 18 19. Mar vt Ioan. 20 Actorum 1. and yt is not there as god and the angelles seamed men to loth AbrahaÌ„ and other and were not very men in dede and yet they were no elusions of their senses werfore an aÌ„uwseare is now made to al this your reasoninge my lord vpon the iudgement of our senses and natural reason Now ye labour The bysshop lib. 2. fo 23. pag. 1. to proue that oure belefe in this matter is against the fayth of the old autours of christes church ye alleageiustine the Holie martyr affirminge The confutation Anno d. â—0 103 90. that he is the oldest author that is knowen this daie to writte any treatie vpoÌ„ the sacrameÌ„tes which is very false for Anacletus the martyr Clement dionise saynt Martial certen other moo wrate of that matter before hym Ã great while as it appareth plainlie by their lyues writinges and bookes The confutation I muche merueile my lord that ye are not Ã shamed falsely to alleage iustine Iustinus wordes for the furtheraÌ„ce of your wicked doctrine which neuer wrote as ye say butthus onlie ThaÌ„ afterward bread the chalice of wyne and water myxed together is broughe vnto the bisshop or priest This nourysshemeÌ„t is called of vs Eucharistia And we take not these thinges as euery meate and euery drinke but as throughe goddes word Christ oure sauiour was incarnate and toke fleashe and bloud for oure saluation euen so we haue learned by these wordes This is my bodie This is my bloud that this meate by the which oure flesh bloud are throughe alteration nouryshed when it is blessed by the prayers of the word goddes sonne he meaneth is the flesh and bloud of iesu hymselfe incarnate These are his wordes which are as plaiÌ„lie agaiÌ„st your doctrine as caÌ„ be in four pointes The Iustinus whoÌ„ my lord alleageth for hym is first is that he speaketh of meÌ„glinge of wyne water together in the chalice of which the scripture maketh no meÌ„tioÌ„ agaiÌ„st hym in four pointes therfore ye saye that it is not to be passed vpon Secondlye he is contrarie to your teachinge whan he affirmeth verites not Wrytten in scripture that christ prayed when he did consecrate and that by his prayers the bread and wyne were blessed which is not mentioned yn the scripture and for that cause ye despise it and say it is Ã thinge of no necessite at al. Thirdly he sayeth that these are the wordes of consecration This is my bodye This is mybloud which ye denie Four thely he sayeth that the bread wine by which our flesh bloud are nouryshed are after they be blessed throughe christes prayers the flesh and bloud Marke â–ª this reader of christ How blynd were ye theÌ„ my lord when ye alleaged this authour for oure purpose which is so euideÌ„tly against your doctrine But what yf Iustinus had thought as ye saye that he did yet did not so indede that bread wyne remayned stil yn the sacrameÌ„t Could that haue proued your doctrine that there is nothinge els in the sacrament but bread an wyne only No man is so blynd but he maye se that it doth not proue your purpose thoughe it seame to make with luther Also many of the Greakes affirmed that the holie goost proceded not froÌ„ the father and he sonne both they agreed not theryn with the latine church vntil the conseil holden at florentia wich was with yn these cxx yeres and yet that their opinion proued not that the latine church erred yn their belefe why then should either Iustinus saying Theodoretus or any other of the Greates which wrote that bread and wyne remayned stil yn the sacrament make against our faith touchyngetraÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ which Greakes generallie did not receaue manyyeres after the latine church had manifestly taught yt But Iustinus saye ye affirmeth that the bread and wyne are turned in to our flesh and bloud to nouryshe our bodies It is true but not as ye do take his sainge for he meÌ„t that coÌ„mon bread and wyne are turned by the alteration

alleage for your purpose where he doth denie this vtterly Legat haec caecus Petrus Martyr and sayeth that it doth nothinge sanctifie the receauer Affirmeth not origen also here that bread is made Ã holier bodie than it was before What bodie is that yf it be not christes bodie it selfe But heare my lord what foloweth in that place that ye alleage here This is therewritten As appertayneth to the eatinge nether of that that we do not eate of that breade halowed by goddes word and prayer we are defrauded of any good thinge nother we haue by eatinge of it any more goodnes in vs. Doth this saynge agree with that that is rehearsed afore out of his other book which affirmeth that the sacrameÌ„t maketh vs more holy Is not this last sentence that the sacrament maketh not men holy nor they take any hurt which receaue it not against many places of S IhaÌ„s gospel the vj. chap. and al old doctours myndes which saye as christ doth Io. 6. that by this Ioan 6. Cyrillus Cyprianus sacrament christ dwelleth in vs and we in hym and that we shal not haue euer lasting lyfe without we eate christes fleash and drinke his bloud Why then may not I truely conclude and say that ye my lord were shamefullie disceaued when ye alleaged this authorite and so was peter Martyr your great god in abusinge the same as I wil shortly by goddes helpe declare to al men in my booke against him which is now redie for the presse Now Cyprianus Lib. 2. epi. 3 The bisshop Fo. 24. to S Cyprian whom ye bringe thus wrintinge For as much as christe sayed I am Ã true vyne therfore the bloud is not water but wyne nor it can not be thought that his bloud wherby we are redeamed and haue lyfe is yn the cup when wyne is not in the cuppe wherbye the bloud of The confutation christ is shewed O'lord what meaneth this man Why remembreth he not that S Cyprian there went about to proue that wyne ought to be putte in to the chalice at masse and not onlie water as then some priestes did vse to do against christes doynge commaundement Luc. 22. and not to proue that wyne remayned stil therin after the coÌ„secration Sayeth not S Cyprian here as plainly that christes very bloud wherby we were redeamed is in the chalice as he doth that wyne is therin and more plainlye also How then for shame could yow my lord alleage the one for your purpose and denye the other Is this the rightwaye to set furth the trueth to the people What is this but to seduce them vtterly But let vs se what S Cyprian hath in that same epistle agaiÌ„st your doctrine He writeth after this maner As meÌ„ caÌ„ not drinke wine except the grapes be pressed afore Lib. 2. epi. 3 so we caÌ„ not drinke christes bloud excepte christ had bene before pressed vpon the crosse and had drounken first of the chalice of which he began to drinke vnto theÌ„ that beleued Agayne Cyrillus Cyprianus he sayeth yn that same epistle If Ã maÌ„ do put in to the chalice onlie water christes bloud begyinnythe to be in the chalice without vs. Finallie he writeth thus If yn the sacrifice which is christ only christ must be folowed we Christ is offered at masse yn sacrifice and not bread ought to obey do that which christ did and commaunded to be done of vs. How can we shead our bloud for christ which are ashamed to drinke christes bloud Who now is so blynd my lord I besech you that he seeth not how much S. Cyprian is against your vngodly doctrine which ye wold yet father vpon hym God geue al meÌ„ grace to be ware of such teachers which wold beare men yn hande that their doctrine is old and grounded vpon the belefe and writiÌ„ges of godlye ancient doctours when they are agaiÌ„st yt plainly â–ª but I aske of yow my lord how ye can proue by S. CypriaÌ„ or any other doctour which ye do alleage here for your purpose that there is none other substance in the blessed sacrament of the aulter then bare bakers bread and wyne of the vyne Are ye so ignorant in logicke which doth teach men to reason wel and to make good argumentes as to make this argument for your matter S. Cyprian affirmeth that wyne is in the chalice ergo there is not christes bloud A boye which only hath learned the sophistrye wil not dispute so fondly I am sure but wel such is your authorite Note power yn that reaulme that no man may speake agaiÌ„st your doctrine be it neuer so folysh wicked Christ his apostles did not sette fourth the gospel by any such meanes as ye vse Now ye alleage S. CypriaÌ„ agayne whose wordes are euidentlye against your purpose for he sayeth Christ offered sacrifice at his last soupper and that christes bloud is offered yn sacrifice at masse which both two ye denye vtterlye and yet are not ashamed to say that this your doctrine is approued So hath the title of his â—oke by the most ancient doctours of christes church of which S. Cyprian is one of the chyefest Ye bringe now for yow Eusebius Emissenus which is moost of al men against your cause Thus he writeth When the creatures The bissop lib. 2. fo 24 pa. 2. bread and wyne are to be blesshed with goddes wordes they are sette vpon the holy aultour before they be consecrated with the inuocation of the most highe name there is the substance of bread and wyne but after christes wordes be spoken there is christes bodie and bloud But what merueile is it yf god can by his word turne those thinges that are created which could make them with his word And that it ought not to seame to vs Ã newe and an impossible thinge that earthly mortal thinges are chaunged in to christes substance aske thyselfe et c. Agayne he writeth yn this wyse The heauenly autorite In homi pasehali de cons dist 2. Quia corpus c. confirmeth this matter My fleash is verilie meate and my bloud is verilie driÌ„ke lette then al doubte of vnfayth fullnes depart awaye for he that is the maker of the gyfte is also the wytnes Ioan. 8. of the trouth For the inuisible priest christ turneth by the word with Ã TransubstaÌ„tiation secrete power the visible creatures in to the substance of his bodie and bloud thus sayinge Take ye and eate This is my bodie And the sanctifieng repeted he saied thus Take and drinke This is my bloud Seest thow not now clerely good reader that this auncient father and great clearke is plainly against my lordes doctrine He wold not alleage these wordes because he saw that they were agaiÌ„st hym vtterlye Euen so the deuel alleaged Matth. 4. the scriptures against christ Aulters for the sacrament This doctour alloweth aulters for the

Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Text snippets containing the quad