Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	wonderful_a	work_n	wrought_v	61	3	7.6711	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19563	An aunsvvere by the Reuerend Father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury, primate of all England and metropolitane, vnto a craftie and sophisticall cauillation, deuised by Stephen Gardiner Doctour of Law, late Byshop of Winchester agaynst the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament, of the body and bloud of our sauiour Iesu Christ Wherein is also, as occasion serueth, aunswered such places of the booke of Doct. Richard Smith, as may seeme any thyng worthy the aunsweryng. Here is also the true copy of the booke written, and in open court deliuered, by D. Stephen Gardiner ...; Answer of the Most Reverend Father in God Thomas Archebyshop of Canterburye, primate of all Englande and metropolitane unto a crafty and sophisticall cavillation devised by Stephen Gardiner doctour of law, late byshop of Winchester, agaynst the trewe and godly doctrine of the moste holy sacrament of the body and bloud of our saviour Jesu Christe	Cranmer, Thomas, 1489-1556.; Cranmer, Thomas, 1489-1556. Defence of the true and catholike doctrine of the sacrament of the body and bloud of our saviour Christ. Selections.; Gardiner, Stephen, 1483?-1555. Explication and assertion of the true catholique fayth, touchyng the moost blessed sacrament of the aulter.; Foxe, John, 1516-1587. Actes and monuments.	1580 (1580)	STC 5992; ESTC S107277	634,332	462

is not in the sacrament And forasmuch as I speake not one word of the comprehension of our senses to what purpose do you bring this in if it be not to draw vs to a new matter to auoyd that which is in controuersy You do herein as if Iames should by of Iohn a percell of land and by his atturney take state and possession therein And after Iohn should trauers the matter and say that there was neuer no state deliuered and thereupon ioyne their issue And when Iames should bryng forth his witnesses for the state and possession thē should Iohn runne to a new matter and say that Iames saw the possession deliuered what were this allegation of Iohn to the purpose of the thing that was in issue whether the possession were deliuered in deede or no Were this any other thing then to auoid the issue craftely by bringing in of a new matter And yet this shift is a common practise of you in this booke and this is another point of the deuils Sophistry wherin it is pitty that euer such a wit as you haue should be occupied Again you say that impudently I beare the Catholick church in hand to teach that I list to beare in hand may by wanton reason be deduced of their teaching wheras al true christen men beleeue simply Christs words and trouble not their heads with such consequences This is in the author no whispering but plain railing say you This is your barking eloquēce wherewith your booke is well furnished for as dogs barke at the moone without any cause so doe you in this place For I doe no more but truely reporte what the Papistes them selues doe write and no otherwise not bearing the Catholick church in hand that it so teacheth but charging the Papistes that they so teach nor bearing the Papistes in hand what I list or what by wantō reason may be deduced of their teaching but reporting onely what their own words and sayinges be And if they be no true christen men that trouble their heades with such matters as you affirme they be not then was Innocent the third the chiefe author of your doctrin both of transubstantiation and of the reall presēce no true christian man as I beleeue well inough Then was your Saint Thomas no true christian man Then Gabriell Duns Durand and the great rablement of the schoole authors which taught your doctrin of trāsubstantiation and of the reall presence were not true christen men And in few words to comprehend the whol then were almost none that taught that doctrine true christen men but your selfe alone For almost all with one consent doe teach that wholl Christ is really in euery part of the host But your termes here of rayling mocking and scorning I would haue taken patiently at your hand if your tongue and pen had not ouershot thē selues in braging so far that the truth by you should be defaced But now I shal be so bold as to send those termes thether from whence they came And for the matter it selfe I am ready to ioyn an issue with you notwithstanding all your stout and boasting words But in Gods workes say you as the Sacramentes be we must think all seemelines in deede without deformity But what seemelines is this in a mannes body that the head is where the feete be and the armes where the legges be which the Papistes doe teach and your selfe seeme to confesse when you say that the partes of Christes body be distinct in themselues one from another in their own substance but not by circumscription of seuerall places And yet you seeme again to deny the same in your wise dialogue or quadriloge betweene the curious questioner the folish ans̄werer your wise catholick man standing by and the mediator In which dialoge you bring in your wise catholick man to condemne of madnes all such as say that Christes head is there where his feete be and so you condemne of madnes not onely al the scholasticall doctors which say that Christ is wholl in euery part of the cōsecrated bread but also your own former saying where you deny the distinction of the partes of Christs body in seuerall places Wherefore the mediator seemeth wiser then you all who losing this knot of Gordius saith that Christes body how big soeuer it be may be as well signified by a little peece of bread as by a greate and so as concerning the reason of a sacramēt al is one whether it be an whol bread or a peece of it as it skilleth not whether a man be christened in the wholl fonte or in a parte of the water taken out therof For the respect and consideration of the Sacrament is all one in the lesse and more But this fourth man say you hath no participation with faith condemning all the true publick faith testified in the church from the beginning hetherto which hath euer with wonder marueiled at the mistery of the Sacrament which is no wonder at all if bread be but a signification of Christ his body this is a wonderfull saying of you as of one that vnderstoode nothing vtterly what a Sacrament meaneth and what is to be wondred at in the Sacrament For the wonder is not how God worketh in the outward visible Sacrament but his marueilous worke is in the worthy receauers of the Sacramentes The wonderfull worke of God is not in the water which o●ely washeth the body but God by his omnipotent power worketh wonderfully in the receauers thereof scouring washing and making them clean inwardly and as it were new mē and celestiall creatures This haue all●olde authors wondered at this wonder passeth the capacities of all mens wits how damnation is turned into saluation and of the Sonne of the deuill condemned into hell is made the Sonne of God and inheritour of heauen This wonderfull worke of God all men may maruel and wonder at but no creature is able sufficiently to comprehend it And as this is wondred at in the Sacrament of Baptisme how he that was subiect vnto death receiueth life by Christ and his holy Spirite So is this wondred at in the Sacrament of Christes holy Table how the same life is continued and endureth for euer by continuall feeding vpon Christes flesh and his bloud And these wonderfull workes of God towardes vs we be taught by Gods holy worde and his Sacramentes of breade wine and water and yet be not these wōderfull workes of God in the Sacraments but in vs. And although many authors vse this manner of speech that Christ maketh bread his body and wine his bloud and wonder thereat yet those authors mean not of the bread and wine in them selues but of the bread and wine eaten and dronken of faithfull people For when Christ called bread his body and wine his bloud he wake not those words to the bread wine but to the eaters and drinkers of them saying Eat this is my body Drink this is my

he is maried and ioyned in his proper kynd and in his wordes and sacramentes as it were sensibly geuen But how so euer I report Origene you captiously and very vntruely do report me For wheras I say that in Gods word and in the sacramēts of baptisme and of the Lordes supper Christ is manifested and exhibited vnto vs as it were face to face and sensibly you leauing out these wordes as it were make a quarell to this word sensibly or rather you make that word sensibly the foundation of all your weake building as though there were no difference betwene sensibly and as it were sensibly and as it were all one thing a man to lye sleaping and as he were sleaping or deade and as he were dead Do not I write thus in my first booke that the washing in the water of baptisme is as it were a shewing of Christ before our eyes and a sensible touching feeling and groping of him And do these wordes import that we see him grope him indede And further I say that the eating and drinking of the sacramentall bread and wine is as it were a shewing of Christ before our eyes a smelling of him with our noses and a feeling groping of him with our handes And doe we therfore see him indede with our corporall eyes smell him with our noses and put our handes in his side and fele his woundes If it were so indede I would not adde these wordes as it were For what speach were this of a thing that is in dede to say as it were For these wordes as it were signifie that it is not so indede So now likewise in this place of Origene where it is sayd that Christ in his wordes and sacramentes is manifested and exhibited vnto vs as it were face to face and sensibly it is not ment that Christ is so exhibited in dede face to face and sensibly but the sence is cleane contrary that he is not there geuen sensibly nor face to face Thus it apeareth how vprightly you handell this matter and how truely you reporte my wordes But the further you proceade in your aunswer the more you shew crafty iuggeling legier de mayne passe a gods name to blynd mens eyes strange speaches new inuentions not without much impietie as the wordes sound but what the meaning is no man can tell but the maker him selfe But as the words be placed it seemeth you meane that in the Lordes supper we be not made by Christes spirite participant of the benefyt of his passion nor by baptisme or Gods word we be not made participant of his godhead by his humanite and furthermore by this distinction which you fayne without any ground of Origene we receaue not man and God in baptisme nor in the Lordes supper we be not by meanes of his godhead made participant of the effect of his passion In baptisme also by your distinction we receaue not a pledge of the regeneration of our flesh but in the Lordes supper nor Christ is not truely present in baptisme Which your sayd differences do not onely derogate and diminish the effect and dignitie of Christes sacraments but be also blasphemous agaynst the ineffable vnite of Christes person separating his diuinitie from his humanitie Here may all men of iudgement see by experience how diuinity is handled when it cometh to the discussion of ignoraunt lawyers And in all these your sayinges if you meane as the wordes be I make an yssue with you for the price of a fagot And where you say that our flesh in the generall resurrection shal be spirituall here I offer a like yssue except you vnderstand a spirituall body to be a sensible and palpable body that hath all perfect members distinct which thing in sundrie places of your booke you seeme vtterly to deny And where you make this difference betwene baptisme and this sacrament that in baptisme Christ is not really present expounding Really present to signifie no more but to be indede present yet after a spirituall manner if you deny that presence to be in baptisme yet the third fagot I will aduenture with you for your strange and vngodly doctrine within xx lines togither who may in equalitie of errour contend with the Ualentines Arrians or Anabaptistes But when you come here to your lies declaring the wordes sensibly really substancially corporally and naturally you speake so fondly vnlearnedly and ignorantly as they that know you not might thinke that you vnderstood neither grammer english nor reason For who is so ignoraunt but he knoweth that aduerbes that ende in ly be aduerbes of quallity and being added to the verbe they expresse the manner forme and fashion how a thing is and not the substance of it As speaking wisely learnedly and playnly is to speake after such a forme and manner as wise men learned and playn men do speake And to do wisely and godly is to do in such sort and fashion as wise and godly men do And sometyme the aduerbe ly signifieth the maner of a thing that is indede and sometyme the maner of a thing that is not As when a man speaketh wisely that is wise indede And yet somtyme we say fooles speake wisely which although they be not wise yet they vtter some speaches in such sorte as though they were wise The King we say vseth him selfe princely in all his doinges who is a prince in dede but we say also of an arrogant wilfull and proude man that he vseth him selfe princely and Imperiousely although he be neither Prince nor Emperoure and yet we vse so to speake of him bicause of the maner forme and fashion of vsing him selfe And if you aunswer foolishly and vnlearnedly be you therfore a foole and vnlearned Nay but then your aūswers be made in such wise maner sort and fashion as you were neither learned nor wise Or if you send to Rome or receaue priuate letters from thence be you therfore a Papist God is iudge therof but yet do you Popishly that is to say vse such maner and fashion as the Papistes do But where the forme and maner lacketh there the aduerbes of qualitie in ly haue no place although the thing be there indede As when a wise man speaketh not in such a sorte in such a fashion and wise as a wise man should speake not withstanding that he is wise in dede yet we say not that he speaketh wisely but foolishly And the godly King Dauid did vngodly when he took Bersabe and slew Urye her husband bicause that maner of doing was not godly So do all English men vnderstand by these wordes sensibly substancially corporally naturally carnally spiritually and such like the maner and forme of being and not the thing it selfe without the sayde formes and maners For when Christ was borne and rose from death and wrought miracles we say not that he did these thinges naturally bicause the meane maner was not after a naturall sort

onely into imaginations contrary to the truth of Gods word but also contrary to your selfe But let passe away these Papisticall inuentions and let vs humbly professe ourselues with all our Sacrifices not worthy to approche vnto God nor to haue any accesse vnto him but by that onely propitiatorie sacrifice which Christ onely made vpon the Crosse. And yet let vs with all deuotion with whole hart and mynde and with all obedience to Gods will come vnto the heauenly Supper of Christ thankyng him onely for propitiation of our sinnes In which holy Communion the act of the Minister and other be all of one sort none propitiatorie but all of laudes and thankes geuyng And such sacrifices be pleasaunt and acceptable to God as S. Paule sayth done of them that be good but they winne not his fauour and put away his indignation from them that be euill For such reconciliation can no creature make but Christ alone And where you say that to call the dayly offeryng a sacrifice satisfactorie must haue an vnderstādyng that signifieth not the action of the priest here you may see what a businesse and hard worke it is to patch the Papistes ragges together and what absurdities you fall into thereby Euen now you sayd that the acte of the Priestes must needes bee a Sacrifice propitiatorie and now to haue an vnderstandyng for the same you bee driuen to so shamefull a shift that you say either cleane contrary that it is not the action of the Priest but the presence of Christ or els that the action of the Priest is none otherwise satisfactorie then all other Christen mens workes be For otherwise say you the dayly Sacrifice in respect of the action of the Priest can not be called satisfactorie Wherefore at length knowledgyng your Popish doctrine to sound euill fauoredly you confesse agayne the true Catholicke teachyng that this speach is to be frequented and vsed that the onely immolation of Christ in him selfe vpon the aultar of the Crosse is the very satisfactorie Sacrifice for reconciliation of mankynde to the fauour of God And where you say that you haue not read the dayly sacrifice of Christs most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory if you haue not read of satisfactory Masses it appeareth that you haue read but very little of the Schoole Authours And yet not many yeares agoe you might haue heard them preached in euery pardon But because you haue not read therof read Doctour Smithes booke of the sacrifice of the Masse and both your eares and eyes shal be full of it Whose furious blasphemies you haue with one sentēce here most truely reiected wherfore yet remaineth in you some good sparkes of the spirit that you so much detest such abhominatiō And yet such blasphemies you go about to salue and playster as much as you may by subtle and crafty interpretations For by such exposition as you make of the satisfactory singyng of the Priest in doyng his duetie in that he was required to do by this exposition he singeth aswell satisfactory in saying of Mattens as in saying of Masse for in both he doth his duetie that he required vnto and so might it be defended that the Player vpon the Orgaines playeth satisfactory when he doth his duety in playing as he is required And all the singyng men in the Church that haue wages thereto sing satisfactory aswell as the Priestes when they sing accordyng to that they be hyered vnto And then as one singyng man or player on the Orgaines receauyng a stipende of many men to play or sing at a certaine tyme if he do his duety satisfieth them all at once so might a priest sing satisfactory for many persons at one tyme which the teachers of satisfactory Masses vtterly condemne But if you had read Duns you would haue written more Clerkely in these matters then you now do Now let vs heare what you say further Winchester Where the Authour cityng S. Paul Englisheth him thus that Christes Priesthode can not passe from him to an other These wordes thus framed be not the simple and sincere expression of the truth of the text Whiche sayth that Christ hath a perpetuall Priesthode and the Gréeke hath a word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gréek Schooles expresse and expounde by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifiyng the Priesthode of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession as in the tribe of Leui wher was amōg mortal men succession in the office of Priesthode but Christ liueth euer and therfore is a perpetuall euerlastyng Priest by whose authoritie Priesthode is now in this visible Church as S. Paule ordered to Timothe and Tite and other places also confirme which Priestes visible Ministers to our inuisible Priest offer the dayly Sacrifice in Christes Churche that is to say with the very presence by Gods omnipotencie wrought of the most precious body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ shewyng forth Christes death and celebratyng the memory of his Supper and death accordyng to Christes institution so with dayly oblation and sacrifice of the selfe same Sacrifice to kindle in vs a thankeful remēbraunce of all Christes benefites vnto vs. Caunterbury VVHere you find your selfe greued with my citing of S. Paul that Christes priesthood cannot passe from him to another which is not say you the truth of the text which meaneth that the Priesthood of Christ endeth not in him to go to an other by succession your manner of speach herein is so darke that it geueth no light at all For it semeth to signify that Christes priesthood endeth but not to goe to other by succession but by some other meanes which thing if you meane then you make the endles priesthood of Christ to haue an end And if you mean it not but that Christs priesthood is endles and goeth to no other by succession nor other wise then I pray you what haue I offended in saying that Christs priesthood cannot passe from him to an other And as for the greeke wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify any manner of succession whether it be by inheritance adoption election purchase or any other meanes And he that is instituted and inducted into a benefice after an other is called his successor And Erasmus calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod in alium transire non potest And so doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify quod successione caret That is to say a thing that hath no succession nor passeth to none other And because Christ is a perpetuall and euerlasting priest that by one oblation made a full sacrifice of sinne for euer therfore his priesthood neither nedeth nor can passe to any other wherefore the ministers of Christes church be not now appoynted priests to make a new sacrifice for sinne as tho Christ had not done that at once sufficiently for euer but to preach abroad Christes sacrifice and to be ministers of his wordes