Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	body_n	bread_n	transubstantiation_n	2,166	5	10.9952	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A14463	A Christian instruction, conteyning the law and the Gospell Also a summarie of the principall poyntes of the Christian fayth and religion, and of the abuses and errors contrary to the same. Done in certayne dialogues in french, by M. Peter Viret, sometime minister of the Word of God at Nymes in Prouince. Translated by I.S. Seene and allowed according to the Queenes Maiesties iniunctions.; Instruction chrestienne en la doctrine de la loy et de l'Evangile. English. Selections	Viret, Pierre, 1511-1571.; Viret, Pierre, 1511-1571. Instruction chrestienne et somme generale de la doctrine comprinse ès sainctes Escritures. aut; Shute, John, fl. 1562-1573.	1573 (1573)	STC 24778; ESTC S119199	214,871	552

of the signes how God doth accomplishe by effect that which is signified as well by the worde as by the signes Of things to consider in the signes and in the signification of them in all Sacramentes M. WHat hast thou yet to saye of the sygnes and of their signification Peter Thou séest how that Iesus Chryst was not contented with the wordes only in the Supper but he added also therevnto the signes of the breade and of the wine as is that of the water in baptisme M. I demaund thée nothing of their signification For thou hast alredy declared it vnto me P. Thou hast only to note that these signes are not true signes without the things signified by them VVhether Hipocrites and Infidells do as vvell communicate in the Supper of the things signified by the signes as they do of the signes M. IF it be so that the signes be not vaine neyther in the supper nor yet in the other Sacraments without hauing with them the things which they signifie it thē followeth that whosoeuer receyueth the signes receyueth also the things signified by them and by that meane the infidells which are hypocrits do no lesse part take of the whole Sacramente than do the faithfull P. Thou concludest not well For when I say that the signes are not in the Sacraments without the thinges by them signified thou must vnderstād that on God his parte for he dothe not sette foorth his worde and sacraments to men without presenting vnto them also the things wherof he doth admonish them by the same Ma. How commeth it then to passe that all do not communicate alyke Pe. Bycause that all they to whome the gyftes of God are offered do not receyue them M. What is the cause that they do not receiue them P. Bicause they bring not fayth with them without the whiche no man can receiue them M. Thou wilt then say that they shut themselues from it by meane of their vnbeléefe and that it is not sufficient that the gifts of God bée presented vnto vs by his worde and hys sacraments if that forthwith they be not receiued and they can not be receiued but by meane of Faith which the infidels and hypocrites haue not P. Thou oughtest here to vnderstād that Iesus Christ may not be separated from his sprite séeing that it is so as none can receyue him but by his spirite euen so can hée not be receyued excepte he forthwith gyue hys holy spirite with him and doe make partakers of all these guiftes and graces all those whiche receiue him Mathevve Thou haste here yelded a greate reason Peter If it were not so there should be no difference betweene the faithfull and the infidell in the communion of GOD his Sacramentes and guyftes M. Yet thou confessest that notwythstandyng they may communicate of the outwarde signes as well as the other albeit they can not communicate of the thyngs signifyed by the signes Peter They maye there communicate well forsomuche as no mā may let them so long as they offer themselues as faithfull and that they be not discouered to the Churche for suche as they bée in sorte that they mought be vanquished of their vnworthinesse to seclude them wholly For if the things signified by the Sacramentes do not belong to them no more also doe belong the signes whiche signifie them Math. If they were then knowne of men to bée suche as they be before GOD they shoulde bée excommunicate to the ende they shoulde not approche Peter It is certayne And bycause that they are not knowne yf they were well aduysed they woulde of them selues forbeare for so much as they can not communicate of the very outward Sacramentes but to their condemnation bycause they are in no respect capable thereof wherfore they do but dishonour God and his Church prouoke daily more and more the wrath of God vpon them VVherfore are the breade and wyne called by the name of the body and bloud of Iesus Christ if they be not that body and bloud M. I Am satisfied touching that poynte but I haue yet some difficultie concerning that which thou hast said that the bread and the wine are not the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper and yet it séemeth that Iesus Christ saieth the contrarie cleane For he calleth them his body and his bloud by his owne wordes which thou hast euē now alledged P. But he meaneth not thereby that the breade wine are his body and bloude in proper substance in suche sort as their substance is cōuerted into the substance of his bodye and bloud M. For what cause then vseth he that maner of speache and hath not rather vsed some other more playne P. There are chiefely two reasons not only for that he vsed it but also why that maner of speache is more proper and more plaine in that matter than any other M. Which is the first of these reasons P. It is that when the holy scripture speaketh of Sacramentes it doth willingly name the signes with the names of the thinges whiche are signified by them And therfore Iesus Christ would accōmodate himselfe to that speache which the holy Ghost hath alwaye accustomed to vse in the Church bycause that it is familiar and easye to vnderstand to God his people with whō he hath to doe and vnto whom he doth addresse his doctrine M. And why is it that the holy Ghost speaketh rather this lāguage than otherwise P. Bycause it is more agréeable to this matter than any other M. For what cause P. For so muche as the Lorde will giue vs to vnderstand by suche phrases of speache that albeit that the signes of the Sacramentes be not the very same thinges which are signified by them yet notwithstanding they are not without them Of the manner in the vvhiche the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Christe are present in the supper and are communicate to the faithfull as vvell as the signes vvhich represent them M. IN what sorte then are they there if the signes remayn stil in their own substance P. Albeit they be not there by a naturall corporall materiall presence as the visible signes whiche are there giuen to vs that notwithstanding they be thereby a diuine spirituall vertue and maner wherby God by the vertue of his holy spirite doth make partaker of them all suche as by true and liuely faithe doe receiue his word and his sacraments by which he cōfirmeth the same in our harts Of the substantiall and naturall coniunction of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Christ with the bread and vvith the vvine of the Supper M. BVt if the breade and the wine doe not chaunge their substaunce and neyther be transubstantiated conuerted nor changed into the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Chryste may not then the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste be well ioyned to them in their owne proper substāce nature P. Ther are among those which reiect the false doctrine of transubstantiation

by the whiche we haue bene sometyme taught that the very substāce of the bread and of the wine was chaunged into the very substance of the body of the bloud of Iesus Chryst which ar of the opinion that thou now settest forth M. And why do they rather folow that opinion than the other P. Bicause that they know well that opinion to be too grosse And therfore they haue recourse to that other maner of presence of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste in the Supper whereof thou haste now made mention M. And what inconueniente fyndest thou in that opinion Peter I fynde not muche lesse therein than in that of Transubstantiation Math. Thou canste not saye at the leaste but that they whiche followe it doe take from the Supper the signes of the breade and of the wyne for so much as they ioyne them wyth the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Chryste the whiche they signifie Peter No more are they also so greatlye different in other matters to them that mayntain transubstantiation And therfore may we lawfully call the opiniō of such men cōsubstantiation M. What vnderstandest thou by this word of Consubstantiation P. As they which haue forged the transubstātiation do vnderstand by the same a changing of substance into an other euen so by the name of consubstantiation a man may vnderstande the coniunction of diuers substances togither Of the agreement that is betwene this opinion that of transubstantiation M. DEclare vnto me then wherin they do agrée and wherin they doe differ Peter For the first if they doe vnderstande that the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Christe bée wyth the breade and the wine in their own nature and substance and by a naturall corporall and materiall maner as the bread and the wyne are there they agrée therin with the erroure of transubstantiation M. It séemeth to mée that they drawe well to one poynte sauing that they make no transubstantiation nor chaunge of the breade and of the wine into the body and bloude of Iesus Christ P. Thou séest it plainely by that whiche we haue alredy sayde thou mayest well vnderstand that such a naturall and corporall presence of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper should be cleane contrary to the nature of a spirituall nouriture the whiche is there set foorth vnto vs and likewise to the māner of eating of the body and the flesh and the drinking of the bloud of Iesus Christ according to the whiche they may be eatē and dronkē for spirituall meate drinke The seauententh Dialogue is of the communication of Iesus Christ as wel in Baptisme as in the Supper VVherevnto baptisme and the signification thereof may serue to giue vs to vnderstand in vvhat sorte it behoueth vs to be nourished by the body and bloud of Iesus Christ MATHEVV I Haue well vnderstoode that thou hast sayde that we must be nourished with spirituall meate and nouriture into eternall life and that by a spirituall maner agreable to the spirituall birth and life into the which we are regenerate by baptisme and according to the testimonie of God which is set foorth vnto vs in the same concerning our regeneration P. That whiche thou sayest maye serue vs very much to the vnderstanding of the matter which we now hādle For thou doest wel know that we are not regenerate in baptisme by any corporall or material séede of the body and of the bloude of Iesus Christe nor by any naturall manner as we are naturally begotten by our fathers mothers M. I know well also that we may not enter againe into our mothers womb as Nicodeme said to Iesus christ to be borne a new once more as we are already once borne P. And therefore I doubt not but that thou doest well vnderstande that that regeneration and newe birth is wrought by a séede incorruptible spiritual and diuine by the which we are begotten into the Churche by the vertue of the holy Ghoste by whome we are regenerate into a new life In vvhat sorte vve do communicate of the body bloud of Iesus christ in baptism M. IT is not also said that Iesus Christ doth giue his body and his bloud in Baptisme as he doth in the supper like wise the water is not called therein the body and the bloud of Iesus Christe as Iesus Christ doth in the Supper call the bread the wine by the name of them P. Albeit the the water be not there called in baptisme by that name dost thou thinke for all that that the body and bloude of Iesus Christ be not there distributed and communicated vnto thée in the same as well as in the Supper M. I do not so vnderstand it P. Thou wilte then ordeyne a Baptisme withoute Iesus Christe M. Wherfore P. Bycause thou cāst not haue Iesus Christ except thou haue him wholy and very God and very man and that thou haue true communion with his body with his bloud not only in the supper but also in baptisme M. Shewe me the cause thereof P. It is bycause that the Baptisme doth no lesse sende vs to the deathe and passion and to the body and bloud of Iesus Christe than doth the Supper for somuch as that is proper to al sacramēts VVhat difference there is betvvene the baptisme and the Supper touching the communion of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ M. IT séemeth to me that thou speakest against that whiche thou hast sayde heretofore touching the difference which thou hast put betwene baptisme and the Supper for it séemeth that thou speakest now as though baptisme the supper were one very Sacramente and that there were no difference betwene them P. Thou makest an euill conclusion For albeit that we doe as well participate of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in baptisme as in the Supper yet notwithstanding there is difference in the participation and in the manner thereof in respect of the benefites of Iesus Christ whiche are signified and communicated vnto vs as wel in the one of the sacramēts as in the other M. I haue not thē wel vnderstoode thée yet heretofore and therfore declare vnto me more easily that whiche thou now speakest of P. Although the body of Iesus Christe be not giuen vnto vs in baptisme as for spirituall foode as it is in the Supper that notwithstanding it is there giuen vnto vs in very déede as a garment of innocencie of Iustice and of holynesse to couer all our sinnes before god And therefore S. Paule saith that all those which are baptised haue put on them Iesus Christ M. And of the bloud what sayest thou P. Albeit that it be not giuen vnto vs in Baptisme as for drinke as it is in the supper yet notwithstāding it is there giuen vnto vs for a spirituall washing of our soules and consciences whereby Iesus Christe dothe purifie and clense his Church in this lauer of