Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	flesh_n	ghost_n	holy_a	8,217	5	5.2639	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A01008	A plea for the reall-presence Wherein the preface of Syr Humfrey Linde, concerning the booke of Bertram, is examined and censured. Written by I.O. vnto a gentleman his friend.	Floyd, John, 1572-1649.; Lynde, Humphrey, Sir.	1624 (1624)	STC 11113; ESTC S115112	24,472	65

same seemes to haue in their iudgement would haue all the holy Scriptures to set downe this truth more often and sequently more solemnely of set purpose more cleerely expressely then the truth of any other christiaÌ„ doctrine Out of which I gather these twelue expresse and formall sentences in this behalfe from Christ Iesus his own mouth Ioan. 6.51 The first The bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world Ibid. 53. The second Verily verily except you eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the son of Man you shall not haue life in you Ibid. 54. The third VVhosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life and I will rayse him vp at the last day Ibid. 55. The fourth My flesh is meate indeed my bloud is drinke indeed Ibid. 58. The fifth This is the bread that comes downe from heauen Ibid. 57. The sixt As the liuing Father hath sent me and I liue by the Father so he that eateth me he shall liue by me The seauenth Ibid. 56. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him The eight Ibid. 59. Not as your Fathers did eate the Manna in the wildernes and are dead He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer The nynth Mat. 26. v. 26. 27. 28. And as they were eating Iesus tooke bread blessed brake gaue to his disciples saying Take eate This is my Body And he tooke the cup and gaue thankes and gaue to them saying Drinke yee all of this for this is my Bloud which shall be shed for many vnto the remission of sinnes The tenth Marc. 14. v. 22. 23. 24. And as they did eate Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake and gaue to them saying This is my Body And he tooke the cup and when he had giuen thaÌ„kes he gaue to them and they drunke all thereof and he sayd to them This is my Bloud of the new Testament that is shed for many The eleuenth Luke 22.7 19. 20 He tooke bread gaue thankes and brake and gaue to them saying This is my Body which is giuen for you Likewise also the cup after supper saying This cup is the new Testament in my Bloud the cup that is shed for you The twelfth 1. Cor. 11. v. 24. 25. Our Lord Iesus the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread and when he had giuen thankes brake and sayd This is my Body that shall be giuen for you This doe in remeÌ„brance of me In like maÌ„ner the Cup when he had supped saying This cup is the new testament in my Bloud What could be spoken more cleare more expresse wherein will ProtestaÌ„ts beleeue Christ vpon his bare word submitting thereunto their carnall fancyes since they contradict the truth of this his text so reiterated in Scripture Reiecting the same as a dead letter that killeth as doth our Syr Humfrey Against whome to proue these wordes are to be taken in the litterall sense I will bring one only argument but that vsed by all the ancieÌ„t Fathers and conuincing The word of holy Scripture is to be vnderstood in the litterall sense when that sense is neyther wicked nor absurde This is a rule deliuered by (a) Lib. 3. de doctr christian cap. 7. S. Augustine and receaued of all handes els if it be lawfull by metaphore to destroy the literall sense of Scripture when without inconuenience the same may be vnderstood litterally we shall neuer be certaine of any sense but men wil turne and tosse the word of God by figuratiue construction as they please But the litteral sense of this word of Christ This is my body is neyther wicked nor absurd as I thus demonstrate The sense of Scripture that is possible vnto God is neyther wicked nor absurd for God can neyther be authour of a wicked thing because he is infinitly good nor of an absurd thing because he is infinitly wise but the litteral sense of this place to wit that bread is become really and substantially the body of Christ being changed into the substance therof is possible vnto God Who dares deny this Protestants though some (b) Calu. lib. 4. inst c. 17. Â§. 24. of theÌ„ mutter between the teeth against the omnipotency of God yet I haue not read any that doth in plaine terrmes affirme that God cannot turne the substance of bread into the substance of his body Yea (c) Conf. Wittemb cap. 144. some professe they beleeue this to be possible and that they would (d) Melan. epist ad Carolum Geralit rather burne then say that God cannot put the same body in many places at once Therfore the Catholicke that is the litterall sense of Christ his word This is my body is possible vnto God And this is the argument as I sayd vsed by the Fathers (e) Cyril Ambros Gaudent Euseb alij apud Claud. Zants repetit 3. c. 4 who proue the Reall Presence because Christ being God can do it to wit can conuert the substance of bread and wine into the substance of his body and bloud For if this literall sense be possible vnto God then it is neyther wicked nor absurd if neyther wicked nor absurd then to be receaued as the true sense if to be receaued as the true sense then also to be receaued as an article of fayth being the true litterall sense of Gods word coÌ„cerning the substaÌ„ce of a most mayne mystery of Religion consequently the Protestant Metaphore that destroyes this litterall sense is an accursed Heresy But the fault of our Aduersaryes in this affaire is not to beleeue more then they can vnderstand and to colour with fine words foule infidelity of hart Thus then yeelding vnto carnall imagination against the litterall sense of Gods holy word they christen and cal by the style of following the quickning spirit They are so blinded as they cannot discerne the suggestions of the flesh from the motions of the spirit For wherein they differ from vs about this Sacrament doe they not therein agree with all Infidels that are in the world Do not heretiks Iews Turkes Pagans beleeue as Protestants do against vs that the Christian Sacrament is really and substantially bread that the body of Christ is not really and substantially present therein Yea their doggs that sometymes lick vp the crums and bits that fall from their communion table could they speake would they not professe with their Maisters so far as their sayd masters differ from vs to wit that it is bread and not changed really into Christs body And yet this carnall Protestant-fancy wherein Infidels yea brut beasts conspire with them is forsooth the quicenkning spirit a doctrine which only the holy Ghost teacheth we waÌ„t fayth the spirit of heaueÌ„ly life because we do not beleeue that to be bread that so seemeth to flesh and bloud following

contrary For we thinke truely that any faythfull man doubteth whether that Bread becomes Christs body making Bertram to affirme that euery man doubts of this chaÌ„ge of bread into Christs body In catal col 1063. lin 6. 7. The sixth pag. 24. lin 1. Bertram makes Christ speake in this sort Doe not thinke you shall corporally eate my flesh deuided into parts or drinke my bloud Syr Humfrey translates Thinke not I pray you that you must eyther bodily eate my flesh or bodily drinke my bloud So that Bertram his deniall of carnall eating by tearing Christs flesh into peeces Syr Humfrey turnes into a deniall of substantiall eating thereof by reall suÌ„ption wheras (a) Cyril 10. in IoaÌ„ c. 13. corporaliter secunduÌ„ carnem In catal vbi supra lin 12. 13. 14. the Fathers in this sense say expresly we take in the Sacrament the flesh of Christ corporally The seauenth pag. 24. lin 13. Bertram bringes Christ saying Then after my ascension the bread and wine turned into the Substance of my body and bloud shall by the mystery or Sacrament be truely eaten of the Faythfull A place so cleare that Syr HuÌ„frey like a bat that endures not the light would beate the same out by mistranslation For thus it pleaseth him to make Bertram speake Bread and wine being turned into my body and bloud * All this is added the substance thereof shall in a mystery * VerÃ¨ omitted be receaued First he addeth the word Substance bread turned into the substaÌ„ce of Christs body shall be eaten sayth Bertram bread being turned into the substaÌ„ce of Christs body the substance of bread shall be eaten Syr Humfrey will haue him say Is this to translate not rather to peruert the meaning of Authours and make theÌ„ to speake foÌ„dly For if bread be turned in the substaÌ„ce of Christ body how can the substaÌ„ce therof remaine be eateÌ„ SecoÌ„dly he leaueth out the word truly saying only it is eaten whereas Bertram sayth it is truely eaten which is a substantiall omission in Bertram because Bertram in the beginning of his booke declares that he takes truly to signify the same as in substance really not only in figure so that if the body of Christ be truly eateÌ„ in Bertrams opinion it is eaten in the substance thereof really and not only in figure The eight BertraÌ„ saith pag. 27. lin 13. VVas not Christ immolated in himselfe only once Catal. col 1063. circa finem and that about Easter and yet in the Sacrament not only in all the festiuall dayes of Easter but also euery day he is sacrificed or immolated by the people Thus Bertram which is ranke papistry Now heare Syr Humfrey translating Bertram not into English but into Protestancy VVas not Christ offered about that tyme And yet notwithstaÌ„ding he is not only euery feast of Easter but euery day offered vnto the faythfull people Thus is Bertram trimmed by Syr Humfrey according to the Protestant cut In Catal. col 1064. circa medium The ninth Bertram sayth pag. 30. lin 8. It is not sayd that Christ doth suffer in himself euery day which he did but once Syr Humfrey to make this place sound against the Masse or dayly oblation of Christs body translates It is not sayd that Christ offers himselfe euery day because he did it but once The tenth Bertram sayth pag. 41. lin 6. Catal. col 1066. circa finem According to the substance or corporall Masse the creatures what they were before the same they afterward remaine But they were before bread and wine according to which forme shape they are seene still to remayne Therefore the thing is inwardly changed by the mighty power of the holy Ghost which change fayth beholdeth This place is too perspicuous for Transubstantiation therefore Syr Humfrey in his translation makes a Transubstantiation thereof changing the very substance of the sense into his owne contrary meaning VVhatsoeuer they were before consecration they are euen the same afterwards but they were bread and wine before and therefore they remayne the same which is proued because we see that euen wheÌ„ they are consecrated they remayne in the same kind or forme Surely Syr Humfrey this is not to translate Authours out of Latin into English but to translate fancyes out of your owne head into their Treatises For Bertram was wiser then to make this foolish argument which you foyst into his booke Bread remaynes in forme and shape therefore it remaynes in substance The eleuenth Bertram often in this Treatise names the dayly celebration of the mysteryes signifying the custome of priuate masses or celebrations without communion which Syr Humfrey not eÌ„during still aswell in Bertram as in the sentences of other Fathers translates celebration and administration by this addition to make Bertram a Protestant The twelfe and last place pag. 42. is most notoriously corrupted Catal. col 1067. init where for fourty lines togeather he translates not one sentence line or almost word with correspondeÌ„ce vnto the latin text I will note only his corruptioÌ„ of one line therof Bertram hath this sentence Corpus est Christi quod cernitur sanguis qui bibitur nec quaerendum quomodo factum sit sed tenendum quod sic factum fit VVhat is seene is Christs body what is druÌ„k is his bloud neyther ought we to search the manner how it is done but beleeue that so it is done Syr Humfrey thus translates That is Christs body which is seene that is bloud which is drunke and we must not enquire how it is made or becomes his body but beleeue and hold and so it is become his body Thus he thrusts into Bertrams booke his Puritanicall fayth Crede quod habes habes I now appeale vnto the iudgement of any indifferent Reader to giue senteÌ„ce First whether Syr HuÌ„frey haue not manifestly corrupted the book of his Bertram Secondly whether the booke can be cleare against TransubstaÌ„tiation and vtterly ouerthrow the same as Syr Humfrey boastes that in so many places makes so clearely for it Thirdly whether it be not the greatest vanity in the world to build a Religion against the Roman Catholicke and saluation out of their Church vpon this tract which is so papisticall as syr Humfrey his English translation is euen ashamed therof Finally whether the Protestants be not in extreme misery and beggary for want of professors and recorders of their Religion before Luther that can find no better then this Booke and this Authour wherof they bragge beyond measure THE FOVRTH POINT A grand Iury against Syr Humfrey shewing the Reall presence which he terames a dead letter to be the doctrin of Gods holy word and the perpetull doctrine of the Church THE infinite wisedom of Gods holy spirit foreseeing with what difficulty the Reall presence of Christs sacred flesh and pretious bloud in the Sacrament would be beleeued of carnall men in regard of the repugnance with reason the

Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Text snippets containing the quad