Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	body_n	bread_n	wine_n	4,141	5	8.0622	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00642	The vvhole doctrine of the Sacramentes plainlie and fullie set dovvne and declared out of the word of God. Written by Maister Dudley Fenner, and nowe published for the vse of the Church of God.	Fenner, Dudley, 1558?-1587.	1588 (1588)	STC 10778; ESTC S117607	33,455	80

and consecrated sayeth Hee that eateth this breade simplie that is this bread so blessed broken c. Secondlie we say when he sayeth He that eateth seeing hee ioyneth the proper subiect bread to eating the proper worke of it the body of Christ can not be properlie eaten as is shewed before It remayneth that we must call it properlie bread and so chap. 10. when he saith The breade which we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ Where note that bread before consecration can not bee the communion of the body of Christe by your owne iudgement Secondlie that metaphoricall bread can not be broken Christes body can not be broken therefore verie bread must here be vnderstoode Wherefore wee conclude that breade remayneth and this worde this must be referred to the breade and therefore they can not stande to proper significations of wordes they I saye who vrge it so much Nowe we will come to the reasons which proue that these wordes this is my bodye must be figuratiuelie taken and so consequentlie in that interpretation and figure which we haue shewed to bee proper neyther yet will wee for shortnes sake bringe all the reasons that might bee brought but these which are plainlie gathered out of the texte First Christ is sayde to giue that which he saith was his body nowe if this is my body be properlie vnderstood Christ had one body whiche gaue and another whiche was giuen But that is absurde therefore it must not properlie be vnderstoode Secondlie if the speach bee proper they are not diuers thinges as bread may be sayd properlie of an other as of a body but that can not be ergo Thirdlie if that be properlie vnderstood then Christ may be saide to be bread as well as breade Christ but that is false ergo c. Fourthlie if that bee proper then that which is true of the bread that it is of wheat is true of Christ and that whiche is true of Christ must also be true of the breade then also the breade shalbe vnited personallie vnto Christ as his bodye whiche is false and wicked therefore it must not bee so vnderstoode Fiftlie if bread be the body then there are meant two substances one for a signe the other for the spirituall matter and the accidentes as colour taste c. must signifie and seale into the body of Christ which is false Sixtlie if bread in deede be turned into the body and wine into the blood then they be separated truely or els the bread is blood and the wine is his bodye whiche is false if they be separated trulie then it was not onlie separated truelie in his death vppon the crosse which is false if Sacramentallie then it is his body and blood onely Sacramentallie that which doeth aptlie seale vp the body and blood of Christe whiche is that wee holde Seuenthlie if the bread bee his bodye in deede and the wine his blood in deede then Christ euery time the Supper is administred being aliue in heauen truely is dead in earth truely and bodily in deede which is blasphemous therefore it must not be vnderstoode properlie Eightlie if bread be turned into his body in deede or his body in deed be locallie with it then Christes body whiche alwayes hath his partes is visible c. hath a hande a foot c. differing from it selfe it shall the same time be inuisible yea no hande differing frō foote c. and there shalbe a contradiction his bodyes visible his bodyes not visible and so the trueth shall lye all which is abhominable Ninghtlie it is saide the bread broken is his body broken and the powring out of his blood whiche is a signe seale c. of it so must the bread and wine be his body and his blood as it representeth sealeth c. 10 If the wine be his blood in deede then blood is still powred out whiche is false 11 As the wine or cup is the newe Testament in his blood so the breade is his body and the wine is blood but that is a Sacrament which representeth sealeth the new testament in his blood Ergo it is not proper 12 Here is a playne difference betwixt that in the cup which is saide to be the newe Testament and betweene that wherein the Testament is that is his blood for these are distinguished therefore it is not properlie saide his blood 13 He sayeth Doe this in remembrance of mee therefore he is not here eaten 14 We are sayde to shewe forth his death till he come therfore bodily he is not come nor is not there nor can not bee properlie saide to be so onely by these manifest and plaine reasons out of the texte agreeing with the proportiō of faith we haue proued our iudgement Nowe then hauing shewed howe IESVS Christ his fleshe and blood is here in deede not bodilie howe it is receyued in deed not bodilie but spirituallie by fleshe wee must consider of that we saye that we receyue his fleshe and blood yea and so whole Christe which is in deed true and must necessarilie be vnderstoode as a ground and foundation of our whole comfort here and in deede it can not be otherwise for if we receyue him flesh and blood we must thereby needes receyue him God and man which is not separated from him whole Christ doeth dwell in vs Ephe. 3. neither can the flesh of it selfe iustifie fructifie quicken c. For these thinges being more excellent then the first creation are proper to the Godhead So then Christ doeth onely quicken vs by his fleshe and blood as by a meane or matter whereby he doeth cōuey the vertue and power of his Godhead in his sacrifice sufferings wherby he ouercame death and all principalities and powers in his resurrection by which he rose agayne so that wee must become one with Christe and he must be in vs and wee in him and he dwell in vs and wee in him whiche is by the vertue and power of his diuine working and the naturall vniting of his naturall humanitie to vs to whom we be knitten Therfore in that seauenth chapter of Saint Iohn he sayeth That not onelie his fleshe but he was the bread of life vers 35. Wee must come to him beleeue in him that we may neuer hunger nor thirst And verse 46.47.48 c. Then this foundation of strong comfort and consolation beeing layde let vs consider the endes and fruites of the receyuing of Christ Firste to Gods glorie then our good For Gods glorie that this heauenlie and excellent worke of the possession of Christ decread and brought to passe by one God in three persons might be remembred according as it is saide Doe this in remembrance of mee And agayne You shall shew forth the Lordes death tyll he come and that to the glorie of Gods wisedome power mercie c. which in the same may alwayes bee remembred praysed glorifyed c. whiche is with vnfeigned

receyuing which is inward and hath proportion with the outward must be by these meanes alone And so is the eatinge and drinking nothing but that worke of faith wherby Christ is so applyed as we feele our selues to drawe one spiritual nourishment by faith from him as shalbe after declared So then we doe see howe excellent this outwarde worke is if we consider aright the partes of the same the proportion they haue with this inwarde wherevnto nowe let vs come and brieflie touche the same The worke which is here represented and offred to all and sealed vp to the faithfull is God giuing in Christ and our receyuing of the body and blood of Christ crucified and so of him selfe When we saye that Christe his body and blood is not onely offered and giuen but of the faythefull thereof is sealed vp thereby we saide that we acknowledged and helde Christ to be present in deed euen as in baptisme and therefore his body and blood because it is receyued is our meate in deede as we shall see afterwarde But we doe not holde that he is bodily present in with the bread or that the bread is turned into his body for as we haue ground of the former bicause Paul sayeth The bread whiche wee breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ The Cuppe that we blesse is it not the communion of the blood of Christe that is an instrument whereby truly is communicated by the working of the H. Ghost to our faith the very bodye and blood of Christ so the wordes This is my body that is an instrument which offereth and representeth to all one body and sealeth vp the true receyuing of his very body and blood as shalbe proued by and by in the cōfutinge of the aduersaries the papistes which holde that the bread is turned into the body of Christ bicause this is my body must be properlie taken The Lutherians saye also that the body is bodilie and locallie with or in or vnder the breade because this word is must bee taken properlie Nowe their reason why it must bee taken properlie is because in the Sacramentes the speach must be proper and fit which is a false and vayne opinion For what speach is more fit effectual where the bodily things are instrumentes of spirituall and heauenlie thinges signes are to deliuer more effectuall thinges signified then these figuratiues whiche haue more grace and effectualnes in them And when one receyueth libertie and season of lande or an house or a citie by a signe who doeth not knowe this speach is more effectuall I giue this my lande this key of my house then if he had said This is a signe or token of my lande and my house deliuered And they are confuted by the Scriptures whiche doeth especiallie in Sacraments chose to vse this speach my couenat shalbe in your flesh speakinge of circumcision whiche yet is but a signe or Sacrament of his couenant as hee interpreteth there Genesis 13.11.13 when they are sayde to kill the Passeouer that is the Lambe whiche was a signe seale and remembrance of the Passeouer Exod. 13.21.11.13 c. So the Arke is often called the Lorde so the Altar of Moses Exod. 17.15 So the sonne of Iaacok Bethel Gene. 28.22 and to goe no further this place of the Apostle when hee sayeth This is the newe Testament in my blood will they haue it here proper and not as wee interprete it Will the papist saye wine is transubstantiated into the couenant of GOD which is not a substance but a trueth of promise onely And shall we haue two transubstantiations one into blood another into the couenant The Lutherians likewise will they haue the couenant to be there bodily remayning as remayning locallie whiche can not be in a place so then here the foundation is cleane ouerthrowen And yet they stande not to their rule for let them tell vs is this a proper speache this bread is my body that is hath with it or vnder it or in it my body Doe they not finde vs out a straunge and newe signification of this worde That it hath in it with it or vnder it which was neuer hearde of before And as for the Papistes we say also Howe can they saye this is a proper speache bread is my body that is bread is transubstantiated into my body that the proper signification of it is that is transubstantiated If they saye the breade is not vnderstoode in this worde this but the body then they make Christe to say This body is my body which besides the vnfitnes it hath with the Sacrament what shall become of the expresse texte for transubstantiation for here is no worde where it is expreslie sayde The breade is transubstantiated into my body so that they must bee driuen to their wooddon collections from expresse and proper wordes which they cleaue so much too But because this poynt is a grounde for many argumentes let vs make the trueth of this apparant First we see the playne following of the texte in speache and reason doeth plainlie shewe that this worde this is referred to the breade for when he sayeth Hee tooke bread he brake it and gaue it to them we aske whether he gaue not breade and that it be here to be vnderstood If not he gaue not that he brake and he brake in vayne Agayne when there is a playne worde breade going before which is necessarilie to be referred to breake and giue out how can they referre this to that went not afore and leaue out that which did Secondlie this worde eating whiche noteth the worke of the mouth in grindinge and preparing to digestion howe can it bee referred except they change the proper significaton to another then breade Thirdlie when as in the seconde part this is not referred to blood but to the Cup whiche he tooke blessed playn by Saint Luke and Paul Let them shewe howe it can be otherwise in the bread If they saye the Cup is put for that in it whiche is blood that is to begge the question and when as the adioyntes of colour taste strength is there as in a subiect will they saye that also is turned into the blood of Christ Fourthlie when Paul calleth it bread after it is receyued sayinge Hee that eateth this bread and drinketh this cuppe is it not here playne that this is referred to bread I know their slip that he called it bread by a figuratiue speache for spirituall nourishment as in Iohn Christ sayeth J am the breade whiche came downe from heauen c. to this I answere They are blinde if they can make no diuersitie betwixt that speache whiche is in Iohn where the circūstance is of Christe when he sayeth J am the breade of life and then that he sayeth not simplie breade but breade of life the bread whiche came downe from heauen c. and betweene this of Saint Paul who hauing made mencion of bread blessed