Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	blood_n	body_n	wine_n	4,504	5	8.0226	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A06764	An anatomi, that is to say a parting in peeces of the mass Which discouereth the horrible errors, and the infinit abuses vnknowen to the people, aswel of the mass as of the mass book, very profitable, yea most necessary for al Christian people. VVith a sermon of the sacrament of thankesgyuyng in the end, whiche declareth whether Christ be bodyly in the sacrament or not. By Chrystes humble seruant Anthoni de Adamo.; Annotomia della messa. English	Mainardi, Agostino, 1487-1563.	1556 (1556)	STC 17200; ESTC S111869	206,001	464

hād of god vnderstand you the thinges aboue and not the earthly thinges And shose men do the contrary for they drawe vs doune alow and to the earth sainge that Christ in the litle closeth and in the litle holes when we should haue oure conuersation aboue and in heauen and that we might saye with paule Oure conuersation is in heauen from whence we loke for oure lord Iesus Christ who shall chaunge oure wretched bodyes and shall make them lyke to his glorious bodye We think yea we be certayne that thus farr we haue playnely proued and shewed manye wayes that Christ Iesus is not bodelye in the sacrament of thankes geuinge or the lords supper as paule calleth it and that there is muche lesse made in the same anye substantiall turninge of the bread and the wyne into his body and bluod And we haue made it apere that the opinions whiche affirme such thinges be false ād erroneous There remayneth now in the end to see who were the auctoures of those strainge and phantasticall Imaginations and wherby they were moued to fynde them oute seinge they be withoute all reason and contrarye to Christes mynd and the whole holy scripture I haue not yet heatherto bene hable to know whan this opinion of the reall and bodely being of Iesus Christe in the sacrament did beginne It apereth that aboute the yere of oure lorde 877. or about the tyme of pope Iohn the eight or a litle before men began to dispute about that matter Iohn scotus an Englishe man not he that was called sottell but another more auntiēt and wery worthye in lerninge who florished in fraunce vnder Charles surnamed balde made a boke against this new opinion of the sacrament whose Iudgement shortly after Beringarius of the coūtrye of Turonne and deacon of Aungee followed a mā of singular lerninge ād of holy lyfe who dealt all his goods to the poure and lyued by the labour of his hādes as Platina writeth in the lyfe of Pope Iohn the fiftenth But one lanfranck of pauia bishop of Canterbery in England so much preuayled with his auctoritie with Pope Leo the nynth and so much persuaded him that in the councell of vercels he caused the sayd Ihon scotusses boke and berengarionses opinion who followed him to be condemned And it was ordeined in that councell that men ought to beleue not onely Christes presence in the sacrament but the turning of the bread and the wyne into his body and bluod And this was as Mat. palmerius and Iohn lucidus Samothenus in the amendements of the tymes saye in the yere of the lord 1052. so that it is now iust 500. yeares sence this new opinion of the turninge of the substāces of the bread and the wyne into Christes bodye and bluod was first determined Beringarius opinion of the sacrament the which was condēned as lanfrāck setteth it out in his booke made against him is this The sacrifice of the church is mad of 2. things of the seeable and of the vnseeable that is to say of the sacrament and of the thing of the sacrament The which thing not withstanding that is to say the body of Christ if it were before mens eyes it should be seeable but it is lifted vntill the tymes of the restitutiōs of all thinges vp into heauen and sitting on the right hand of the father can not be called back from heauen as thapostell peter wryteth be cause that the parson of Christ hath his being of god and of man but the sacrament of the lords table is made of bread and of wyne the which things consecrated be not turned but abyde in their substances hauing lykelynes with those things whereof thei be a sacramēt This true and godly opynyon of Beringarius the which as we haue sayd before ●…s the opinion of the old church and is taken out of the holy scripture was condemned in the forsayd councell of ve●…selles And afterward a nother tyme in Rome by pope Nicholas the second who compelled Beringarius to recant and make a beastly and shamefull confession contrary to his own true confession Beringarius recantation is put in the decree of consecration the .ij. distinction capite Ego beringarius where he confesseth and affirmeth that he beleueth with the church of Rome that the bread and the wyne which be set on thaltare be not onely a sacrament but also they be the true body and bluod of our lord Iesus Christ and that he is not only in the sacramēt but also in trowth sensually handled with the priestes handes and is brokē in peces ād with the teeth of the faithfull is gnawed in to morsels Doo ye think that this was a godly confession that they compelled this holy man Beringarius to make the which confesseth that Christ is in deede sensibly handeled that is to say towched and broken with the priestes handes and than after This host was such one as beleued all things that he is knawed in to morsels with the teeth of the faythfull Me thinketh that this confession is like vnto that bost of Bachanus that beleued to moch as it is said The gloser of the decree to whom such a maner of confession semed strange and crewel saw this well ynough and therfor he sayth if thow dowst not after a safe sort vnderstād Beringarius words thou shalt fall into a greatter heresy than that which he had The master of the sentences in the fourth the .xij. distinction myndy●…g to glose the words of the same confession sayth that the same to be sensibly handled may be referred both to th one and thother that is to say to the body and to the sacrament of the body But the same to be broken in peeces and to be knawed into morsels can not be said but of the sacrament only A good glose that speaketh contrary to the text This glose hath .ij. faultes First it speaketh against the auctor that is to say against the master of the sentences him self who geueth it because he will that Christ shuld be in the sacrament vndyuydably whole in the whole and whole in euery part of the sacrament If it be soo how can he be towched and handled with the priestes handes For somoch as that the thing which is handled is felt with the hādes and if it be felt it must nedes be hote or cold moist or drie hard or soft rough or smoth who did euer touch Christes body syns it ascended into heauen and dyd euer feele it whether it were whote could or of what qualytie it should be If the master of the sentences had said that the withcommes of the bread and the wyne be handled with handes he had sayd true according to his opynion because that the greatnes of the bread and the withcommes of it may be felt with handes but the withcommes of Christes body can not be felt Therfor Christes body can not be handled with the priestes handes Further if Christs body in the sacrament may be handled

with handes why should it not be seene It is playne that euery thing that is felt may also be seene if it be not a thorow shewer as the ayer is But who did eauer see Christ in the sacrament Thother fault of thesame glose is that it speaketh against the text For the text of beringarius confession sayth expresly that not only the sacrament but Christs body and bluod be sensibly handled with the priestes handes be broken and knawed to morsels with the teeth of the faithfull These wordes cannot haue that sense that the master of the sentences geueth them because that the body and the bluod be playnely spoken of and he sayth in the text that they be broken and gnawed into morsels with the faythfuls teeth Further it is not to be thought that they who were present at that confession did vnderstand the wordes otherwise thē according to the open and lettered signification For so moch as that in confessions men must chefelye speake playnely and not in such sort as it should be necessary to gyue them gloses and expositions but thei ought to be opē and many fast and farr from any doubt And so moch the more as they that compelled him to make that confession did wirt it them selues as it lyked thē It is sayd that a certen mā called Humbertus cardinall of burgony worded or if you will so call it framed that confessiō O Capernites This is the honor that thei did to Christ to constraine a poore mā to confesse that Christ who is immortall and vnsufferable should be sensibly handled and broken with the priestes handes and chawed and gnaued into morsels with the teeth of the faithfull Be these the councels gathered together in the holy gost Let the master of the sentences for all that and as many other glosers a●… be in the world glose at their pleasure yet thei shall neuer sett the matter well together This thing is to doltish yea it is a skorning both of the sacrament and of Christ him self what the causes should be that haue moued the deuysers of these opinyons of Christes bodyly presence in the sacrament and of the turning of the bread and the wyne into Christes body and bluod to Imagin such things I say in my Iudgsment that they be chefely .ij. The first is the ignorance of the maners of speach of the holy scripture because they were not exercysed in the same and they did imagen when Christ sayd this is my body shewing the bread And this is my bluod shewing the wyne that such a maner of speach cold not be true except that bread and that wyne were substantially and beingly the very body ād the very bluod of Christ or at the least that the one and thother that is to saie Christes body and bluod were with in the sacramēt Thei sawe that the words were clere and on the other side also that the old doctours many tymes did affirme and call the breade and the wyne body and bluod they thought that that was the mynd as well of the same doctor as of the holy scripture the which thing notwithstanding was neuer so And thei considered not that the same scripture whan it treateth of sacramēts is wōt to speak after that sort that is to say to call the sacraments by the name of the things signified as allredy we haue beforcertē tymes told ād that the doctors likwyse folow the same maner of speach this I think is one cause why thei did so vtter it And to proue this true whā thei goo about to proue their purpose thei alledge the saings of the doctors euel vnderstād ād those words of Christ This is my body shewing the bread ād this is my bluod shewing the wine as though he had mēt to sai that the substāces of the bread ād wyne shuld be turned into his body ād bluod Not cōsidering that Christ speake as the scripture is wont to speak whā it calleth the sacramēts by the name of the things signified And therfor thei haue affirmed those their opiniōs to be thīgs ꝑtaining to faith the which euery one should be būd to beleue as an article of the faith The foresaid lāfrāck in his boke of the sacramēt the which he wrote against Beringarius saith we beleue saith he that the earthly substāces the which vpon the lordes table be by the priestly ministery deuinelie hallowed by the heauēly powr be vnspeakably vncōceiuably ād meruelously turned in the veri essens or beīgnes of the lords body the formes of the same things and certē other qualy●…ies being reserued And he saith also that the iust mā who lyueth by faith doth not labor to serchout with arguments and to vnderstād with reson after what sort the bread is made flesh ād the wyne is turned in to bluod beingly the nature of the one and the other being changed because he will rather gyue faith to the heauenly my steryes to th entent that hereafter he might come to the rewards of faith then leauing the fayth to be toyled in vayne in conprehending those things that cannot be comprehended c. Thomas of aquyne in his hymne of the sacramēt of the lords body ād bluod sayth the lyke that is to saie the word flesh that is to sai the sonn of god made man with the word doth make bread flesh and the wyne is made Christes bluod and though the sense doo fayle to establish a pure hart yet faith only is sufficient And next after he sayth let him put to faith as a help for the fayling of the senses These .ij. men wold that opinion should be beleued as an article of the faith but if they haue beleued it as an article of the faith ād as their wordes doo affirme surely they haue slyghtly and euel fauordly beleued because that nothing ought to be beleued as an artycle of the faith except it be found expressely in the scripture Let them tell me then where is the scripture that they alledge Where is gods word on which they grownd their faith Should we beleue these doctours that make thearticles of the faith without gods word that bilde their bilding vpon the sand and not vpō the sure rock The first cause I say of such opynions was the ignorance of the holy scripture The second cause without comparayson is moch wors than this And parauenture it shall appeare to some that I am of an euell mynd thinking so moch euel as I doo of the auctours of such opinions But if thei will consider the disceightes the craftes and the nomber of abuses that be malytiously committed in the masse thei will sai surely that I am yet to gentle that I think not moch wors What good cā be thought of the beginning of so great an error from whens doth procede so many inconueniences and disorders The second cause I say that I imagine is this that is to saie that thei desired to gyue credite to the priuate masse that is to say to

the how many things are sayd of the Apostels ād are attributet to thē which neauer were We might than affter this sort attribute to the Apostels what we wold Paul writing to the Choryntes 1. Corith 11. teacheth them the forme of the dedicacion of the breade and the wyne and sayth that he had it of the lord and yet he putteth not in any of thes wordes and yet surely for all that he teacheth to consecrate well Why than doth he not putt in thes wordes Iff in the consecration there were nothing considered but the sentēc●… it made no matter though some words were added or minisshed so that the sentēce were not altered But the consideracion here is of the wordes that is to say what thei be to which Christ hath geuen the powr to consecrate and to them it behoueth not to add or to minissh All this I say according to their opinion For thei wold that Christ shuld haue geuen the vertew of consecrating to the wordes which he himselff spake and not to other And yet thes wordes that I say are added be neither in theuangelistes nor in Paule Here must we say that Paul taught not to consecrate well because he spake them not Or els iff Paul taught to consecrate well that Christ spake not thos wordes And if Christ spake them not thei haue vsed a great rasshnes that haue added them specyally hauing that opinion that thei haue of the consecracion that is to say of the powr geuen to thos wordes only that Christ pronownced Moreouer what is the cause that in the consecracion of the bread are not putt in thes wordes which christ pronoūced that is Quod ꝓuobis datur which is giuen for yow as Luke saith or els ꝙ pro uobis tradet ād frāgitur which is brokē for yow as Paul saith as in the cōsecratiō of the wine there be thes wordes Which shall be shed for yow and for many for the remission of sinnes the body being no lesse geuen for our redempcion than the blood Why haue thei in this part maymed the wordes of the consecracion of the breade and not thos of the consecracion of the wine let euery man Iudge if this ought to be done But this is the best of the matter that the defenders of the masse to mainteine it say that that breade and that wyne is changed the one in to the body that is to say the bread and the other in to the blood that is the wyne And are muche combered because thei can not tell what is shewed by this demonstratiue Hoc whan is said Hoc est corpus meū that is to say this is my body If by this word Hoc be shewed the breade the saing is false because the breade is not changed in to the body till all the wordes of the consecracion be vttered Iff the body be shewed it semeth that the body shuld be there before the wordes were spoken and before the consecracion shuld be made And we haue the like to say of the wordes of the consecracion of the wine which thing is declared whan is said Hoc ē n. sāguis meus c. Iff the wine be shewed it is false that the wine shuld be blood If the blood be shewed it semeth that the blood shuld be there before the consecration were made Which thing cānot be And therfor some say affter one sort and some affter a nother and to be short thei knowe not what thei may say One saith that this Hoc doth shewe partly to the sence and partly to the vnderstonding And this is the meaning of thes wordes this is my body that is to say that into which this thing shall be transsubstantiate is my body And this is the opinion of Rychard of S. Victor in his boke of the trinitye Certē other say that the with comes of the breade are shewed And this is my body is as moch to say as in this is my body Some other say that this pronown Hoc is taken materially and doth not shewe any thing whan it is pronownced in the cōsecraciō But christes wordes only are repeated To other the contray appeareth ffor whan Christ pronownced thos wordes he shwed some thing and did consecrate Therfor now also being the same wordes and hauing the selff same vse that thei had whan Christ spake them thei shall haue the selff same significacion And euen as Christ than shewed some thing so now must some thing be shewed Innocentius the iij. in his bokes of the office of the masse doth hold that Christ cōsecrated with other words thā thes Hoc est corpus meū and Hic ē calix sāguinis mei Some other haue said that the powr of consecrating is geuen to thes wordes that is to say that at the vttering of them is made he trāssubstāciacion Some other say and amōg he rest master Durant that Christ first did consecrate with a diuine powr not knowē to vs and affter he declared the fasshiō with which affter him mē shuld consecrate For Christ blessed with his own powr but we doo blesse by the vertu that he hath geuen to the wordes with which men cōsecrate that is Hoc est corpus meum and hic est sanguis meus And whan the priest pronownceth thes wordes the breade is changed into the body and the wine in to the bloode There be other that say that Christ consecrated with other wordes than thes Hoc est corpus meum and that he consecrated whan he blessed Peter cōmestor saith that Christ consecrated with thes wordes Hoc est corpus meum and hic est sanguis meus but he spake them sofftly to him selff and changed the breade in to the body and the wine in to the blood and affter he repeated them with a lowd voice to the apostels Other some say that Christ pronownced the wordes twise first to geue them the vertu of consecrating and affter he pronownced the same wordes to teach the apostels the fasshon of consecrating and this opiniō is litle differing from the former Some other say that the breade and the wine are both consecrated together that is to say whan the wine is consecrated than is the breade consecrated and not before Other some say that the breade first is consecrated and aff●…er the wine Abowt the forme of consecrating of the wine some say as Bonauenture in the iiij of the sentences the viij distinction and many other that thes wordes hic est calix sanguinis mei be of the substance of the forme of consecrating the wine the other which be added that is to say Noui aeter ni testamenti be only to furnissh Thomas of Aquine in the iij. part of his somm saith that all thes wordes be of the substance Scotus saith that being vnknowen for certenty whether thei be of the substance of the form or not that men ought not to determine that it shuld be so but thei ought to say all as iff thei were of

is god the maker of nature can bringe it to passe in his body that is to saye that first the bread should be turned into his bodye and the wyne into his bluod and after then that it should be whole in the whole hoste and in the cupp and whole in euery parte of the sacrament and that it should be in dyuers places If he can do those thinges and will doo them as we vnderstand by the words of the sacrament the whiche say this is my bodye shewing the bread and this is my bluod sh●…winge the wyne then they be done because it is written in the psalme Quaecunque uoluit fecit dominus All thinges that the lord wold do he did I answer first to the reason it self and after I will speake of the similitudes To the reason that is to say if god can do it therfore he hath done it I say that it awayleth not and it is already answered before in oure seauenth reason that god doth not all that he can do as we geue the example of the twelue thousand legions of Aungels the which god if he wold could haue sent to help Christ and yet he sent them not God can bringe to passe that we all maie walke vpon the sea without shippes as some tyme Christ did And as it is written in the boke of wysdom and yet he doth it not Oure question is not whether god can do it or no but it is whether god hath done it or no. Thei saiyes and we saye no It belongeth to them to proue that he hath done it and that he doth it a fresh the which they shall neauer do nor can neauer bringe it to passe by gods word this is a suer rule Concerninge that they go aboute to saye that god had desire to do it this is not onely false but most false What reason is this Christ sayd this is my body shewinge the bread and this is my bluod shewinge the wyne therfore he will that the bread should be turned into his body and the wyne into his bluod or at the least that he should be in the sacrament in such sort as they say This reason doth not deserue any answer for so much as Christ by these words ment not to saye any other but that the bread and the wyne were a sacramēt and signes of his body and bluod and ment not to saye that which they affirme as before we haue so often declared The exāples or similitudes that they bringe furth be not to the purpose and thei be rather dissimilitudes then otherwise The example of Moyses rodd turned into the serpent and after the serpent turned into the rod and of the waters turned into bluod it is not like because the serpent Note further that in turninge of Moyses rod of the water into bluod and such other myracles the senses did witnes the chaunge of the thinges which holdeth not in the transubstantiation into the which the rodd was turned was not before but was newly made Likewise that bluod into the which the waters were turned was newlye made and was not before but Christes body and his bluod were and be before the bread They put certayne turninges against nature not maruelous but rather monstrous and Imaginatiue Let them geue me but one example in the hole scripture that god eauer turned one thinge into another that was before they shall not fynde it How dare they then be so bold to affirme such a thinge yea that which is more to go aboute to make men beleue it as an article of the fayth and yet thei cannot neather proue it by gods worde nor bringe furth any example that eauer any lyke thinge was done The example of the heauen that it is in oure eye which is litle is nothinge worthe because the heauē is not really in oure eye but there is onely the image or the similitude of the heauen the which similitude is litle as the eye nor it is not vnconuenient that the similitude or the Image of a great thinge shuld be litle as the Image of Cesar was in the coyne that was shewed to Christ by the pharisees the Image of Cesar was in that coyne the which was much lesse then Cesar himself and neuertheles it did represent Cesar who was great and much greater then that Image We will say the like of the Image of the man in the glasse the which althoughe that it be muche lesse then the man yet it doth represent the man This is no great matter that the Image of agreat thinge should be litle but it should be agreat matter that agreater body should be conteined in one much lesse as they say of Christ that great and thick as he was vpō the wood of the crosse and as presently he is in heauen he should be whole conteyned in a litle cake They that geue these examples of heauen and of the thinges that be seen in glasses do not proue that agreat bodye is conteyned in a litle as they say of Christ that he is conteyned in the hoste but they proue onely the Image or similitude of agreat thinge may be whole in a litle thinge the which we denie not but if the similitude or image of agreat thinge be in a litle thinge this is because that that Image it self also is litle and no greater then that body wher in it apereth yea it is lesse so that these exāples be not to the purpose To the other similitudes I say also that they auayle not that of the soule that it should be whole in the whole bodye and whole in euery parte of the bodye This is because the soule seing that it geueth lyfe to all the bodye as it is playne must nedes be in euery parte of the bodye for so much as that seinge it geueth lyfe not onely to the whole body but to euery parte of the same It is necessarye that it should be in all the partes because that if it were not in any parte that parte should not be a lyue And because that the soule wheresoeauer it is of necessitye it must be whole there being vndyuidable and not hauing partes because it is a spirite there fore it is necessary that the soule be whole in the whole and whole in euery parte of the body but Christes body not being a spirite and hauinge many partes beinge longe brode and thinke cannot be whole in the whole and whole in euery parte of the place where he is and as it is repugnaunte to a bodye to be a spirite so is it repugnant to it to be vndeuydhable in a place To the other similitude of oure face the which is whole in the whole and whole in euery parte of the glasse after this sorte that is to saye that when the glasse is broken the Image of the face is in euery peece of the glasse I say they be deceaued nor it is not true that one Image is in all those peeces of the glasse when it is