A12367:140
A preparative to marriage The sum whereof was spoken at a contract, and enlarged…A preparatiue to mariage The summe whereof was spoken at a contract, and inlarged…
A preparative to marriage The sum whereof was spoken at a contract, and enlarged after. Whereunto is annexed a treatise of the Lords Supper, and another of usury. By Henry Smith.A preparatiue to mariage The summe whereof was spoken at a contract, and inlarged after. Whereunto is annexed a treatise of the Lords Supper, and another of vsurie. By Henrie Smith.
London: printed by Thomas Orwin for Thomas Man, 1591
A Treatise of the Lords Supper; in two Sermons. › The first Sermon.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But the question which they think cannot be answered, like ⟨image 82⟩their invincible Navies, is this. If the Bread be not his body, why 1doth he call it his body? Resolve this knot and all is clear. Mark then and we will loose it as well as we can: He saith, This is my body, as he saith after, which is broken 2for you. Why? his body was not broken before he suffered, how did he say then, which is broken, before it was broken? There is no sense of it but this, the Bread was broken, and signified that his body should be broken. Now, as the breaking of the Bread did signify the breaking of his body, so the Bread must needs signify his body: but as his body was not broken indeed when the Bread was broken, so the Bread could not be his body indeed: for then his body should have been broken when the Bread was broken: yet let ⟨image 82⟩them object what they can.
But the question which they thinke cannot bee answered, like ⟨image 82⟩their inuincible Nauies, is this. If the Bread bee not his bodie, why 1doth he call it his bodie? Resolue this knot and all is cleere. Marke then and wee will loose it as well as we can: He saith, This is my bodie, as he saith after, which is broken 2for you. Why? his bodie was not broken before hee suffered, how did he say then, which is broken, before it was broken? There is no sense of it but this, the Bread was broken, and signified that his bodie should be broken. Now, as the breaking of the Bread did signifie the breaking of his bodie, so the Bread must needes signifie his bodie: but as his bodie was not broken indeede when the Bread was broken, so the Bread could not bee his bodie indeed: for then his bodie should haue been broken whē the Bread was broken: yet let ⟨image 82⟩