A16596:178
A double summons the one, to unfeigned repentance. The other, to the worthy receiving…A double summons the one, to vnfained repentance. The other, to the worthie receiuing…
A double summons the one, to unfeigned repentance. The other, to the worthy receiving of the Lords Supper. Delivered in two notable sermons: made, by that worthy martyr of Christ, John Bradford: who suffered in Smith-field An[n]o. Domini. 1555.A double summons the one, to vnfained repentance. The other, to the worthie receiuing of the Lords Supper. Deliuered in two notable sermons: made, by that worthy martyr of Christ, Iohn Bradford: who suffered in Smith-field An[n]o. Domini. 1555.
London: printed by George Purslowe, 1617
Title page typeset from the transcription.
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.
Lo plainly he saith: The bread which we break, Not only calling it bread, but adding thereto breaking, which cannot be attributed, either to Christs body, whereof no bone was broken, either to any accident, but must needs be of a substance, which substance if it be not Christs body, cannot be but bread.
Loe plainely he saith: The bread which we break, Not onely calling it bread, but adding thereto breaking, which cannot be attributed, eyther to Christs body, whereof no bone was broken, either to any accident, but must néeds be of a substance, which substance if it be not Christs body, cannot be but bread.
As in the 11. Chapter four times he plainly calleth it: He that eateth of this bread: He that receiveth this bread, &c. And in the Acts of the Apostles we read, how that in speaking of the Communion They ⟨p. 93⟩met together to break bread, &c. So that it is plain, that the substance of Bread and Wine do remain in the Supper, after the words of Consecration: As also may appear plainly by CHRISTS own words, which calleth that which he gave them in the cup, Wine, or the fruit of the Vine; as both Matthew, and Mark do write. Whereby we fee, that there is no Transubstantiation of the Wine: and therefore may we also see, that there is no Transubstantiation of the bread.
As in the 11. Chapter fonre times he plainly calleth it: He that eateth of this bread: He that receiueth this bread, &c. And in the Acts of the Apostels wee reade, how that in speaking of the Communion They ⟨p. 93⟩met together to breake bread, &c. So that it is plaine, that the substance of Bread and Wine doe remaine in the Supper, after the words of Consecration: As also may appeare plainely by CHRISTS owne words, which calleth that which he gaue them in the cuppe, Wine, or the fruit of the Vine; as both Mathew, and Marke do write. Whereby wee fee, that there is no Transsubstantiation of the Wine: and therefore may wee also see, that there is no Transsubstantiation of the bread.