A60427:63
Transubstantiation examined and confuted in two sermons on the Lord's Supper / preached in…Transusbstantiation examin'd and confuted in two sermons on the Lord's Supper / preach'd in…
Transubstantiation examined and confuted in two sermons on the Lord's Supper / preached in the reign of Queen Elizabeth by H. Smith, sometime preacher at St. Clement Danes.Transusbstantiation examin'd and confuted in two sermons on the Lord's Supper / preach'd in the reign of Queen Elizabeth by H. Smith, sometime preacher at St. Clement Danes.
London: printed by J. Wallis, 1688
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 1their Invincible Navies, is this. If the Bread be not his Body, why doth 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 2is my Body: as he saith after, which is broken for 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.
- 1Mar. 1. 40. Objection.
- 2Answer.
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 them object what they can.
Now as the breaking of the Bread did signifie the breaking of his Body, so the Bread must needs signifie 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 them object what they can.
If (say they) the Bread and Wine be not changed into his 1