Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	body_n	bread_n	transubstantiation_n	1,791	5	11.1891	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A16573	The complaynt of veritie, made by Iohn Bradford. An exhortacion of Mathewe Rogers, vnto his children. The complaynt of Raufe Allerton and others, being prisoners in Lolers tower, & wrytten with their bloud, how god was their comforte. A songe of Caine and Abell. The saieng of maister Houper, that he wrote the night before he suffered, vppon a wall with a cole, in the newe In, at Gloceter, and his saiyng at his deathe	Bradford, John, 1510?-1555.; Rogers, Matthew. Instruction of a father to his children.; Allerton, Ralph. A lamentable complaynt of the afflicted, unto god our onely healper.; Allerton, Ralph. A briefe rehersal of parte of the aucthours trouble, entituled God is my comforte.; Allerton, Ralph. Songe of the poore prisoners in Lolers tower.; Hooper, John, d. 1555. Wordes of Maister Houper at his death.; Hooper, John, d. 1555. These are the wordes that Maister John Houper wrote on the wall with a cole, in the newe inne in Gloceter, the night before he suffered.	1559 (1559)	STC 3479; ESTC S112643	64,740	174

to come againe of the Lords Supper I am purposed presently to speake through the helpe of God because wee are assembled in Christ I hope to celebrate the same Now that the things which I shall speake may bee better obserued and caried away of you I will tell you how and in what sort I will speake of it Thrée things would I haue marked as the principals and scopes whereto I wil referre all that I shall at this time speake thereof They be these Who what and wherefore That is to make it more plaine Who did institute this thing which we are about to celebrate this is the first The second is What the thing is which is instituted And the last is Wherefore and to what end it was instituted whereby we shall be taught how to vse it For the first Who did institute this Sacrament and Supper You all doe know that things are more estéemed sometime for the dignitie and authoritie of the person sometime for the wisedome of the person sometime for the power and magnificence of the person and sometime for the tender loue and kindnesse of the person If néed were I could by examples set forth euery one of these but I hope it is not necessary Now then how can the thing which wée bée about to celebrate but bée estéemed of euery one highly in that the Author of it doth want no dignitie no authoritie no wisdome no power no magnificence no holinesse no tender loue and kindnesse but hath all dignitie authoritie wisedome power magnificence holines tender loue mercie glory and all that can be wished absolutely Hee is GOD eternall coequall and substantiall with the Father and with the holy Ghost the Image of the substance of GOD the wisedome of the Father the brightnesse of his glorie by whome all things were made are ruled and gouerned He is the King of all Kings and the Lord of all Lords He is the Messias of the world our most deare and louing brother Sauiour Mediatour Aduocate Intercessour Husband Priest So that the thing which commeth from him cannot but bee estéemed loued and embraced if dignitie authoritie wisdome power glory goodnes and mercie like vs. Yea if any thing that can bee wished like vs then cannot this which our Lord did institute but like vs and that so much the more by how much it is one of the last things which hee did institute command God open our eyes to sée these things accordingly so shall we come with more reuerence to this Table of the Lord which thing hee graunt for his mercies sake Amen And thus much for the first who did institute this Sacrament Nowe to the second What the Sacrament is If we shall aske our eyes our nose our mouth our taste our hands and the reason of man they will all make a consonant answere that it is bread and wine And verely héerein they speake the trueth and lye not as by many things may bee proued although the papists prate their pleasure to the contrary And here my dearely beloued I thinke I shall not bee either tedious or vnprofitable vnto you if that I tary a litle in shewing this veritie that the substaunce of bread and wine remaine in the Sacrament after the wordes of consecration as they call them be spoken Whereby we may learne howe shamelesse beastes they bee which would enforce men to beleeue Transubstantiation which is an errour whereupon in a manner dependeth all Poperie For it is the stay of their Priesthood which is neither after the order of Aaron nor after y e order of Melchisedech but after the order of Baal which thing is something séene by their number For the false Prophets and Priestes of Baal were alwaies many moe in number when the wicked were in authoritie then the true Priests and Prophets of the Lorde as the holy Hystories of the Bible doe teach Reade the third of the Kings the 18. Chap. That in the Supper of the Lorde or in the Sacrament of Christes body which the Papists call the Sacrament of the Altar as though that were Christs Sacrament which thing they can neuer prooue For it béeing peruerted and vsed to a contrary end as of sacrificing propitiatorily for the sinnes of the quicke and of the dead of Idolatrie by adoring or worshipping it by godly honour c. is no more Christs Sacrament but an horrible prophanation of it and therefore as Christ called Gods Temple which was called an house of prayer for the abusing and prophaning of it by the Priests a denne of Théeues so this which the Papists call the Sacrament of the Altar full truely may wee call an abominable Idoll And therefore I would all men should know that the Sacrament of the Altar as the Papists now doe abuse it omitting certayne substantial points of the Lords institution and putting in the stead thereof their owne dregs dreames is not the Sacrament of Christs body nor the Lords Supper whereof when wee speake reuerently as our duetie is wée would not that men should thinke wee speake it of the popish Masse that I say in the Supper of the Lord or in the Sacrament of Christs body there remaineth the substance of bread and Wine as our senses and reasons doe teach these many things also doe teach the same First the holy Ghost doth plainely tell vs by calling it often bread after the words of Consecration as 1. Corinthians 10. Is not the bread which we breake a partaking of the body of Christ sayth Paul Loe plainely he saith The bread which we breake Not onely calling it bread but adding thereto breaking which cannot be attributed eyther to Christs body whereof no bone was broken eyther to any accident but must needs bee of a substance which substance if it bee not Christs body cannot be but bread As in the 11. Chapter foure times hee plainely calleth it Hee that eateth of this bread Hee that receiueth this bread c. And in the Acts of the Apostles we reade how that in speaking of the Communion They mette together to breake bread c. So that it is plaine that the substance of Bread and Wine doe remayne in the Supper after the woords of Consecration As also may appeare plainely by Christs owne words which calleth that which hée gaue them in the cuppe Wine or the fruite of the Vine as both Matthew Marke doe write Whereby we sée that there is no Transsubstantiation of the Wine and therefore may we also sée that there is no Transsubstantiation of the bread As for the Papists cauilling howe that it hath the name of bread because it was bread as Simon the Leper was called still Leprous though he was healed or as Moses Rod being turned into a Serpent was called a Rodde still it prooueth nothing For there was in the one a plaine sight and the senses certified that Simon was no Leper and in the other plaine mention that the Rod was turned

into a Serpent But concerning the Sacrament neyther the senses sée any other thing then bread neyther is there any mention made of turning And therefore their cauill is plainly séene to be but a cauill and of no force But to come againe to bring moe reasons against Transsubstantiation Secondly that the substance of bread remayneth still the very text doeth teach For the Euangelists and the Apostle Saint Paul doe witnesse that Christ gaue that to his disciples and called it his body which hee tooke on which hee gaue thanks and which hee brake but he tooke bread gaue thanks on bread and broke bread Ergo he gaue bread and called bread his body as he called the Cuppe the new Testament So that it followeth by this that there is no Transubstantiation And this reason I my selfe haue promised in writing to prooue by the authoritie of the Fathers namely Ireneus Tertullian Origine Ciprian Epiphanius Hieronimus Augustinus Theodorete Cirill Bede if so bee I may haue the vse of my bookes Thirdly that in the Sacrament there is no Transubstantiation of the bread by this reason I doe prooue Like as by our sauiour Christ the Spirit of trueth spake of the bread This is my body So sayth the same spirit of trueth of the same bread That wee many are one body and one bread c. So that as it appeareth the Sacrament not to bee in the Church by Transubstantiation euen so is it not Christs naturall body by Transubstantiation Fourthly I prooue that there is no Transsubstantiation by Luke and Pauls wordes spoken ouer the Cuppe For no lesse are they effectuall to Transsubstantiate the Cup then their words spoken of the bread are operatorious and mighty to Transsubstantiate the bread For as they say of the bread This is my body so say they of the Cup This Cup is the new Testament Which thing is absurde to bee spoken or thought eyther of the Cup or of the thing in the Cup by Transsubstantiation Yea rather in saying these wordes This Cup is the new Testament wee are taught by their coupling this worde Cup to the demonstratiue This how we should in these wordes This is my body knowe that this word This doeth there demonstrate bread Fiftly that the substance of bread remaineth in the Sacrament as the reasons before brought foorth do prooue so doth the definition of a Sacrament For the Fathers doe affirme it to consist of an earthly thing and of an heauenly thing of the word and of the element of sensible things and of things which bee perceiued by the minde But Trāssubstantiation taketh cleane away y e earthly thing the element the sensible thing and so maketh it no Sacrament And therefore the definition of a Sacrament full well teatheth that bread which is the earthly thing the sensible thing and the element remaineth still as saint Augustine saith The worde commeth to the element he sayth not taketh away the element and so it is made a Sacrament Sixtly the nature and propertie of a Sacrament teacheth this also which I haue affirmed For as Cyprian writeth that Sacraments beare the names of the things which they signifie so doeth saint Augustine teach that if Sacraments haue not some signification with the things where of they be Sacramentes then are they no Sacraments Now in the Lordes supper this similitude is first in nourishing y t as bread nourisheth the body so Christs body broken feedeth the soule Secondly in bringing together many into one that as in y e Sacrament many graines of Corne are made one bread many Grapes are made one lyquour and Wine so the multitude which worthily receiue the Sacrament are made one body with Christ and his Church Last of all in one vnlikely likelinesse or similitude that as bread eaten turneth into our nature so we rightly eating the Sacrament by faith turne into the nature of Christ So that it is plaine to them that wil sée that to take the substance of bread away is cleane against the nature and propertie of a Sacrament I will speake nothing how that this their doctrine of Transubstantiation beside the manifold absurdities it hath in it which to rehearse I omit it vtterly ouerthroweth the vse of the Sacrament and is cleane cōtrary to the end wherefore it was instituted so is no longer a Sacrament but an Idoll and is the cause of much Idolatrie conuerting the peoples hearts from an heauenly conuersation to an earthly and turning the Communion into a priuate action and a matter of gazing and piping of adoring and worshipping the worke of mens hands for the liuing God which dwelleth not in Temples made with mens hands much lesse lyeth he in Pixes and Chests whose true worshippe is in spirit and veritie which God graunt vs all to render vnto him continually Amen The Sacrament of Baptisme doth also teach vs that as the substance of the water remaineth there so in the Lords Supper remaineth the substance of bread after consecration For as by Baptisme we are engraffed into Christ so by the Supper we are fedde with Christ These two Sacraments the Apostle gladly coupleth together 1. Cor. 10. and 1. Cor. 12. Wee are baptized into one body sayth hee and haue drunke all of one spirit meaning it by the Cuppe as Chrysostome and other great learned men doe well interprete it As therefore in Baptisme is giuen vnto vs the holy Ghost and pardon of our sinnes which yet lie not lurking in the water so in the Lords Supper is giuen vnto vs the Communion of Christs bodie and bloud that is grace forgiuenesse of sinnes innocencie life immortalitie without any Transubstantiation or including of the same in the bread By Baptisme the old man is put off and the new man put on yea Christ is put on but without Transubstantiating the water And euen so it is in the Lords Supper Wee by fayth spiritually in our soules doe féed on Christs body broken do eate his flesh and drinke his blood doe dwell in him and he in vs but without Transsubstantiation As for the cauill they make that we are baptized into one body meaning thereby the mysticall body not the naturall body of Christ whereby they would enforce that wee are fed with the naturall body of Christ but wée are not ingraffed into it but into the mysticall body and so put away the reason aforesaid As for this cauill I say wee may soone auoyde it if so bee that we will consider how that Christ which is the head of the mysticall body is not separate from the body and therefore to be ingraffed to the mysticall body is to bée ingraffed into the naturall bodie of Christ to bée a member of his flesh and bones of his bones as Pope Leo full wel doeth witnesse in saying that Corpus regenerati fit caro crucifixi The body sayth hée of the regenerate is made the flesh of Christ crucified And

héereto I could adde some reasons for y e excellency of Baptisme I tro●e it bée more to bee gotten then to be nourished As for the excellent miracle of the patefaction of the Trinitie and the descending of the holy Ghost in Baptisme in ●visible forme the like whereto was not seene in the Lordes Supper I will omitte to speake of ●urther then that I would you should knowe howe it were no mastery to set foorth the excellencie of this Sacrament as well as of the Supper It is a plaine signe of Antichrist to deny the substance of bread and wine to bée in the Lordes Supper after consecration For in so dooing and graunting Transsubstantiation the propertie of the humane nature of Christ is denied For it is not of the humane nature but of the diuine nature to bée in many places at once As Didymus De spiritu sancto doeth prooue thereby the diuinitie of the holy Ghost Now grant Transsubstantiation and then Christes naturall body must needes bee in many places which is nothing else but to confound the two natures in Christ or to deny Christs humane nature which is the selfe same that Saint Iohn saith to deny Christ to be come in the flesh And this who so doeth by the testimonie of Saint Iohn is an Antichrist in his so doing whatsoeuer otherwise he doe prate Reade Saint Augustine in his Epistle to Dardanus and his 50. and 30. Treatise vpon Saint Iohn and easily you shall sée how that Christs body must néeds bee in one place Oportet in vno loco esse But his trueth is in all places If there bee no substance of bread in the Sacrament but Transubstantiation then Christs bodie is receyued of the vngodly and eaten with their téeth which is not onely against S. Augustine calling this spéech Except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man c. A figuratiue spéech but also against the plaine Scriptures which affirme them to dwell in Christ and Christ in them and they to haue euerlasting life that eate him which the wicked haue not although they eate the Sacrament Hee that eateth of this bread sayth Christ shall liue for euermore Therefore they eate not Christs bodie but as Paul saith they eate in iudgement and damnation which I trow be an other manner of thing then Christs body And this doth saint Augustine affirme saying None do eat Christs body which is not in the body of Christ that is as he expoūdeth it in whō Christ dwelleth not he in Christ Which thing the wicked doe not because they want faith and the holy Spirite which be the meanes whereby Christ is receiued To the things which I haue brought héerefoorth to improue Transubstantiation I could bring in the Fathers to confirme the same which succeeded continually many hundreth yéeres after Christ Also I could shew that Transubstantiation is but a newe doctrine not established before Sathan which was tyed for a thousand yéeres was letten loose Also I could shewe that euer hitherto since it was established in all times it hath bene resisted and spoken against Yea before this doctrine the Church was nothing so endowed with goods landes and possessions as it hath béene since It hath brought no small gaine no small honour no small ease to the Cleargie and therefore no maruaile though they striue and fight for it It is their Maozim it is their Helena GOD destroy it with the breath of his mouth as shortly he will for his names sake Amen If time would serue I could and would heere tell you of the absurdities which come by this doctrine but for times sake I must omit it Onely for Gods sake see this that this their doctrine of Transsubstantiation is an vntrueth already I haue proued and forget not that it is the whole stay of all Poperie and the pillar of their Priesthood whereby Christs Priesthood Sacrifice Ministerie Trueth is letted yea peruerted and vtterly ouerthrowne GOD our Father in the blood of his Sonne Christ open the eyes and minds of all our Magistrates all other that beare the name of Christ to sée to it in time to GODS glory and their owne saluation Amen Now to returne to the second matter what the Sacrament is you sée that to the senses and reason of man it is bread and wine Which is most true as by the scriptures and otherwise I haue already proued and therefore away with Transsubstantiation But héere least wee should make it no Sacrament for a Sacrament consisteth of two things and least a man should by this gather that wee make it none other thing but bare bread and a naked signe and so rayle at their pleasure on vs saying How can a man be guiltie of the body and blood of Christ by vnworthy receiuing of it if it be but bare bread so forth For this purpose I will now speake a litle more héereabout by GODS grace to stoppe their mouthes and to stirre vp your good hearts more to the worthy estimation and perception of this holy mysterie When a louing friend giueth to thée a thing or sendeth to thee a token as for an example a napkin or such like I thinke thou doest not as thou shouldest do if that with the thing thou considerest not the mind of thy friend that sendeth or giueth the thing and according thereunto estéemest and receyuest it And so of this bread thinke I that if thou doe not rather consider the mind of thy louer Christ then the thing which thou séeest yea if thou doe not altogether consider Christs mind thou dealest vnhonestly and strumpetlike with him For it is the propertie of strumpets to consider the things giuen and sent them rather then the loue and mind of the giue● sender whereas the true louers doe not consider in any poynt the things giuen or sent but the mind of the partie So wee if we bee true louers of Christ must not consider barely the outwarde thing which we see and our senses perceiue but rather altogether we must and should sée consider the minde of Christ and héereafter and accordingly to it to estéeme the Sacrament But how shall we know the minde of Christ Forsooth as a mans minde is best knowen by his word so by Christs worde shall we know his minde Now his words bee manifest and most plaine This saith he is my body therefore accordingly should we estéeme take and receiue it If he had spoken nothing or if he had spoken doubtfully then might we haue béene in some doubt But in that he speaketh so plainely saying This is my body who can may or dare be so bolde as to doubt of it He is the trueth and can not lye hee is omnipotent and can doe all things therefore it is his body This I beleeue this I confesse and pray you all heartily to beware of these and such like wordes that it is but a signe or a figure of his body Except yee will discerne betwixt signes which

signifie onely and signes which also doe represent confirme and seale vp or as a man may say giue with their signification As for an example An Iuie bush is a signe of Wine to be sold the budding of Aarons Rod did signifie Aarons Priesthood allowed of the Lord the reseruation of Moses Rod did signifie the rebellion of the children of Israel the stones taken out of Iordane Gedeons fléece of wooll c. Such as these be signes significatiue and shew no gift But in the other signes which some call exhibitiue is there not onely a signification of the thing but also a declaration of a gift yea in a certaine manner a giuing also As Baptisme signifieth not onely the cleansing of the conscience from sinne by the merits of Christs blood but also is a very cleansing from sinne And therefore it was sayd to Paul that he should arise and wash away his sinnes and not that hee should arise and take onely a signe of washing away his sinnes In the Lords Supper the bread is called a partaking of the Lords body and not onely a bare signe of the Lords body This I speake not as though the elements of these Sacraments were Transsubstantiate which I haue already impugned eyther as though Christs body were in bread or wine eyther were tyed to the elements otherwise then Sacramentally and spiritually eyther that the bread and wine may not and must not bee called Sacramentall and externall signes but that they might be discerned from significatiue and bare signes onely and bee taken for signes exhibitiue and representiue By this meanes a Christian conscience will call and estéeme the bread of the Lord as the body of Christ For it will neuer estéeme the Sacraments of Christ after their exterior appearance but after the words of Christ Whereof it commeth that the Fathers as Chrysostome and others doe speake with so full a mouth when they speake of the Sacrament for their respect was to Christs words If the Schoolemen which followed had the same spirit which they had then would they neuer haue consented to Transsubstantiation For with great admiration some of the Fathers doe say that the bread is changed or turned into the body of Christ and the wine into his blood meaning it of a mutation or change not corporall but spirituall figuratiue Sacramentall or mystical For now it is no common bread nor common wine béeing ordained to serue for the foode of the soule The Schoolemen haue vnderstood it as the Papists now preach of a substantiall changing as though it were no great miracle that common bread should now bee assumed into that dignitie that it should be called Christs body and serue for a celestiall foode and be made a Sacrament of his body and blood As before therefore I haue spoken I would wish that this Sacrament should be estéemed called of vs Christian men after Christs words namely Christs body and the wine Christs blood rather then otherwise Not that I meane any other presence of Christs body then a presence of grace a preseruer to Faith a presence spiritually and not corporally really naturally and carnally as the Papists doe meane For in such sort Christs body is onely in heauen on the right hand of God the Father almightie whither our faith in the vse of the Sacrament ascendeth and receyueth whole Christ accordingly Yea but one will say that to call the Sacrament on that sort is to giue an occasion of Idolatrie to the people which will take the Sacrament which they see simply for Christs bodie as by experience wée are well taught and therefore it were better to call it bread and so lesse harme should be especially in this age To this obiection I answer that indéed great Idolatrie is committed to and about this Sacrament and therefore men ought as much as they can to auoyd from occasioning or confirming it But in as much as the holy Ghost is wiser then man and had foresight of the euils that might bee and yet notwithstanding doth call it Christs bodie I thinke wee should doe euill if we should take vpon vs to reforme his spéech If Ministers did their dueties in Catechizing and Preaching then doubtlesse to call the Sacrament Christs body and to estéeme it accordingly could not giue occasion to Idolatrie and confirme it Therefore woe vnto them that preach not There bee two euils about the Sacraments which to auoyde the holy Ghost hath taught vs For least we should with the Papistes thinke Christes body present in or with the bread really naturally and corporally to be receiued with our bodily mouth where there is no other presence of Christes body then spirituall and to the faith in many places he kéepeth still the name of bread as in the Epistle to the Corinthians the tenth and eleuenth Chapters And least we should make too light of it making it but a bare signe and no better then common bread the holy Ghost calleth it Christes body whose spéech I wish we would followe and that not onely as well to auoyde the euill which is now a dayes most to be feared concerning the Sacrament I meane of contemning it as also for that no faithfull man commeth to the Sacrament to receiue bread simply but rather yea altogether to communicate with Christes body and blood For else to eate and drinke as Paul saith they haue houses of their owne The contempt of the Sacrament in the dayes of King Edward hath caused these plagues vpon vs presently the Lorde bee mercifull vnto vs. Amen And thus much for the obiection of calling the Sacrament by the name of Christes body What saith one to cal the Sacrament Christs body and to make none other presence then by grace or spiritually to faith which is of things hoped for and of things which to the bodily sences doe not appeare is to make no presence at all or to make him none otherwise present then hee is in his worde when it is preached and therefore what neede wée to receiue the Sacrament in as much as by this doctrine a man may receiue him dayly in the fielde as well and as much as in the Church in the celebration and vse of the Sacrament To this obiection I first answere that in deede neither the Scripture nor Christian Faith will giue vs leaue to make any carnall reall naturall corporall or any such grosse presence of Christs naturall body in the Sacrament For it is in Heauen and the Heauens must haue it as sayeth Pete● till Christes comming to iudgement except wée would denie the humanitie of Christ and the veritie of mans nature in him The presence therefore which wee beléeue and confesse is such a presence as reason knoweth not and the world cannot learn nor any that looketh in this matter with other eyes or heareth with other eares thē with the eares and eyes of the Spirit and of Faith Which Faith though it bee of things hoped for and so of things