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
A68970	Two notable sermons. Made by that worthy martyr of Christ Maister Iohn Bradford, the one of repentance, and the other of the Lordes supper neuer before imprinted. Perused and allowed according to the Queenes Maiesties iniunction	Bradford, John, 1510?-1555.; Sampson, Thomas, 1517?-1589.	1574 (1574)	STC 3500.5; ESTC S106383	58,380	201

cā neuer proue For it being peruerted vsed to a contrary ende as of sacrifieyng propitiatorily for the syns of the quicke and of the dead of idolatry by adorning or worshipping it by godly honor c. is no more Christes Sacrament but an horrible prophanation of it and therefore as Christ called Gods Temple which was called au house of prayer for the abusing and prophanyng of it by the Priestes a den of the eues so this which the Papists call the sacrament of the Aultar full truly may we call au abominable Idol And therfore I would all men shoulde knowe that the sacrament of the Aultar as the Papistes now do abuse it omittyng certayne substantiall poyntes of the Lords iustitution and putting in the steede thereof their own dregs and dreaues is not the sacrament of Christs body nor the Lords supper wherof when we speake reuerently as our duty is we would not that men should thinke we 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 reason to teach these many thinges also do teach the same First the holy Christ doth plainly tell vs by calling it often bread aftrr the wordes of consecration as 1. Cornith 10. Is not the bread which we breake a partakyng of the body of Christ sayth Paule Loe plainly he saith the bread which we breake not onely calling it bread but addyng thereto breakyng which cannot be attributed eyther to Christes body whereof no bone was brokē either to any accident but must needes be of a substance which substance if it be not Christes body cannot be but bread As in the .xi. chapter foure times he plainly calleth it He that eateth of this bread He that receiueth this bread c And in the Actes of the Apostels we reade how that in speaking of the Communion they met together to breake bread c So that it is playne that the substauce of bread and wyne doo remayne in the Supper after the wordes of consecration as also may appeare playnly by Christs own wordes which calleth that which he gaue them in the Cup wyne or the fruit of the vyne as both Mathew and Matke doo write Wherby we set that there is no transubstantiation of the wyne and therfore may we also see that there is no transubstantiation of the bread As for the Panistes cauillyng how that it hath the name of bread because it was bread as Symon the leper was called stylle prous though hee was healed or as Moses rod beyng turned into a serpent was called a Rod styll it proueth nothing For there was in the one a playne sight and the senses certified that Simō was no leper and in the other playne mention that the rod was turned into a Serpent But concernyng the Sacrament neyther the senses see any other thiug thē bread neither is ther auy mentiō made of turning And therefore theyr ●auill is plainlye seene to be but a cauyll and of no force But to come a gaine to bryng moe reasons against Transubstantiatiē Secondly that the substance of bread remaineth stil the very text doth teach For the Euangelists and the Apostle Saint Paule do wytnes that Christ gaue that to his Disciples and called it hys body whych hee tooke on which he gaue thankes and whych he brake but he tooke bread gaue thankes on bread broke bread Ergo he gane bread called bred hys body as he called the cup the new testament So that it foloweth by this that there is no transubstantiation And thys reason I my selfe haue promised in writing to proue by the authority of the Fathers namely Ireneus Tertullian Orgine Ciprin Epiphanius Hierommus Augustinus Theodorete Cirill Bede it so be I may haue the vse of my bookes Thirdly that in the Sacrament there is no transub stantiation of the bread by this reason I doo proue Lyke as by our Sauiour Christ the spirit of truth spake of the bread This is my body so saith the sa● spirit of truth of the same bread That we many are one body and one bread c. So that as it appeareth the Sacrament not to be the Church by transubstantiation euen so is it not Christes natural body by trausubstanciation Fourthly I proue that there is no transubstantiation by Luke Paules wordes spoken ouer the Cup. For no Lesse are they effi●tuall to transubstantiate the cup then their wordes spoken of the bread are operatorius myghty to transubstātiate the bread For as they say of the bread Thys is my body so say they of the Cup This cup is the new testament which thing is absurde to be spoken or thought either of the cup or of the thing in the cup by transubstanti ation Yea rather in saying these wordes This cup is the new Testament we are taught by their coupling thys word Cup to the demonstratiue This how we should in these wordes This is my body know that this word This doth there demonstrate bread Fiftly that the substaunce of bread remaineth in the Sacramēt as the reasons before brought forth do proue so doth the definition of a Sacrament For the Fathers do affirme it to consist of an earthly thyng and of an heauenly thing of the woord and of the element of sensible thinges and of thinges which be perceyued by the mynde But transubstantiatiō taketh cleane away the earthly thing the element the sensible thing and so maketh it no Sacrament And therfore the definition of a Sacramētful wel teacheth that bread which is the earthly thing the sensible thyng and the element remayneth styl as Saynt Augustine sayth The word commeth to the Element he saith not taketh away the Element and so it is made a Sacrament Sixtly the nature and propertion of a Sacramēt teacheth this also which I haue affirmed For as Cipriane writeth that Sacramentes beare the names of the thynges which they signifye so doth saynt Augustine teach that if Sacramentes haue not some signification with the things wherofthey be Sacraments then are they no sacraments Now in the Lordes supper this similitude is first in nourishing that as bread nourisheth the body so Christes body broken feedeth the soule Secōdly in bringing together many into our that as in the sacrament many graynes of corne are made on bread many grapes ar made one liquour and wine so the multitude which worthelye receiue the Sacrament are made one body with Christ and hys Church Last of all in one vnlykelr lykelynes 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 playne to them that wyll see that to take the substance of bread away is cleane against the nature and property of a sacrament I wil speake nothing how that this their doctrine of

saluation Amen Now to returne to the second matter what the Sacrament is you see that to the senses and reason of man it is bread and wyne which is most true as by the scriptures and other wyse I haue allreadye proued and therefore away with transubstantiation But here lest we should make it no Sacrament for a sacrament consisteth of twoo thynges lest a man should by thys gather 〈◊〉 we make it none other thyng 〈◊〉 bare bread and a naked signe and so rayle at their pleasure on vs saying How can a man be giltre of the body and bloud of Christ by vnworthy receiuing of it if it bee but bare bread and so forth For thys purpose I wyll nowe speake a little more hereabout by gods grace to stop their mouthes and to styre vp your good harts more to the worthy estimation perception of this holy mysterye When a louing friend geueth to thee a thing or sendeth to thee a token as for an example a napkyn or such like I thinke thou doest not as thou shouldest doo if that with the thyng thou considerest not the mynde of thy friend that sendeth or geueth the thing and according the runto estemest and receyuest it And so of thys bread thinke I that if thou doo not rather consider the mynde of thy louer Christ then the thyng which thou seest yea if thou doo not altogether consider Christes mynde thon dealest vnhonestly strumpetlike with hym For it is the propertye of strumpets to consider the thynges geuen and sent them rather then the loue mynde of the geuer and sender whereas the true louers do not consider in any poynt the thinges geuen or sent but the mind of the party So wee if we bee true louers of Christ must not consider barely the outward thyng which we see and our senses perceyue but rather altogether we must should see and consider the minde of Christ and therafter and according to it to esteme the sacramēt But how shall we knowe the mynde of Chryst For sooth as a mans mynde is best knowen by his word so by Christes woord shall we know his mynde How his wordes be manifest and most playne This sayth he is my dody therefore accordingly should we esteeme take and receiue it If he had spoken nothing or if he had spoken doubtfully then might we haue bene in some doubt But in that he speaketh so plainly saying This is my body who can maye or dare bee so bold as to doubt of it He is the truth and cannot lye he is omnipotent and can do all thinges therefore it is his body This I beleue this I confesse and pray you all hartely to beware of these and such lyke wordes that it is but a sygne or a figure of his body Except you wil discern betwixt signes which fignify ouely and sygnes whych also doo represent confirme and seale vp or as a mā may say geue wyth their signification As for an example An Iuye bush is a sygne of wine to be sold the buddyng of Aarous rod dyd sygnifye Aarons Priesthood alowed of the Lord the reseruation of Moses rod dyd signifye the rebellion of the children of Israel the stones takē out of Iordane Gedeons fleese of wool c. such as these be signe significatiue and shewe no gyft But in the other sygnes whych some call exhibitiue is there not onely a signification of the thyng but also a declaration of a gyft yea in a certayne maner a geuing also As Baptisme signifieth not onely the clensing of the cōscience from syn by the merites of Christes bloud but also is a very clensyng from synne And therfore it was sayd to Paule that he should aryse and wash away hys syns not that he should aryse and take onely a sygne of washyng away hys syns In the Lordes supper the bread is called a partaking of the Lordes body and not onely a bare signe of the Lordes body This I speake not as though the elements of these sacraments were trausubstantiate whych I haue already impugned either as though Christes body wér in the bread or wyne eyther were ●yed to the elementes otherwyse then sacramentally and spiritually eyther that the bread and wine may not and must not be called sacramentall and externall signes but that they myght be discerned frō significatiue and bare signes onely and be taken for signes exhibitiue and representatiue By thys meanes a Christian comcience wil call and esteme the bread of the Lord as the body of Christ For it wyll neuer esteeme the Sacraments of Christ after their exteriour appearance but after the words of Christ Wherof it commeth that the Fathers as Chrysostome and others doo speake with so ful a mouth when they speake of the Sacrament for their respect was to Christes woordes If the Schoolemen which folowed them had had the same spirit whych they had then would they neuer haue consented to transubstantiation For wyth great admiration some of the Fathers doo say that the bread is chaunged or turned into the body of Christ and the wyne into hys bloud meaning it of amutation or chaunge not corporal but spirituall figuratiue sacramental or mysticall For now it is no cōmon bread nor common wyne beyng ordayned to serue for the foods of the soule The scolemen haue vnderstood it as the Papistes nowe preach of a substautial chaūging as though it were no great myracle that common bread should now be assumed into that dignity that it should bee called Christes body and serue for a celestial food and be made a Sacrament of hys body and bloud As before therfore I haue spoken I would with that this Sacrament should be esteemed called of vs Christiā men after Christes wordes namely Christes body and the wyne Christes bloud rather then otherwy e. Not that I meane any other presence of Christes body then a presence of grace a presence to fayth a presence spiritually not corporally really naturally and carnally as the Papistes do meane For in such sort Christes body is onely in heauen on the right hand of God the father almightye whether our faith in the vse of the Sacrament asceudeth and receyueth whole Christ accordingly Yea but one wyl say that to cal the Sacrament on that sort is to geue an occasion of idolatry to the people which wyll take the Sacrament which thei see simply for Christes body as by experience we are well taught and therfore it were better to call it bread and so lesse harme should be especially in this age In this obiection I aunswer that in dede great idolatry is cōmitted to and about this Sacrament and therfore men ought as much as they can to auoyd from occasioning or contirming it But in as much as the holy Ghost is wyser then man had foresight of the euils that might be and yet notwithstanding doth cal it Christes body I thinke we should do euyl if we should take vpon vs to reforme his

speech If Ministers did their duties in Catechisyng preaching then doubtles to call the Sacrament Christes body to esteme it accordingly cold not geue occasion to idolatry and cōtirme it Therfore wo vnto them that preach not There be two euyls about the Sacraments which to auoid the holy Ghost hath taught vs For lest we should wyth the Papists thinke Christes bodye present in or with the bread really naturally and corporally to bee receyued with out bodelye mouth where ther is no other presence of Christes body then spirituall and to the fayth in many places he keepeth styll the name of bread as in the epistle to the Corinthians the tenth and eleuenth chapters And lest we should make to lyght of it making it but a bare sygne no better then common bread the holy Ghost calleth it Christes body whose speech I wish we wold follow and that not onely as wel to auoyd the euyl which is now a daies most to be feared cōcerning the Sacrament I meane of contemnyng it as also for that no faythfull man cōmeth to the Sacrament to receyue bread simply but rather yea altogether to communicate with Christs body and bloud For els to eate and drinke as Paule sayth they haue houses of their own The contempt of the Sacrament in the dayes of Kyng Edward hath caused these plagues vpon vs presentlye the Lord be mercyful vnto vs Amen And thus much for the obiection of easlyng the Sacrament by the name of Christes body Why sayth one to call the Sacrament Christes bodye and to make none other presence then by grace or spiritualy to faith which is of things hoped for of things which to the bodely senses do not appeare is to make no presence at all or to make hym none otherwyse present then he is in hys woord when it is preached and therefore what neede wee to receiue the Sacrament in as much as by thys doctrine a man may receiue hym dayly in the fi●●d as wel as much as in the church in the celebration and vse of the Sacrament To this obiection I first aunswer that in deede neyther the scripture nor Christian faith wyl geue vs leaue to make any carnall reall naturall corporall or any such grosse presence of Christes naturall body in the Sacrament For it is in heauen and the heauens must haue it as sayth Peter tyll Christes commyng to iudgement except we would deny the humanity of Christ the veritye of mans nature in hym The presence therfore which we beleue and confesse is such a presence as reason knoweth not the world cannot learne nor any that looketh in this matter with our eyes or heareth with other eares then wyththe eares and eyes of the spirite and of fayth Whych fayth though it bee of thinges hoped for so of things absent to the corporall senses yet this absence is not an absence in deede but to reason and the old man the nature of fayth being a possession of thynges hoped for Therfore to graunt a presence to fayth is not to make no presence at all but to such as knowe not fayth And thys the Fathers taught affirmyng Chryst to bee present by grace and therefore not onely a signification but also an exhibition and geuyng of the grace of Christes body that is of lyfe and of the seede of immortalitie as Cypriane wryteth We eate lyfe and drinke lyfe sayth S. Augustine ●efecle a presence of the Lord by grace or in grace sayth Chrysostome We receiue the celestial foode that commeth from aboue sayth Athanasius We receyue the property of the natural cōiunction and knitting together sayth Hylerius We perceyue the nature of flesh the blessyng that geuethlyfe in bread and wyne sayth Cyrillus And els where he sayth that wyth the bread and wyne we eate the vertue of Christes proper flesh lyfe grace and the property of the body of the onely begotten Sonne of God which thyng behimselfe expoundeth to be life Basilius saith that we by the Sacrament receiue the mystical Aduent of Christ grace and the very vertue of his very nature Ambrose sayth that we receiue the Sacrament of the true body Epiphanius sayth wee receiue the body or grace And Hierome sayth that wee receiue spirituall flesh which he calleth other flesh then that which was crucified Chrysostome sayth that we receiue in●uence of grace the grace of the holy Ghost Saynt Augustine sayth that we receyue grare and veritye the innisible grace and holynes of the members of Christes body All the which layings of the Fathers do confirme this our fayth and doctrine of the Sacrament we graūting in all thynges herein vnto them and they in lyke maner vnto vs And therefore the lying lyps which both be lye the Doctours as though they graunted a carnall a re●● presence of Christes holy naturally and corporally after the Papistes declaration and meaning and which belye vs also as though we d●yed all presence of Christ and so made it but a bare signe These lying lips the Lord wyll destroy if they repent not and with vs beleue and teach the truth that the Sacrament is a food of the soule a matter of fayth and therfore spiritually and by sayth to bee talked of and vederstanded whych fayth they want and therfore they erre so grossely in that they woulde haue such a presence of Christ as is contrary to all the scriptures to our Christian religion wherby commeth no such commoditie to the receiuer as by the spiritual presence which we teach and according to Gods word do affirm For we teach these benefites to be had by the worthy receiuing of this Sacrament namely that we abyde in Christ and Christ in vs Agayne that we attayne by it a celestiall lyfe or a lyfe wyth God more ouer that by fayth and in spirite wee receiue not onelye Christes body and vioud but also whole Christ God and man Besydes these we graunt that by the worthy receiuing of this Sacrament we receiue remission of our syns and confirmation of the newe Testament Last of all by worthy receiuing we get an increase of incorporation with Christ and amongest our selues whych bee hys members then whych thinges what more can be desired Alas that men consider nothing at all how that the couplyng of Christes body and bloud to the Sacrament is a spirituall thing and therfore there needes no such carnall presence as the Papistes imagine Who wyll deuye a mans wyfe to bee with her husband one body and flesh although he be at London and she at Yorke But the Papistes are carnall men guided by carnall reason onely or els would they know how that the holye Ghost because of our infirmitye vseth metaphorically the wordes of abiding dwelling eating drinking of Christ that the vnspeakeable coniunction of Christ wyth vs might somthing be knowen God open their eyes to see it And thus much for this Now to that part