Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	prove_v	scripture_n	true_a	7,056	5	5.8469	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A16596	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.; Two notable sermons	Bradford, John, 1510?-1555.; Sampson, Thomas, 1517?-1589.	1617 (1617)	STC 3503; ESTC S116484	55,784	167

to haue euerlasting life that eate him which the wicked haue not although they eate the Sacrament He that eateth of this bread saith Christ shall liue for euermore Therefore they eate not Christs body but as Paul saith they eate in iudgement and damnation which beléeue it is an other manner of thing then Christs body This doth S. Augustine affirm saying None do eate Christs body which is not in the body of Christ that is as hée expoundeth it in whom Christ dwelleth not and he in Christ Which thing the wicked doe not because they want faith and the holy Spirit which be the meanes whereby Christ is receiued To the things which I haue brought hereforth to improue transsubstantiation I could bring in the Fathers to confirme the same which succeeded contnually many hundred yeares after Christ Also I could shew that Transsubstantiation is but a new doctrine not established before Sathan which was tyed for a thousand yeeres was letten loose Also I could shew that euer hitherto since it was established in all times it hath been resisted and spoken against Yea before this doctrine the Church was nothing so endowed with goods lands and possessions as it hath béen 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 hee will for his names sake Amen If time would serue I could and would here 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 Popery and the pillar of their Priesthood whereby Christs Priesthood Sacrifice Ministery and Truth is letted yea peruerted and vtterly ouerthrowne God our Father in the bloud of his Sonne IESVS CHRIST open the eyes and mindes of all our Magistrates all other that beare the name of CHRIST to see to it in time to Gods glory and their owne 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 wine Which is most true as by the Scriptures and otherwise I haue already proued and therefore away with Transsubstantiation But here lest we should make it no Sacrament for a Sacrament consisteth of two things and least a man should by this gather that we 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 guilty of the body bloud of Christ by vnworthy receiuing it if it bee but bare bread and so forth For this purpose I will now speake a little more hereabout by Gods grace to stop your mouthes and so to stirre vp your good hearts more to the worthy estimation and preception of this holy mystery 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 doe if that with the thing thou considerest not the mind of thy friēd that sendeth or giueth the thing and according thereunto estéemest and receiuest it And so of this bread thinke I that if thou doe not rather consider the minde of thy louer Christ then the thing which thou seest yea if thou do not altogether consider Christs mind thou dealest vnhonestly and Strumpetlike with him For it is the property of Strumpets to consider the things giuen and sent them rather then the loue and mind of the giuer and sender whereas the true louers doe not consider in any point the things giuen or sent but the minde of the party So we if we be true louers of Christ must not consider harely the outward thing which we sée and our senses perceiue but rather altogether wee must and should sée and consider the minde of Christ and hereafter and accordingly to it to esteeme the Sacrament But how shall we know the minde of Christ Surely as a mans minde is best knowne by his word so by Christs word shal we know his mind Now his words be manifest and most plaine This saith he is my body therefore accordingly should wee esteeme take and receiue it If hee had spoken nothing or if hee had spoken doubtfully then might wee haue been in some doubt But in that hee speaketh so plainly saying This is my body Who can may or dare bee so bolde as to doubt of it Hee is the trueth and cannot lye he is omnipotent and can do all things therefore it is his body This I beléeue this I confesse and pray you all heartily to beware of these and such like words that it is but a signe or figure of his body Except ye will discerne betwixt signes which signifie only and signes which also do represent confirme and seale vp or as a man may say giue with their signification As for an example An Iuy bush is a signe of Wine to be sold the budding of Aarons Rodde 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 Iordan Gedeons fléece of woole c. Such as these be signes significatiue and shew no gift But in the other signs which some cal exhibitiue is there not only a signification of the thing but also a declaration of a gift is in a certaine manner a giuing also As Baptisme not onely signifieth the cleansing of the conscience from sinne by the merits of CHRISTS bloud but also is a very cleansing from sinne And therefore it was sayd to Paul that he should arise and wash away his sins and not that he 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 only a bare signe of the Lords body This I speak 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 or that they were tyed to the elements otherwise then Sacramentally and spiritually either that the bread and wine may not and must not be called Sacramentall and externall signes but that they might be discerned from significatiue and bare signes only and he 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 apearance but after the words of Christ Whereof it commeth that the Fathers as Chrysostome and others doe speake with so ful a mouth when they speake of the Sacrament for their respect was to Christs words If the Schoole-men which followed had the

institute this Sacrament Now to the second What the Sacrament is If we shall aske our eyes our nose our mouth our taste What the Sacramēt is our hands and the reason of man they will all make a consonant answere that it is bread and wine And verily herein they speake the truth and lye not as by many things may be 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 I tarry a little in shewing this verity that the substance of bread and wine remaine in the Sacrament after the words of consecration as they cal them be spoken Whereby wee may learne what shamelesse beasts they be which wuld enforce men to beleeue Transubstantiation which is an errour whereupon in a maner Vpō transsubstantiation all popery almost is builded dependeth all Popery for it is the stay of their Priest-hood which is neither after the order of Aaron nor after the order of Melchisedech but after the order of Baal which thing is something séen by their number For the false Prophets and Priests of Baal were alwaies many mo in number when the wicked were in authority then the true Priests and Prophets of the Lord as the holy Histories of the Bible doe teach Reade 3. Kings chap. 18. The Sacrament of the popish Masse not the Sacrament of Christs body That in the Supper of the Lord or in the Sacrament of Christs body which the Papists call the Sacrament of the Altar as though that were Christs Sacrament which thing they can neuer proue for it being 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 den of Theeues so this which the Papists cal the Sacrament of the Altar full truely may we call an abominable Idoll And therefore I would all men should know that the Sacrament of the Altar as the Papists now do abuse it omitting certaine substantiall points of the Lords institution and putting in the stead thereof their owne dregges and dreames is not the Sacrament of Christs body nor the Lords Supper whereof when we speake reuerently as our duty is wee 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 reasons do teach these many things also doe teach the same The first reason against Transsubstantiation First the holy Ghost doth plainely tell vs by call it often bread after the words of Consecration as 1. Corinthians 10. Is not the bread which we breake a pertaking of the body of Christ saith Paul 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 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 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 An answer to the Papists cauill for the foresayd reason Mat. 26 Exod. 7. As for the Papists cauilling how that it hath the name of bread because it was bread as Simon the Leper was called still leprous though hee was healed or as Moses Rodde being turned into a Serpent was called a Rodde still it proueth nothing For there was in the one a plaine sight and the senses certified that Simon was no Leper and in the other a plaine mention that the Rod was turned into a Serpent Contrariwise concerning the Sacrament neither the senses see any other thing then bread neither is there any mention made of turning And therefore their cauill is plainly seene to be but a cauill and of no force But to come againe to bring mee reasons of transsubstantiation The second reason against Transsubstantiatiō Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke 22. 1. Cor. 11. Secondly that the substance of bread remaineth still the very text doth teach For the Euangelists and the Apostle Saint Paul doe witnesse that Christ gaue that to his Disciples and called it his body which he tooke on which he gaue thanks and which hee brake but he took bread gaue thanks on bread and broke bread Ergo hee gaue bread and called bread his body as he callled the Cuppe the new Testament So that it followeth by this that there is no Transsubstantiation And this reason I my selfe haue promised in writing to proue by the authority of the Fathers namely Ireneus Tertullian Origine Cyprian Epiphanius Hieronimus Augustinus Theodorete Bede if so be I may haue the vse of my bookes The third reason against Transsubstantiatiō Thirdly that in the Sacrament there is no Transsubstantiation of the bread by this reason I doe proue Like as by our Sauiour Christ the Spirit of truth spake of the bread This is my body So saith the same Spirit of trueth of the same bread That we many are one body 1. Cor. 10 and one bread c. So that as it appeareth the Sacrament not to be in the Church by Transsubstantiation euen so is it not Christs naturall body by Transsubstantiation The forth reason against Transsubstantiatiō Fourthly I proue that there is no Transsubstantiation by Luke and Pauls words spoken ouer the Cuppe For no lesse are they effectual to transsubstatiate the Cup then their words spoken of the bread are opeartorious and mighty to transsubstantiate the bread For as they say of bread This is my body so say they of the cuppe This Cup is the new Testament which thing is absurd to bee spoken or thought either of the cuppe or of the thing in the cup by Transsubstantiation Yea rather in saying these words This Cup is the new Testament we are taught by their coupling this word Cup to the demonstratiue This how we should in these words This is my body know that this word This doeth their demonstrate