Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	work_n	work_v	wrought_v	224	4	8.0779	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58130	A dialogue betwixt two Protestants in answer to a popish catechism called A short catechism against all sectaries : plainly shewing that the members of the Church of England are no sectaries but true Catholicks and that our Church is a found part of Christ's holy Catholick Church in whose communion therefore the people of this nation are most strictly bound in conscience to remain : in two parts.	Rawlet, John, 1642-1686.	1685 (1685)	Wing R352; ESTC R11422	171,932	286

it were almost endless to name them Yet the more to confirm you against it if need be let me mention a few of those many As for instance according to this opinion our Saviours body would be in ten thousand places at one viz. where ever the Consecrated host as they call it is At Rome and at Paris in the East-Indies and the West and in thousands of Churches where it 's reserved And in one place Christs body would rest upon the Altar in another it might be carrying toward a sick man It would be in one Priests box and in anothers hand in this mans mouth and in that mans stomach and all this one and the same body still Yea thus it must have been ever since the first institution of this Sacrament above sixteen hundred years ago Millions of men in the several ages and places of the world would all have eaten this self same body a thousand times over and yet still it remains whole and untouched the very same that it was from the beginning neither multiplied nor divided neither encreased nor diminished Again by this Doctrine every wafer and every part of the wafer is the whole body and a thousand wafers are only that one Yea what is more prodigious if any thing can be so according to this opinion our Blessed Saviour when he was present with his Apostles alive and well did then give himself into their hands to be eaten by them So that he was in their mouths and bellies at the same time that he was sitting amongst them and yet never shewed the least sign nor felt the least effect of any such change upon him And yet after all this same Body was next day offered up and his Blood poured out on the Cross. It deserves also to be considered how the breaking of Christ's natural Body and eating and swallowing it is consistent with its being still alive as surely they will grant it is Yea how this same Body should be at God's right hand shining in honour and glory and yet at the same time be set upon the Altar or carried in a Box yea eaten by Mice or by Worms and Flies But no questions must be asked no doubts or scruples raised all must be swallowed with an implicite Faith and they think to solve all well enough with crying nothing is impossible with God which any Man may as well pretend to justifie the grossest falshoods and absurdities in the World Though truly I think none can be imagined greater than what this opinion stands justly charged with That so mighty a change should be made in the very natural substance of the Bread and yet that there is no manner of appearance of it but still here is the same colour tast smell and all other accidents or qualities of Bread after Consecration as before And notwithstanding all this we must believe that there is no substance of Bread to which these accidents belong but the substance of Flesh without any accidents at all What strange prodigious fancies are these And what a scandal is it to our Religion what a mighty hindrance to the belief of it when such an unreasonable opinion shall be proposed as an Article of Faith And be made of equal necessity to be believed with the great Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation though it has no manner of support from the Holy Scripture as I have before shewn L. I confess if a Man thought he could not be a Christian without receiving this Opinion it would be a strong temptation to Infidelity and go nigh to make him reject our whole Religion T. Doubtless it would and I fear it has often produced this effect Woe be to them by whom the offence cometh Yea further it will appear that on some other accounts this Doctrine directly tends to promote Infidelity whilst as many Learned Writers have observed it does in a great measure evacuate and overthrow the main proofs of the Truth of Christianity For one great Argument our Saviour made use of was the Miracles which he wrought The works which I do saith he bear witness of me If you believe not me believe me for the works sake Now to make this Argument of any force it must be supposed that their Senses did not deceive them but what they saw and heard was really true For if our Senses are not to be relied on in judging of their own proper Objects at a due distance how could the people tell but that all these Miracles were meer cheats and delusions But if they had sufficient assurance that they were truly wrought because they saw them with their own eyes and thereupon had sufficient ground to believe that Religion to be true which was confirmed by them then have we as good reason to believe Transubstantiation to be most false since our Senses do as fully assure us that it is so And hence we are very certain that this could be none of the Doctrines which our Saviour taught because there would have been a direct contradiction betwixt the Doctrine it self and the Argument made use of to prove it for whilst he appeals to his Miracles he supposes that Men may trust their Senses in the discerning of proper Objects whereas according to this Doctrine no trust is to be given to them Moreover we know that our Saviours Resurrection was the great confirmation of his Doctrine and did demonstrate him to be the Son of God the promised Messiah Now how should it be known that the same Jesus who was Crucified was indeed risen from the dead but by their sight of him and converse with him Thus we read what full satisfaction it pleased our Saviour to give to St. Thomas in this respect permitting him to put his Fingers into the print of the Nails and to thrust his hand into his side and by this means all his doubts were removed Now the same ground that St. Thomas had to believe that the Body which was wounded and hung dead on the Cross was after raised again the very same have we to believe that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are not turned into the natural substance of Christ's Body and Blood even the full evidence of our Senses Whereas if St. Thomas and the rest of the Apostles at the institution of this Holy Sacrament a little before Christs Death had found their Senses to be so grosly deceived as Papists would perswade us I know not how they could well have trusted them so soon after his Resurrection as we find they did If then the Apostles had good reason to believe the Resurrection of Christ to be true so have we to rest assured that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation is most false Yea let me add if we are sure that these words This is my body are in the Gospel then so sure we may be that they cannot be taken in that gross sense which Papists put upon them for as we know them to be there because there we see them and

read them so do we as plainly see that after Consecration the Bread and Wine still remain in their natural substances and therefore are made the Body and Blood of Christ in a spiritual and mystical sense according to the most common acceptance of such Phrases that relate to Sacraments as was before shewn L. You need add nothing more to clear this matter nor can I imagine what reply they can make except they shall say that we must not in this case trust our senses but exercise of our Faith T. This indeed they do say but with no manner of reason For though God requires the Exercise of our Faith in Believing what he hath revealed though our senses cannot reach to or discern it yet we never read in the whole Book of Scripture that ever he requires men to believe any thing directly contrary to the evidence of their Senses to believe it was dark as midnight when they saw the Sun shining at Noon-day to believe the same Man to lye dead in his Grave whom they saw alive walking before them For at this rate all our Saviours Miracles had been wrought in vain if men must not believe their own eyes as we use to say For we must consider that Almighty God hath so framed our Nature that we are to be directed and guided by our Senses in those matters that properly belong to them Nor can we I think in this present state have more clear and full assurance of any thing than what our Senses when sound and perfect convey to us And therefore I have said our Saviour took this way to give assurance of the truth of his Gospel and of his Resurrection by that satisfaction he gave to the very Senses of Men. Thus St. Iohn when he would give the clearest and fullest evidence of the truth of Christian Doctrine he tells us That which we have heard which we have seen with our eyes which our hands have handled declare we unto you 1 Joh. 1. 1 2 3. Now all this may assure us that those words This is my body are not to be taken in such a sense as would engage us to the belief of Transubstantiation Nay the Word of God it self assures us that they are not since in this Word as I have shewn from many places the Holy Bread in the Sacrament is called Bread after Consecration and therefore are we so to believe it and are to look upon it as his Body Spiritually and Sacramentally and so neither one Text contradicts another nor will our Faith contradict our Senses L. This is easie and intelligible and neither offers violence to the Word of God nor to the Reason of our own Minds T. Yet further let me add if the Senses of all Men throughout the whole world are thus deceived as they must be if Transubstantiation be true then is all certainty of any thing whatever in a manner utterly destroyed How can I tell that I tread upon the Earth that I see the Heavens over my head or the Sun shining in the Firmament In these and all other things which I think that I see or hear my Senses may be imposed upon as well as in the present Case And how then can I be sure that any Revelation was ever made from God to Man Or how could any Man be sure of it though a Voice came to him from Heaven or a Vision appeared to him All this may be but idle fancy and delusion his Hearing and his Sight are not to be trusted Yea let this opinion be admitted and how can we be certain of the truth of that which God hath in his Word revealed For if he deceive me one way why not another The same Holy and True God who hath revealed his Will in Holy Scriptures hath also made another sort of Revelation in the works of Nature He hath given me Senses of Seeing Hearing c. and hath proposed Objects agreeable thereto Now if I believe him to be so Holy and Good that he will not deceive me in his Word why may I not from the same Goodness argue that he will not deceive me in his Works But if he should do it in the latter why may he not in the former also L. They may say this is a particular Case and therefore though our Senses may herein be mistaken yet we have no reason to suspect them at other times T. A particular Case it is indeed and such as nothing like it can be instanced in nor yet any good reason assigned why our Senses may not at any other time be deceived as well as in this matter But strangest of all it is that we have no warning given us in Scripture not to trust our Senses in this particular Case though in all others we may Nor do we find any thing said to take off the prejudice that might arise in mens minds against so strange a Doctrine We hear of no Objections made of old against it by the Enemies of Christianity nor of any Answers given to silence or prevent such Objections Nay on the contrary as I have said when the Capernaites mistook our Saviour's meaning he let them know that his Discourse was to be understood in a spiritual sense Ioh. 6. 63. Thus certainly the Apostles understood it as also those Words This is my body else surely we should have heard of their doubts and objections at least they would have made some further enquiry about the sense and meaning of them Else how comes it to pass that we never find the least mention of this same Doctrine in any of the Apostles Sermons or in the Epistles written to any of the Churches Nay though there was so fair an occasion offered to St. Paul when he discourses about the Lords-Supper 1 Cor. 11. where he tells them that what he had received of the Lord he delivered to them but he is there so far from explaining or asserting the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that he teaches the direct contrary in calling it Bread over and over after Consecration L. Yet I have heard some arguing for it from those words of his that he who eats and drinks unworthily is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ Vers. 27. Now say they how could this be so hainous a sin if the natural Body and Blood of Christ were not present in the Sacrament T. For that let the Apostles own words decide it for he there tells us that he who eats this Bread and drinks this Cup unworthily is thus guilty So that it is Bread which is eaten and consequently Wine which is drunk by the Receiver But to do this unworthily and irreverently rushing upon it as a common meal not duly considering the great importance and design of this Holy Sacrament as it is a commemoration of Christ's death and a Spiritual Feast upon his Body and Blood this must needs be an hainous Sin being an affront to Christ himself and a profanation of his Sacred Ordinance This is meant by