Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	faith_n	see_v	word_n	4,690	5	4.5038	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B07431	Two treatises. 1. The holy exercise of a true fast, described out of God's word. / Written by T.C. ; 2. The substance of the Lordes Supper. / Written by T.W..	Cartwright, Thomas, 1535-1603.; T. W. (Thomas Wilcox), 1549?-1608.	1610 (1610)	STC 4314; ESTC S91274	43,382	204

blasphemous in respct of our Sauiour Christ him selfe but also more vnprofitable and vncertaine to vs as which might prouoke vs to doubt whether of his bodies were crucified for our transgressions Now as we doe iustly reiect this grosse sense so for the instruction of the ignoraunt and strengthening of the weake we wil in a few lines put downe the true meaning of these wordes For the better performaunce whereof I would haue this to be noted 1 In he first place which I am sure also no man of sounde iudgement can well denie that all wordes and therefore these of the Supper must be expounded according to the subiect argument or matter whereof they intreate and therefore their speaking particularly of the Lordes Supper must of necessitie be vnderstood of the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Sauiour Christ exhibited vnto vs in that Supper 2 Secondly I would haue this to be remembred that seeing all confessr these wordes to be spoken of the Sacrament we must not gather that the word Body is otherwise attributed to the Bread then the nature and qualitie as it were of Sacramentes will beare for then if wee should graunt that wee should easily destroy and ouerthrow all Sacramentes of the Church whatsoeuer because in this behalfe or respect there is a like proportion to be obserued in one as in all And if one be defaced in respect of a wrong sense the least can hardly or not at all stand vpright 3 Thirdly that this is the nature of all sacraments that the elementes and rites vsed in the same be true and effectuall not signes onely but testimonies and pledges of these things for the signifying and subiecting of which vnto our senses they were ordained and yet when I vse the word Signe I would not bee taken as though I meant that they are bare vaine or vnprofitable Signes such as Painters cōmonly vse to make but euen thus farre-foorth effectuall that it is no more true certaine that we see the same with our eyes touch them with our hands receiue them with our mouthes eate them then that is also as true and certaine that the Lord exhibiteth and offereth vnto vs what so euer they represent vnto vs that is the verie bodie and bloud of our Sauiour Christ These rules being thus then obserued I gather and put downe this true holie sense of these wordes This is my body that is to say This Bread which Christ tooke blessed brake gaue vnto his Disciples and appoynted to be the element of this action is sacramentally spiritually being receiued eaten by Fayth a sure signe an effectuall pledge that Christs body is become the spirituall food nourishment of our soules And I vse these words sacramentally spiritually that therby I might meete with their grosse slaunder who when they heare of a signe and a thing signified say that wee doe euacuate and make of no force the Lordes Supper No we are so farre off from holding any such conclusion that we know and beleeue that the beleeuers doe beside the outward signes and elements truely receiue by the meane of fayth after a spirituall sort that which is represented by the outward elementes to witte whole Christ with all his giftes and graces And yet we doe not imagine either transubstantiation or any such like deuise but onely thinke vpon and beleeue the sacramentall coniuction of the signe and the thing signified For those thinges can not stand with the truth of Christes humanitie as hath been bef re shewed neither indeed are they necessarie for saluation For that we may be made partakers of Christ it is not of necessitie required that his Body should be really present vpon the earth but it rather behooueth vs by the power of the holy Ghost through Fayth to mount vp into Heauen and there to lay hold of him that we may sit with him in the heauenly places which in this life can not be performed in any other sort then in a spirituall maner through fayth which fayth is begotten and confirmed in vs by the holy Ghost wherevnto hee vseth as instrumentes the preaching of Gods word and the administration and vse of the Sacramentes by which all our senses are euē as it were prouoked pearsed wholly to possesse Christ him selfe So that you see I doe figuratiuely expound these wordes and not grossely wherevnto I am drawne partly by these three generall Rules heretofore put downe and partly by the verie dealings of the Papistes themselues who doe not neither in the Wine of the Supper the other part of this Sacrament neither in Baptisme the other Sacrament of the Church which two alone God hath giuen vnto it acknowledge any such grosse transubstantiation or change and yet I am sure there is as great reason why that alteration should be as well in the Water of Baptisme in the Wine of the Supper as in the Bread thereof If there be not let them shew any cause to the contrary if they can There resteth now the third obiection takē frō the omnipotencie or almightie power of our sauiour Christ pressed after this manner Is not Christ God and so by that meanes omnipotent And can not hee performe the trueth of that hee hath spoken To this I answere that though we shold grant it as true that Christ as he is God can doe all thinges and be euery where yet we know that as he is Man he can not and therefore the questiō betweene the transubstantiators vs being now not of the presence of Christes deitie in the Sacrament but of the presence of his humaine body wee say that if wee should graunt this yet could it no whit at all preiudice vs neither could they gaine their cause thereby for vnlesse they can prooue Christ as hee is Man to be omnipotent and euerie where which thing they shall neuer bee able to doe they haue sayd as much as if they had sayd nothing But let vs for reasoning sake graunt that Christ as hee is Man were omnipotent euen as God the Father is doth it therefore follow that because he can doe euerie thing hee therefore either will do the same or indeed doth it I suppose no. For besides that in Scholes it is commonly said à posse ad esse the consequence or reason is not good which were sufficient aunswere to this friuolous and vaine obiection Besides this I say wee that are truely taught of God doe know that though we beleeue that the Lord can doe what so euer pleaseth him both in heauen and in earth which serueth wonderfully to magnifie his almightie power and greatly to strengthen our weake fayth yet we beleeue firmely that he will not onely doe nothing but that hee can not doe any thing in regard of vs contrarie to that will of his that he hath reuealed for vs in his word And the reason of this is not the abridgement or shortning of his power for be it

a continuall threed of speach as it were in the metaphor of Bread or Meates mentioned vers 26.27 vsing sundrie borowed speaches agreeing well to the circumstaunce of the matter wherein he was to deale and partly because he speaketh so often not of eating onely but also of beleeuing as vers 23.40 c. Which cannot be properly attributed to any outward or materiall thing as may be gathered Rom. 8.24 Also 2. Corinth 5.7 But let vs graunt that it were to be vnderstood of the holy Supper yet it doth not for all that establish any grosse and carnall eating of the naturall flesh or body of our Sauiour Christ for if it were so then had not our Sauiour sufficiently aunswered the Capernaites who did grossely dreame and doate of such a carnal manducation or eating but rather had yeelded vnto the same Besides if that should be allowed in what a miserable estate should we leaue the holy Fathers who were long before the time of Christes taking our flesh vpon him and therefore could not eate it And yet our Sauiour affirmeth Mat. 8.11 that they were in the kingdome of Heauen and Saint Paul saith 1. Corinth 10.3.4 that they did all eate the same spirituall meate that we doe and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke that we doe there being no difference at all in respect of substaunce and effect betwixt their Sacraments and ours but onely in time and in outward Elementes yet in what a miserable estate were Infantes that should die before they could communicate or partake in that holy Sacrament One of these two must needes be graunted either that they must haue the Communion ministred vnto them which thing indeed Augustine did once fantastically imagine but S. Paul is flatly against it 1. Corinth 11.28 who will haue none admitted thereto but such as can examine and trie themselues whether they be in the Fayth or no which Infantes can not doe or else that without it they are all condemned alreadie Both which are verie absurde and beastly So that you see for the auoyding of these absurdities it can at no hande bee vnderstoode either of the Sacramentes of the grosse and carnall eating of Christes body in the same but of the apprehension or laying hold of him togeather with the particular application of him to our selues by the hand or instrument Faith propounded and set foorth vnto vs by the ministerie of his Word and Gospell or if you wil for reasoning sake offered vnto vs in the vse of the Supper because there is in that respect but one meane giuen vs to take hold of him by and that is the great grace and gift of Fayth which we must vse in the Word Sacraments as men doe in the opprehending of Christes righteousnesse which though it be not essentially dwelling in vs yet it is effectually made ours whilest wee apprehend and lay hold of the same by a sounde and sure Fayth And euen in like sort is Christ God Man togeather with all his merites not onely offered but laide hold of in the Word and Sacramentes For of like things there is alwayes a like consideration The seconde place is that sentence reported by the three Euangelistes Matthew Marke and Luke and S. Paul himselfe also reciting the institution of the Supper which our Sauiour Christ vsed saying This is my body which they vrge in the letter after this sorte Hath not Christ said it in plaine tearmes and shal I not beleeue it though that my carnall vnderstanding cannot conceiue the same To all this I answere First that the question is not of the wordes for wee as well as they confesse the same but of the sense of which wee will speake anone Secondly that wee are bounde to beleeue all such thinges as are comprehended in Gods Worde though indeed our sensuall reason can not comprehend them yet in such sort must we beleeue the same and to such endes as the Lord himselfe hath appointed not yet stretching them further then the Lorde would haue vs nor restraining them to narrow or purposes then the Lord hath appoynted neither yet fayling in the allegation of them either in the matter manner or end for if we doe wee doe nothing else thereby but heape vp iust condemnation against our owne soules Concerning the wordes and the plainenes of them I say that other words are as plaine as they both in the old and new testament which must yet notwithstanding be otherwise interpreted then the words themselues seeme to import For example in the 17 of Genesis 10. Circumcision is called the Couenaunt betwixt GOD and his people whereas it was but the signe of the Couenaunt For the Couenaunt it selfe was that hee would be the God of Abraham and in him of all the Faythfull and of their seed after them So in the new Testament Christ sayth of him selfe Iohn 15.5 I am the Vine whereas wee know and beleeue that Christ was no Vine but that hee calleth him selfe so in a certaine resemblance because looke what propertie the fruite of the Vine hath in respect of our bodies to witt to comfort men and ro make them glad heartes the same hath Christ and the fruites of his grace receiued by Fryth in respect af our soules and as the Branches of the Vine haue nothing of them selues but all that they haue they haue it from the Vine it selfe so none of his members can bring foorth fruite but by abyding in him and being made fruitfull through his grace In like manner is the Bread of the Lords Supper called his Body because as we haue sayd before looke what proper and peculiar office the Bread hath or yeeldeth to our naturall bodies the selfe same doth Iesus Christes body broken taken hold of by Faith spiritually communicate vnto our soules And this speach is vsuall in the Scriptures to attribute that to the signe which is proper and peculiar to the thing signified by reason of the stre ght analogie proportion and agreement which is betweene the signe and the thing signified and not in any other respect of consubstantiatiō transubstantiation or any other such like fantasticall dotage Beside the verie circumstances of time place person and manner of doing doe sufficiently prooue the vanitie and vntruth of this grosse interpretation For this Sacrament being instituted by Christ him selfe a little before his death in the presence of the Apostles who had all their senses satisfied in the beholding hearing and feeling of the naturall body of our Sauiour Christ he him selfe sitting at the Table with them and speaking these words in their presence and hearing it could not bee that that bread offered vnto them as the pledge of his body should be his naturall bodie or bodie of flesh vnlesse you will say that Christ had two bodies one sitting at the table instituting the action of the Supper and an other borne in his handes and deliuered vnto his Apostles then the which what can be not onely more absurde and