Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	aaron_n	according_a	consider_v	12	3	6.4006	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A01007	A paire of spectacles for Sir Humfrey Linde to see his way withall. Or An answeare to his booke called, Via tuta, a safe way wherein the booke is shewed to be a labyrinthe of error and the author a blind guide. By I.R.	Floyd, John, 1572-1649.; Jenison, Robert, 1584?-1652, attributed name.	1631 (1631)	STC 11112; ESTC S102373	294,594	598

Thus Scotus not onely teaching transubstantiation himself but prouing it out of S. Ambrose who maketh most frequent mention of the change and conuersion of the very nature of bread Which is the thing expressed by the word transubstantiatiō By which it is plaine that Scotus must haue held this Doctrine for the substance thereof to bee as ancient as S. Ambrose at the least and if soe ancient then euen from the beginning His meaning therefore in saying it was determined of late in the Councel of Lateran is onely this that whereas the words of consecration may be vnderstood of the real presence of our Blessed Sauiour's body either by transubstantiation that is by change of the bread into his body or otherwise soe that the substance of the bread doe remaine the Church hath determined that the words are to bee vnderstood in the former sense as may bee gathered by his manner of speaking of the Churches expounding of Scriptures which he saith she doth by the same Spirit wherewith the faith was deliuered to Vs to wit by the Spirit of truth V. Scot. in 4. Sent. dist 11.9.3 Which is nothing against the antiquity of transubstantiation And though it were also the cōmon beleife of the Church from the beginning yet it might well be said not to haue beene de substantia fidei Yribarne speaketh because it had not beene soe plainely deliuered nor determined in any Councel till Greg. the 7. his tyme wherein it was first defined against Berengarius and that but by a particular or prouincial Romane Councel Which notwithstanding the article in it selfe might bee ancient though not soe expresly deliuered as I declared more amply in the first chapter 25. You haue little helpe then Sir Humphrey from Alfonsus a Castro Scotus and Yribarne which although you had yet were not that sufficient for discharge of your credit you hauing promised vs acient Fathers against transubstantiation which these three are not for one of them to wit Yribarne is perhaps now aliue another to wit Alfonsus a Castro liued not past 100. yeares agoe the third to wit Scotus about 300. yeares since which is farr from the antiquity of Fathers as wee ordinarily speake of them Wherefore bethinking your selfe at last you bring vs a Father or two to wit S. Aug. and Theodoret telling vs that S. Aug. is soe wholy yours that Maldonat expounding a place in the 6. of S. Iohn saith that he is perswaded that if S. Aug. had liued in these tymes and seene that Caluin expounded the same place as he did he would haue changed his mind and for Theodoret you say that Valentia obseruing him to say that the consecrated elements did remaine in their proper substance and shape and figure he maketh the like answeare that it is noe meruaile if one or more of the ancient fathers before the question was debated did thinke lesse considerately and truely of transubstantiation This is all that euer you haue out of the Fathers Which how little it is and how much to your shame shall vpon examination appeare Aug er 26. in Io. 26. For S. Augustine then what is it that he saith in fauour of you in expounding that verse of the 6. of S. Iohn where our Sauiour saith Your Fathers haue eaten Manna and are dead he that eateth this Bread shall liue for euer He saith that their Fathers that is the naughty and vnbeleeuing people of the Iewes dyed to wit spiritually in their soules because they in eating Manna did consider onely what it presented to their outward senses and not what it represented vnto their minds by faith whereas the good men among them as Moyses Aaron Phinees and others who he saith were our Fathers and not theirs did not dye to wit spiritually because they did not cōsider it onely according to the sense but according to faith remēbring that it was but a figure and a figure of this heauenly bread which we haue as the same holy Father saith expresly in the same place Hunc panem significauit manna Manna signified this Bread and he saith it is the same of Iudas and other bad Christians which receiue of the Altar and by receiuing dye because they receiue it ill Doth not this make much for you now Sir Humphrey Doe not you see how wholy S. Aug. is yours How he saith that Manna was a figure of this our heauenly bread that we receiue it from the altar Doth not all this make finely for you but you will say then if it make nothing for vs why doth Maldonate say that if S. Aug. had liued in these tymes hee would haue interpreted otherwise I answeare not that this interpretation is for you but because the other is more against you to wit thus Whereas S. Augustine giues the reason why they that did eate Manna dyed to bee because they did not eate it with faith Maldonate maketh the difference to bee not soe much betweene the persons which did eate as betweene the foode which they did eate saying that our Sauiour maketh this a special prerogatiue of the B. Sacrament farre aboue the Manna that this holy Sacrament giueth life to them that eate it which the Manna did not giue of it selfe And indeede with dew reuerence be it spoken to S. Augustine's authority this interpretation is more sutable to the text and discourse of our Sauiour in that whole chapter which is to compare and preferre that true bread which he said his heauenly Father did giue before that of Manna which Moyses gaue their Fathers It is more also against the Haeretiques of these tymes in reguard it is more for the honour of the Blessed Sacrament which they labour might maine to depresse and that is the very reason why Caluin rather followeth the former interpretation not for any loue to Truth or reuerence which hee beareth to S. Augustines authority 27. How false then and absurd is that scoffing speach of yours Sir Humphrey in the next leafe of your booke where you say ironically thus S. Augustine did not rightly vnderstand the corporal presence For he would haue changed his opinion if he had liued in these dayes as if forsooth Maldonate did say that S. Augustine did not rightly vnderstand the reall presence and that he would haue changed his Opinion concerning the same if he had liued now in these tymes You heereby insinuating as if S. Augustine thought otherwise thereof then we now teach But how grosly false this is may appeare plainely by what I haue heere said to wit that it is not the reall presence whereof either S. Aug. or Maldonate speaketh but how they that eate Manna haue dyed and they that eate the body of our Lord shall liue according to our Sauiour's saying which is cleane a different thing Wherein Sir HVMPHREY you be LINDE S. Aug. somewhat but Maldonate you be Linde much more by making as if he acknowledged S. Augustine to bee against the real presence and that he should

se in scholae disceptationem incidisse Nec oportere Catholicū ad eorū argumenta respondere Sin vero argumententur matrimonium cum sacris caeremonijs cum sacra materia cum sacra forma a sacro Ministro administratum quemad modum in ecclesia Romana semper vsque ab Apostolis administratum est si hoc inquam argumententur Sacramentum ecclesiae non esse tunc Catholicus respondeat fidenter animose defendat secure contra pugnet Whither our opinion that is his owne be true or false I stand not If the Lutherans will dispute of this kind of Marriages let thē know they fall vpon a schoole disputation and that a Catholique is not to answeare to their arguments But if they argue that Marriage administred with sacred caeremonies sacred matter sacred forme by a sacred Minister as it hath euer beene administred in the Romane church euen from the Apostles tyme if I say they argue that this is not a Sacramēt of the Church then lett a Catholique answeare confidently let him defend stoutly let him gaine say securely Soe hee 26. Now Sir knight with what face could you alleadge Canus against Matrimony and that for a cōclusion as you say though I say noe for you haue reserued yet a farr lowder lye to conclude with all Which is concerning Vazquez whom heere you honour with an epithet calling him Our learned Iesuit You say then he knew well that neither moderne Diuines nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church and then you say he makes a profession to his Disciples that hauing read considered S. Aug he found that when he called it a Sacrament he spake not of a Sacrament in a proper sense that therefore he doth not alleadge S. Aug. his authority against the Haeretiques in this controuersy this you say heere whereto I will putt your marginall note which you haue pag. 145. which hath relation to this place it is this Vazquez acknowledgeth Matrimony to be no Sacrament properly Now to seuer the true from the false Vazquez indeede saith that S. Aug. speaking of Matrimony doth vse the word Sacrament but in a large sense This is true but it is but Vazquez his priuate and singular opinion not in a point of faith nor any thing neere it but onely of the meaning of one Father in the vse of a word which if it be taken in such a sense is a good proofe for a point of Doctrine if not it is noe proofe against it but there may be other proofes in the same Fathers and other Fathers may hane that very word in in the proper sense But euen this opinion of Vazquez concerning this word of S. Aug. is contradicted by all other Catholique Diuines Bell lib. 1. de Matr. cap. ●● and Bellar. particularly by diuers good reasons sheweth S. Aug. to vse this word properly when he speaketh of Matrimony This is all that is true in your saying of Vazquez 27. Now I come to the false first asking you a question if Vazquez say Matrimony is noe Sacrament as your marginal note which I spake of before saith I would know what controuersy that is that Vazquez saith hee hath with Haeretiques and for proofe whereof he doth not bring S. Aug his authority of the word Sacrament because in his iudgment it is not effectual what thinke you Sir Humphrey is it not of Matrimony and what controuersy is it but whither Matrimony be properly a Sacrament or noe Which Haeretiques deny and Vazquez affirmes els he can haue noe controuersy with them about it See Sir Humphrey how you looke about you for in this very place and words which you bring to shew Vazquez for you he shewes himselfe against you besides Sir Humphrey looke againe in Vazquez to 4. in 3. p. and soe whether he haue not one whole disputation expresly for the proofe of Matrimony calling it a Sacrament truely and properly prouing it by the definition of the Church and by the authority of other Fathers though he forbeare to vse the authority of S. Augustine for the reason a fore said reprouing Durand's error for saying that it was not a Sacramēt vniuocally with the rest Nay his expresse conclusion concerning the same is this Vazque de Matr. disp 2. cap. 3. Matrimonium est Sacramentum non solum latiori significatione pront est signum coniunctionis Christi ecclesiae fed presse propriè prout est signum gratiae sanctificantis suscipientes sicut reliqua sex Matrimony is a Sacrament not onely in a larger signification as it is a signe of the coniunction of Christ and the Church but precisely properly as it is a signe of grace sanctifying the receiuers as the other six And because you tell vs that he knew well that neyther ancient nor moderne Diuines did conclude it for a true and proper Sacrament of the Church I will add his other words in the same chapter which are these De Sacramento in hac significatione semper hucusque loquuti sumtis Scholastici loquuti sunt c. quam veritatem Graeci semper crediderunt nunc etiam credunt And of a Sacrament in this signification allwayes hitherto we haue spoken and other Diuines haue spoken which truth the Graecians haue euer beleeued still beleeue So as not himself onely but other Diuines also euen the Greeks or Greeke Church not onely doe beleeue and speake but haue beleeued and spoken of Matrimony's being a Sacrament in the proper and strict sense Which considered what intolerable impudency is it in you to tell vs that Vazque should say that neither moderne Diuines nor ancient Fathers did conclude Matrimony for a true and proper Sacrament it were not to be beleeued of any man but that we see it And with this I was thinking to end this § Thereby to leaue a good rellish in the Reader 's mind of your honest and faithfull dealing The rest being nothing but such foolish stuffe as you are wont to talke without rime or reason but onely that there occurred a place of Bellarmine which you abuse soe strangely as that I could not passe it ouer without noting It is thus 26. You say touching your two Sacraments they are knowne and certaine because they were primarily ordained by Christ touching the other fiue they had not that immediat institution from Christ Wherevpon say you the learned Card. noting Bellarmine in the margent is forced to confesse The sacred things which the Sacraments of the new Law signify are threefold the grace of iustification the passion of Christ and aeternall life Touching Baptisme and the Eucharist the thing is most euident concerning the other fiue it is not soe certaine Soe say you where in a few lines you haue soe much falshood soe patched vp together that a man knoweth not well what to begin with But to begin you say your two Sacraments are knowne and certaine you meane knowne and certaine that