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	general_a	12	3	6.6090	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

owne authors and why may not he doe the like to vs for the reason is cleane different They haue noe publique authority which can define what is Faith and what not but that is left not onely to euery priuate Doctour or Minister but to euery priuate Lay man and Woman And though it be true that it is noe conuincing proofe to vrge one particular Protestant Doctor 's authority against another there being not two among them of one opinion wholy much lesse one bound to answeare for the other Yet we are faine and may with good reason vse it because they haue noe certaine rule of Faith wherewith we may vrge them Authority of Church they haue none Scripture they haue indeede but soe mangled corrupted peruerted by translation and misinterpreted according to their owne fancies that as they haue it it is as good as nothing Traditions they haue none Councels they haue not any among themselues nor will stand to ours Consent of Fathers or Schoolemen they care not for Consent of Doctors they haue not among themselues nor can haue without an heade neyther if they had would any man thinke himself more bound by that then by consent of Fathers what then is left but to vrge them with the authority of such as they acknowledge for their brethren But with vs the case is farre different for we haue diuers infallible rules of faith though all with some reference to one principal rule As Scripture in the plaine and literal sense which is out of controuersy tradition or common beleefe and practize of the whole Church Councels either general or particular confirmed by the See Apostolique the authority of that Holy See it self defining ex cathedra though without either generall or particular Councel the common and vniforme Consent of ancient Fathers or moderne Doctours and Schoolemen deliuering any thing vnto vs as Matter of Faith 15. All these six rules of faith we acknowledge wherewith let this Knight or any Protestant in the world vrge vs we flinch not wee doe not deny the authority but are ready to make good whatsoeuer is taught anie of these wayes What folly then is it for a man to stand vrging vs with the authority of any one priuate man who may straggle out from the rest though to goe farther then we neede in such great liberty as wee giue Protestants wee giue them leaue to vrge vs with the authority of any one single Doctour in a point wherein hee is not contradicted by other Catholique Doctours or which other Catholiques doe not wholy disauow What more can a man desire And yet againe though the Knight or any other Protestant should bring such a single author for his opinion yet is there such a maine difference betweene him and them that noe Protestant can iustly pleade that single Catholique author to be wholy of his opinion or beleife in that point to say nothing of others wherein they differ For the Protestant holdeth his doctrine stifly not meaning in any case or for any authority to change or leaue it which is it that that maketh a man properly an Haeretique Whereas the Catholique euer holdeth it with indifferency ready to leaue it whensoeuer the Catholique Church shall determine otherwise Which if Sir Humphrey will be but content to doe wee will beare with all his errours because then they will be soone amended What little helpe then is hee like to haue from Catholique authors or what likelyhoode is there for him to make good his paradoxes or rather his most absurd heresies out of our owne Cardinals Bishops Doctors Schoolemen c. whom he putteth all in the plural number as if the number were to bee very great Whereas God knoweth they come very poore and single as shall appeare and some bee Cardinals of his owne creating only as I shall after shew but this hee doth for credit of his cause though it bee with losse of his owne 16. And all this which heere I say is to bee vnderstood supposing that indeede he cite Catholique authors and cite them truely as heere hee promiseth which promise for as much as concerneth true citing how hee performeth I shall afterwards make manifest heere onely I shall adde a word concerning his authors who he promiseth vs shal bee Catholiques Whereas indeede for the most part they are either knowne Haeretiques or some such men as though with much adoe they may passe for Catholiques as Erasmus Cornelius Agrippa Cassander and the like yet they gaue themselues soe much liberty in they writings as they came to bee noted for it and their works forbidden Of which I will not therefore make any account as noe other Catholique doth But when I come to such authorityes as there be many in this booke I meane to make noe other answeare but that the author is condemned or booke forbidden in the index librorum prohibitorum the table of forbidden bookes Wherein I cannot but note Sir Humphrey's ill fauoured and dishonest dealing in pretending to cite only our owne Doctors and Schoolemen and yet afterwards obtruding such as he knoweth to bee subiect to soe mayne exception and soe to bee by vs disauowed and reiected as incompetent Iudges or witnesses 17. But there is noe other to bee expected at such a man's hands and therefore I will neyther looke for better nor say more of it but by this occasion adde a word or two concerning the Index expurgatorius which soe much troubleth the consciences of these men Which being rightly vnderstood noe man of reason and iudgment can be offended with it For it is nothing but a continuance of the same care which hath beene euer obserued in the Church of God for preseruing of the Catholique fayth and integrity of life from the corruption of Haeretiques and other wicked men who by bookes bring great preiudice both to Faith and manners vnlesse special care be vsed for praeuenting thereof Of the necessity and iustnes of which course there be whole books written by diuers learned Catholique Doctors neyther can any body dislike thereof but onely Haeretiques who indeede find themselues mightily aggreiued therewith as being by this course depriued of a chiefe meanes of spreading their wicked doctrine by books though indeede they haue noe more cause to complaine then Necromancers Iudiciary Astrologers Southsayers Witches Magicians and euen bad Catholiques who publish naughty and lasciuious books for this care of the Church doth extend to all whatsoeuer may be offensiue or hurtfull eyther to faith or good manners 18. But because Sir Humphrey will needs haue it that the bible is also forbidden and the Father's writings appointed to bee corrected and rased I answeare that for the Bible indeede it is not permitted in the vulgar language to euery body without any reguard or distinction of persons as it neuer was nor ought to bee as is well proued by authority of Fathers and reason in the preface of the Rhemes testament But yet it is not soe forbidden but that it

of S. Augustine where he hauing spoken of those 2. Sacraments addeth and the rest of the holy Sacraments Where any man of common sense may see he meaneth Sacraments in the same sense neither doe we euer gather any of them to be a Sacrament out of the general word alone vnlesse there be something to limite the signification thereof or that there be something added which sheweth the proper effect of a Sacrament and which cannot be done without it And in this manner Sir Humphrey you shall find plaine and expresse proofes for euery one of these Sacraments out of S. Augustine in Bell. which S. Aug. you cannot deny to be a good vndoubted author Bell. de sacr in genere cap. 24. Wherefore I cannot but dread to thinke of that feareful curse which you draw vpon your selfe in the beginning of this Paragraph Where you are content the anathema shall fall vpon your head if any man aliue shall proue out of any ancient Father or good author within a 1000. yeares after Christ that there be noe more nor noe fewer then 7. Sacraments For though S. Aug. doe not say there be 7. in actu signato as Schollers speake that is saying there be 7. and noe more yet he doth it in actu exercito as by saying this is a Sacrament that is a Sacrament and of one in this place of another in that place as the holy scripture doth of the 9. quires of Angels which all make vp seauen and noe more Which manner of reckoning you are content with and allow for good And indeede cānot disallow for as Bellarmine saith well that is the Fathers manner of writing such things pag. 149. edit 3. Soe long as we shew the word Sacrament to be taken in a strict sense or that some other circumstance doth shew they speake of a Sacrament properly 15. Now because you loue malediction soe well that you may be sure of it I will cite you two places out of S. Aug. for two Sacraments which you most doubt of and one specially wherein there may be most difficulty These two are Confirmation and Matrimony lib. 2. cont liter Petelia cap. 104. Of the former he saith thus Sacramentum Chrismatis in genere visibilium signaculorum sacrosanctum est sicut ipse Baptismus The Sacrament of Chrisme in the kind of visible signes is holy as Baptisme it selfe By which words it is most plaine that Confirmation is a visible signe holy in the same kind as Baptisme And therefore leauing noe place of doubt they neede noe further explication Of Matrimony the same Saint speaketh in one place thus In nostrorum nuptijs plus valet sanctitas Sacramenti quam foecunditas vteri De bon Coniug cap. 18. In our marriages or in the marriages of ours that is of Christians the holynes of the Sacrament is more worth then the fruitfulnes of the wombe And in another thus cap. 24. Bonum nuptiarum per omnes gentes omnes homines in causa generandi est in fide castitatis quod autem ad populum Dei attinet etiam in sanctitate Sacramenti per quam nefas est etiā intercedente repudio alteri nubere The good of marriage among all nations and all men is or consisteth in generation and fidelity of chastity but for as much as pertaineth to the people of God also in the holynesse of the Sacrament whereby it is vtterly vnlawfull euen vpon bill of diuorce to marry to another Which two places doe euidently conuince marriage in Christians to bee a Sacrament not onely because he vseth the word Sacrament which though it be general yet considering the particular circumstances and that the common vse was most to take it for a Sacrament properly might bee some argument but by reason of the sanctity and by reason of the signification and insolubility insoemuch as this Saint maketh the proper difference betweene our marriages and those of others to be by reason of the insolubility of our marriages which this Saint attributeth properly thereunto For the sanctity or holynesse then it is manifest out of S. Augustine against you Sir Humphrey that marriage among Christians is an holy thing and that it hath some perfection in the new Law instituted by Christ which it had not before both which things you deny to belong therevnto and therefore exclude it from the number of the Sacraments but falsely as you see which is enough against you 16. Now this sanctity cannot consist onely in the signification of the coniunction betweene Christ and his Church For it had that from the beginning Genes 2.24 when it was first said erunt duo in carne vna They shall be two in one flesh Which because it is verified by the carnal copulation of man and woman bound together by the band of mutual society may bee found in all marriages though nothing soe perfectly as in Christiā marriage But this sheweth that seing this signification might be in other marriages the sanctity which S. Aug. saith is proper to our marriages cannot consist in that signification onely but there must bee another sanctity and a sanctity which may haue relation to the persons which cannot cōsist wholy in that absolute insolubility which in Christian marriages as Diuines say is an effect of the Sacrament For our Sauiour by his owne words Math. 19.9 sheweth that that was in some sort natural and belonged to marriage euen from the very beginning of the world Wherefore it followeth clearely out of S. Aug. that there is some sanctity belonging to this Sacrament and sanctifying it in as much as pertaineth to this coniunction of man and woman by the bond of Marriage and heere in this saying of S. Aug may be noted those three goods which I spoke before out of S. Isidore and which Catholiques commonly attribute to marriage Proles Fides Sacramentum Whereof the former two may pertaine as S. Augustine saith to other marriages the third onely to Christians And soe all being cleared which you haue out of the Fathers I come to the Schoolemen and other authors 17. And first I begin with Bessarion whom you will needs haue accursed by the Councel of Trent together with the Fathers For saying we reade of two onely Or as you say in another place of onely two Sacraments which were deliuered vs plainely in the Ghospel But I must tell you Sir Humphrey that in the alleadging or translating of these words you are bold to vse your ordinary tricks of legerdemaine as I shall shew Bessarion's words in Latine as you your selfe cite them in the margent are these Haec duo sola Sacramenta in Euangelijs manifestè tradita legimus These two Sacraments alone or onely we reade manifestly in scripture Which is a very true saying for it is nothing more but this that we find these two Sacraments expresly deliuered and that we find none other or none of the rest soe deliuered that is plainely Whereas the meaning of