Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	bishop_n	title_n	universal_a	1,836	5	10.0429	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55387	The nullity of the Romish faith, or, A blow at the root of the Romish Church being an examination of that fundamentall doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Churches infallibility, and of all those severall methods which their most famous and approved writers have used for the defence thereof : together with an appendix tending to the demonstration of the solidity of the Protestant faith, wherein the reader will find all the materiall objections and cavils of their most considerable writers, viz., Richworth (alias Rushworth) in his Dialogues, White in his treatise De fide and his Apology for tradition, Cressy in his Exomologesis, S. Clara in his Systema fidei, and Captaine Everard in his late account of his pretended conversion to the Church of Rome discussed and answered / by Matthevv Poole ...	Poole, Matthew, 1624-1679.	1666 (1666)	Wing P2843; ESTC R202654	248,795	380

delivered by Peter in a Sermon 20 years before which I would not grant but that it is a work of charity to help the weak what hinders but that they may understand them in contrary senses and so derive from them contrary conclusions and yet both pretend to assert nothing but the doctrine delivered from S. Peter's mouth Are there not sharp contests among Popish Authors about the opinion of the Councel of Trent in diverse points and that too among those who were present upon the place and heard their debates And will these men still undertake to prove that Snow is black or which is equivalent to it that it was impossible to do t●at which is usually done viz. to mistake the doctrines of the former age Let us consider one Scripture instance S. Paul tels us a man is justified by faith ●thout the works of the law and that Abraham was thus justified the Papists remember the words but mistake the sence Now put case S. Paul had preached the same words as he did unquestionably the same things which he wrot who can say that hath any care what he saith that they that mistook the sense of those words when they read them in a Book could not as easily have mistaken them when they heard them from his mouth Especially if it be considered that St. Iames preached and wrot a Doctrine in words seemingly contrary to these My Question now is what should hinder that the several hearers of those Apostles perfectly remembring their various expressions might not derive contrary Traditions from them why might not the one side have apprehended Paul as excluding all works in the Protestant sense from Justification and the others have understood Iames as the Papists at this day do as conjoying faith and works in justification And if this cannot be denied then it follows unavioidably that errors may come into the Church under pretence of Tradition which was the thing to be proved Another instance we have in the Sadduces whose error is reported to have come into the world under the colour of Tradition for when Antigonus Sochoeus a Master in Israel was teaching that if there was no future reward no immortality of the Soul no resurrection of the body yet we ought to serve God his Scholar Sadok so mis-understood him that he broached a new doctrine and turned his Hypothetical Proposition into a Categorical and asserted that there was no resurrection of the body nor immortality of the soul c. And will these men pawn their souls on it that it was impossible for the Apostles hearers to commit the same mistakes in the doctrines they heard from their mouths Hath not S. Iohn given us an Instance of easiness and earlinesse of such mistakes in Joh 21. where upon that expression of Christ's concerning Iohn If I will that he tarry till I come what is that to thee the Evangelist observes that a Tradition was delivered among the brethren that that Disciple should not dye vers 22.23 In a word if it be so familiar a thing as daily experience shews for common hearers to mis-understand the words and mistake the sense of a Preacher when they are but newly come from him and all things are fresh in their memory what a desperate assertion is this that a man can certainly remember the words and infallibly understand the sense of those Sermons he heard from his former Ministers it may be twenty years ago And if it be granted as it cannot be denied that the hearers of the second age might mistake the doctrines delivered by the teachers of the foregoing age in some things why might not the hearers of the third age mistake their predecessors in other thinks and so of the fourth and further untill at last the Systeme of Divinity came to that ruthful habit in which it is delivered in the Church of Rome To clear this further consider what I have already intimated § 15. 3. The words of our predecessors may be remembred and yet the sense wonderfully perverted Now as it is not words but the sense of them wherein the soul lyes so all or most of the controversies in the Church are about the sense of words And in this Scripture and Tradition are equally lyable to the same fate the words may be agreed and the controversy arise solely about the sense of them For example the Tr●dition of the first age was this That God alone was to be worshipped not men not Angels not Images Nor is it possible that any man should expresse his mind more plainly and positively then the Fathers unanimously did in this particular Now comes the next age and they receive indeed this Tradition but then here ariseth a question In what sense they said God alone was to be worshipped S. Austin takes it up and saith they meant that God alone was to be worshipped with Latria and the Saints with Dulia And although it is evident enough that by Dulia S. Austin meant nothing but a civil worship because he ascribes it to the living as well as the dead and when he takes Dulia for a religious worship he appropriates it to God yet this unhappy distinction falling into the hands of his perverse successors gave rise to another controversy viz. In what sense S. Austin ascribes Dulia to the creature And thus as in the throwing of a stone upon the water one circle begets another so doth one controversy ingender another and every one of them is a convincing evidence of the fallibility of Tradition Take one Instance more S. Gregory the great Pope delivers this doctrine to posterity as his doctrine and the doctrine of his Ancestors that whosoever cals himself Universal Bishop is proud profane abominable wicked blasphemous and the forerunner of Antichrist This is confessed Now Gregory's successors have an itch after the name and thing of Universal Bishop in order to this they start a question where in deed there was none to men that had either science or conscience viz. In what sense Gregory condemned this title of Universal Bishop For this is a Maxime let the Pope speak what words he please the sense is alwaies orthodox Oh say these Sophi Iohn of Constantinople called himself Universal Bishop as if he were the onely Bishop and all others but his Vicars and that they must not so much as have the name of Bishop a sense that poor Iohn never dreamed of nor any man of that age for then surely Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch and Mauritius the Emperour would never have written to Gregory as they did that it was but a frivolous thing that Iohn desired so now by this ingenuous device here comes in a new contrary and that too forsooth a Catholick Tradition viz. That the Pope is and ever ought to be and ever was Universal Bishop But whether the Popish glosse be sound or rotten it equally serves my purpose which is to shew how controversies may arise about the sense and errors come in

at that door though Tradition hath made a true report of the words which it seldome doth I might multiply instances but these will suffice for a candid Adversary and others nothing will suffice § 16. 4. This will be made more probable if you consider the quality of some former ages which might and did give great advantage to error to creep in under the mask of Tradition and consequently evinceth how easy it was for one age to mistake the doctrines of the preceding age To this end consider with me the condition of the tenth age of which I shall desire you to judg according to the testimony of their own authors The words of Baronius are these In the nine hundredth year of Christ the third Indiction a new age begins which by reason of its asperity and barrennesse of good is wont to be called the Iron age from the deformity of abounding wickednesse the Leaden and from the scarcity of writers the obscure age And Genebrard though according to the manner of the Beast he chargeth it upon the Lutherans that they only call it saeculum infelix an unhappy age yet he elsewhere forgets himself therein the more inexcusable because he was one of them who ought to have good memories and in his Chronology plainly tels us This is called the unhappy age being barren of ingenuous and l●arned men and he tells you that the Popes of that age the principal conservators of Tradition and the subjects of Infallibility had altogether fallen from the vertue of their Ancestors and were rather Apostates then Apostles Can any man doubt of the power of Papists to make a Transubstantiation when we see with our eyes that they can turn every piece of wood into an infallible Doctor I think I need say nothing for the confutation of Mr. White 's argument but barely repeat it that the Reader may compare it with the state of this age It is this The whole Church or major part of it in every age were so knowing that they infallibly understood all the doctrines of the foregoing age and so carefull and pious that they would not deceive themselves nor their posterity Answer the argument I need not but only observe 3 things in this age which will pr●ve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not onely the possibility but a great probability both of mistaking their ancestors and of deceiving themselves and their posterity 1. Ignorance 2. Carelesness and Profanenesse 3. Scarcity of Writers No man can adjudg Infallibility to such an age unlesse he will offer violence to all his rational powers § 17. 1. Here was grosse ignorance in the generality of the Clergy the Popes themselves not excepted The whole world was overspread with darkness as thick as that in AEgypt saith Baronius It is reported that at that time there were no publick Schools saith Carolus Sigonius And the Synodus Rhemensis cited by Baronius plainly say that at that time it was reported that there were scarce any learned men at Rome He that saith so ignorant an age could not mistake must needs be in a dream and when he awakes I shall give him further answer If any prudent man who will not suffer his eyes likes Sampsons to be put out that he may grind in the Pope's mill reflect upon the state of some ignorant Country-congregations among us if he please to examine them he shall find them so far from understanding infallibly the doctrines delivered by their Ancestors and former Ministers 20 or 30 years before that they do not understand the opinions of their own age no nor so much as those which their Minister though an able painful and plain Preacher such as were very few in that age hath been preaching upon for diverse years together And yet forsooth a company of such men as these by Mr. White 's argument are free from all possibilities of mistakes what were the doctrines delivered by the age before them § 18. 2. There was an universal carelesness and profanesse upon mens spirits Neither Ministers nor people did much busy their heads about such matters but minded only the advancement of their secular interest and the pampering of their bellies say their own Historians the Clergy then were universally negligent in teaching and instructing the people whose ignorance they saw most serviceable to their designes and the people were as carelesse to understand the concernments of religion And if this very carelesnesse and profanesse did utterly lose and extinguish all the sentiments and doctrines of true religion delivered by Adam and Noah in their posterity why might it not be so after Christ's time Mr. White and his Partisans venture their salvation upon the truth of this absurd Proposition That it was impossible the same cause should produce the same effects Nor is it to any purpose that Rushworth alledgeth to prove the disparity viz. That onely one man and one woman were witnesses of those high wond●rs whereas the Gospel had innumerable miracle● witnessed to multitudes of people in diverse countries that the hearers could hardly b●lieve them that they had but a sl●ight care of recommending God's service to their children and that they w●re taken up with the worlds plantation and other secular affairs and there was no set form and institutions of Priests and governours to joyne all nations in communion no chief Bishop c. Dialog 3. § 15. For 1. supposing that which Divines generally believe viz. that Adam truly repented of his sin it is contrary to common sense to believe that he who had such a fresh knowledg and lively sense of the difference between highest felicity and utmost misery should be carelesse in the concernments of religion that he that had been the unhappy instrument of ruining all his posterity should not use all possible diligences to heal the wound himself had made and with greatest instances and importunities indeavour the perpetuation of religion to his posterity 2. It is false to say there were then no Priests no chief Bishop to take care of religion for though there were none that had the names yet there were that had the office and did the work viz. the heads of families and especially the great and common Father and universal Bishop of all mankind And it is both against reason and experience and charity to think this natural Bishop would take less care of the conservation of Religion among his own natural children then the Bishop of Rome would do among his titular relations 3. As for the wonders of the Creation they were so great and glorious and innumerable and at that time so evident and unquestionable that it is the greatest wonder of all how they could disbelieve them or so soon wear out the memory of them especially when Adam lived above 900 years to demonstrate the verity and inculcate the story of them whereas the Apostles were dead and all the eye witnesses of their miracles in a fourth part of that time In a word