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	speak_v	word_n	4,670	5	4.7227	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13210	The falshood of the cheife grounds of the Romish religion Descried and convinced in a briefe answere to certaine motiues sent by a priest to a gentleman to induce him to turne papist. By W.S.; Seminary priest put to a non-plus	Sutton, William, 1561 or 2-1632.; Sutton, William, b. 1607 or 8.	1635 (1635)	STC 23508; ESTC S100149	32,996	132

Faith Religion and Sacraments instituted by Christ In which words let it bee no offence to say that hee deales as boatmen vse to doe when they looke one way row another for whatsoever he talkes of the Catholique Church you shall finde presently that hee meanes the Romish Church a meere particular one though for the credit thereof he would faine yoake it together with the Church Catholique in the same description But see his ill lucke For while he goes about to describe them both in one he failes to describe either of them as he should For if the Catholique Church doth comprehend as hee saith the multitude of all true beleeuers even from righteous Abel as Augustine speaketh to the end of the world how can this agree to the Romish Church On the other side if it comprehend no more then such as are subiect to one visible head how can the name of Catholique in right belong vnto it So this description is like a shooe that will serue neither foote If wee should grant that the Romish faith in these daies were the true faith of Christ yet could not that make their Church to bee the Catholique Church but only a part thereof and that is the most that can bee said of it though it were farre better then it is but the Pope lookes higher then so Rome scornes to be ranckt in the order of particular Churches He must be the vniversall Bishop and she the vniversall Church of the World For if that should be denied what right hath either He or Shee to claime subiection of those who haue their severall dependance vpon other Bishops Therefore to make this good and to bring all fish into St Peters net there were some well-wishers to the Romish cause who not finding how two such disparates in nature as vniversall and particular Catholique and singular might possibly be joyned together in one subiect they found a meanes at last to joyne them both together in one word and hence it comes to passe that instead of Romana fides Romana Ecclesia which was wont to bee the common language among all Christians wee must call it henceforth Romano Catholicam fidem Romana Catholicam Ecclesiam or else they will complaine that wee allow them not their full stile Thus still it falls out that Portenta rerū gignunt portenta verborum And if it were not a new and strange doctrine it never needs to coine such new and strange words And yet as if Romana Ecclesia did not speake home enough to expresse their meaning or as if it were too large a terme and they durst not trust that more then Catholica or Apostolica Bellarmine de effect sacr l. 2. c. 25. to be sure to fit the shooe to the Popes foot restraines it to nunc Romana Ecclesia I know not what the spirit of giddinesse is if this bee not or why wee should not say of these men as it was said of the Arrians Habent annuas menstruas fides Ecclesias If the ancient faith of Rome were the same with the present what meanes nunc Romana if it were not how is the present faith Catholica For that onely is so quae est omnium temporum locorum The Councells of Lateran or Trent will not be guided by the Councells of Basil or Constance And therefore Cusanus speakes plainely and saies that there is fides temporum a faith that alters with the time and that the true sense of the Scripture is that which the present Church giues Non est mirum si praxis Ecclesiae vno tempore interpretetur scripturā vno modo alio tempore alio modo nam intellectus currit cum praxi intellectus enim qui cum praxi concurrit est spiritus vivificans sequuntur ergo Scripturae Ecclesiam non è converso Epist 7. Bohem. The holy christian Catholike Church No absolute Monarchy is a visible Monarchie vnder one visible lawfull head I complained before that the Church of Rome being a meere Particular he made it all one to the Catholique Church of Christ Here I finde cause to complaine on the other side of his wrong done to the Catholique Church when he termes it a visible Monarchie vnder a visible Head which is the placing of a barre in her armes and makes her no better then the Romish or any other particular being of the younger house 1. When hee names the Church a Monarchie if he mean it in respect of Christ sole King and Monarch thereof I will not contend with him about the name or if hee meane it in regard of particular Churches we confesse that in as much as they are subiect to their severall Bishops their governement in that respect is a kinde of Monarchie though not an absolute Monarchie but such a one as is tempered with an Aristocrasie because Bishops either doe not or should not impose lawes vpon the Church but Ex communi Concilio Presbyterorum by the advice and with the consent of their Presbyterie A visible Monarchie Not visible If the Catholique Church were a naturall body and not a mysticall If it were some individuall and singular subiect and not a meere vniversall as the name of a Catholique imports Visibility might well bee an adiunct belonging vnto it Which otherwise I confesse I vnderstand not how it should and I belieue they that speake most of it vnderstand it as little if your friend haue ever seene the Catholique Church with his eye let him say whether it be Diaphanum or adiaphanum luminosum corpus or opacum bid him tell you of what colour and complexion it is And doe not thinke I iest in mouing such questions for in good earnest it must bee qualified thus for in some such sort if it be subiect to the eye of man I grant he hath seene some particular persons that belong vnto the Church and are members thereof and so haue I often but for the Church it selfe whose formality consisteth in a spirituall coniunction with Christ the head of the members themselues one with another this mysticall vnion I am sure he did never see therefore hee did never see the Church no not any particular Church to speake properly much lesse the Catholike church This is an article of faith and not an obiect of sense farre aboue the spheare of all optike learning it is an Article to bee believed not a thing to be descried by a paire of spectacles or any other prospectiue glasse if hee meane Video pro intelligo by the old Grammer rule let him and the rest speake so a Gods name and call it hereafter the intelligible Church that we may vnderstand them for then they shall begin to speake somewhat more like Protestants for otherwise while they call it the vniversall yet visible Church they interfeare at every word and speake pure non-sense The Pope not the head of the Church Vnder one lawfull visible head It had beene plaine dealing

a building as they would raise vpon it The most that can be inferred therevpon is a primacy of order which no man ever denied If that will content the Pope when a generall scrutinie of Bishops is called to haue his name set in the first place let him take it 2. After the Apostles had visibly receiued the Holy Ghost St Peter made the first Sermō thereof whereat 3000. persons were converted Act. 2.4 For Peter to haue his name placed first or to preach the first Sermon these are poore proofes for a Supremacy and it is but a poore Supremacy that can bee drawne from such proofes Why should it argue any Supremacy more in him that hee preached the first Sermon then in Mary Magdaalen that shee published the first newes of Christs resurrection to the Disciples even to Peter himselfe Mark 16.7 Ioh. 20.2 But how if Peter did not preach the first Sermon after the visible descent of the Holy Ghost Why then all that hee vrgeth is to little purpose Consider the text well Saint Peters sermon begins at the 14. Verse of the 2. Chap. of the Acts the effect thereof was the conversion of 3000. soules mentioned vers 41. It is plaine in the 4. Vers that all the Apostles had spoken publikely to the people before Peter stood vp to begin his Sermon The argument whereof they intreated was the same that Peter handled they declared vnto them Magnalia Dei the wonderfull works of God Vers 11. and Peter declared nothing else That preaching of theirs was not without good effect as well as S. Peters though we know not the iust number of the converts Nay it seemes that the conversion of those 3000. was the fruit of all their preaching at that time and not of Peters alone and so it is said vers 41. That vpon the same day were added vnto the Church about 3000 soules Hee doth not say that all this was the effect of Peters one sermon but that so many were converted vpon that day To the next proofe With his word and power hee killed Ananias and Saphira for their Sacriledge Act. 5. vers 5. It was for their lying to the Holy Ghost that Peter slew them and so he tells them vers 3.4 so not for sacriledge alone But let it be as hee would haue it I say it proues not that for which he brings it S. Paul by the like power smote Elimas the Sorcerer with blindnesse Act. 13. Now if at the same time Paul had slaine Elimas outright and in stead of taking his eye-sight from him had taken away his life as I thinke no man doubts but hee could haue done aske your friend whether he thinke that such an act would haue made Paul head of the Apostles Let him spit and speake out plainely His fourth proofe followeth with some more shew though of as little force as the former 4. St Peter called the first Councell of the Apostles holden at Ierusalem and first spake therein Act. 15. v. 7. Bellar. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 22. saith Petrus in concilio primus loquitur sententiam eius Jacobus omnesque alij sequuntur This is more then hee should haue said because it is more then he can proue but yet he durst not say as your friend doth that Peter called the Councell he knew it to bee vntrue and if you read the whole Chap. you shall not find one word to that purpose Peter spake first in the Councell so Bellarm. saith indeed and your friend speakes it vpon his credit But yet the Councell it selfe saies no. Act. 15. v. 7. When there had beene much disputing Peter rose vp and said Men and Brethren Therefore some other there spake of the matter before Peter And what if hee had beene the first speaker in that Councell would that proue his supremacy Iust as it was proued before by his making the first sermon Nay rather it is an argument that doth overthrow his supremacy altogether For it is well knowne that in such kinde of assemblies the inferiour doe commonly speake first and the President of the Councell hauing heard and gathered their opinions deliuereth his iudgement last of all according whereunto the decree commonly passeth So I haue heard that the Lord Chancelour doth in the Star-Chamber and the chiefe Iudges vpon other benches And in this very Councell of Ierusalem when Peter and Paul and Barnabas had spoken their minds concerning the matter in question Iames stands vp and vsing a speciall kinde of authority Men and brethren harken vnto me v. 13. he concludes the busines which shewes that he and none but hee was President in that Councell and so Chrysostome tearmes him calling his sentence the definitiue sentence according whereunto the decre of the councell was framed Chrysostom Hom. 33. in Act. Apostolorum It is affirmed by old writers and some moderne learned Protestants that S. Peter was 25. yeeres Bishop of Rome and by the auncient Ecclesiasticall writers that Saint Peter and S. Paul were both of them martyred together in Rome vnder the Emperour Nero. Origen apud Eusebium l. 3. c. 1. Euseb c. 24. l. 2. Hist Eccl. Tert. depraescrip c. 36. Aug. Tract 123 in Ioh. Chysostom Beda in hunc locum S. Ambr. Ser. 66.68 S. Maximus How Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome When Peter is called Bishop of Rome or Iames of Ierusalem or any other Apostle of any other particular City we must vnderstand that in those speeches the name of Bishop is taken in a larger extent then the strict Ecclesiasticke vse of the word will allow As when Presbiters are called Bishops Act. 20.28 And the Apostleship it selfe is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 12.25 Rom. 11.13 For as in propriety of speech a Deacon is inferiour to a Presbiter a Presbiter to a Bishop so is a Bishop vnto an Apostle by many degrees though the names be often vsed promiscuously the calling of the one is extraordinary and the whole world is within the compasse of his commission the other is a meere ordinary vocation and his Iurisdiction confined within the limits of one Diocesse But because the Apostles being sent by Christ to preach the Gospell to all nations made their chiefe abode in Citties of greatest resort as Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Rome hence it comes to passe that they are often called Bishops of those Citties not in that sense that in times succeeding the chiefe pastors of every Citty were knowne by that name of Bishops but after a more large or rather licentious vse of the words whosoever calls S. Peter Bishop of Rome in any other sense then so he speakes as wisely as if he should say the King of England were Constable of New-market because his Maiesty resides often in that place How long Saint Peter sate Bishop there You vnderstand by this that Saint Peter is called some-times Bishop of Rome your friend adds that hee sate Bishop there 25. reeres as old writers assirme and some moderne learned