Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	father_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	1,582	5	9.3519	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41388	Firmianus and Dubitantius, or, Certain dialogues concerning atheism, infidelity, popery, and other heresies and schisme's that trouble the peace of the church and are destructive of primitive piety written in a plain and easie method for the satisfaction of doubting Christians / by Tho. Good.	Good, Thomas, 1609-1678.	1674 (1674)	Wing G1029; ESTC R23950	83,883	174

infirmities is the same Strong Handsome Healthy Man that he was when at twenty five or thirty years old Dub. Thô I have sometimes much reverenced the Church of Rome for her antiquity yet now I begin to doubt that there are many diseases in the body of that Church many wrinkles in her face which were not from the beginning but not withstanding those infirmities 't is the same true Church as 't was at the first plantation as the old decrepite man is the same man that ever he was for substance Firm. I deny not but that the Church of Rome is in some sence the same it first was in respect of divers Articles it holds but in respect of those gross errours it now maintaines 't is no more like what it was then the old decrepite diseased man is like what he was in his younger dayes Dub. Your comparison is very good and apposite to the present Church of Rome which past dispute is full of dangerous and desperate diseases as I in part do apprehend I pray you proceed to my other motive Firm. The Church of Rome is not so universal as her disciples boast of neither in respect of place or time 1. 'T is the observation of a learned man that if the world were divided into 30 parts 19 of them are heathens 6 Mahometans and 5 Christians of which the Papists are not the one halfe as Mr. Breirwood in his Enquires does demonstrate 2. As to the universality of time the Church of Rome cannot deduce her present tenents from the beginning of Christianity through the several ages or Centuryes that it has continued a Church from the first preaching of the Gospell I deny not but that 't is the same for purity of Doctrine as once it was is most false for the antient Church of Rome never taught worshiping of images praying to Saints that monstrous transubstantiation halfe Communion Praier in an unknowne tongue and many more Groundless fopperies against Scripture the general consent of fathers common sence and reason Dub. All this I am inclined to believe but how could these errours creepe into a Church which did so punctually observe the traditions of their forefathers what the Church of Rome now believes and teaches it received from the Church that was in the next age before it that from the Church next before it and so quite down to the Apostles times as the Author of the Dialogues betwixt the Vnckle and the Nephew hath most learnedly demonstra●ed Firm. Truly very learnedly even as Zeno proved there was no locall motion you have heard how Diogenes confuted him by an ocular demonstration were not the Scribes and Pharises great pretenders to a Strict observation of the traditions of their fathers And yet we know how grosly they had corrupted the law of Moses as is evident by our Saviours confutation of them Mat. 5. and in severall other places Dr. Crakan●thorp and other Learned pr●●●stants do evidently shew the beginning the progress of the Corruptions of the Church of Rome the manner of their spring and Growth but Suppose we cannot punctually t●ll the beginning and progress of such and such an errour shall we therefore believe it to be no errour you walk sometimes in the fields 't is evident to your eyes that the Grasse a●d graine do grow though you do not see them move at all sometimes you visit a friend that is sick of a languishing consumption you see by infallible symptoms that your friend is in a desperate Condition will you not believe him to be so because you cannot tell the time when or the manner how his disease came upon him Dub I cannot be so unreasonable and by what you have said my third reason falls to the Ground for the present Church of Rome has no agreement with the primitive but is extreamly opposite to it in the points before named besides many others I pray let me hear what you can say against their unity for they seem to be firmly united under one infallible head the Pope Firm. Truely Sir they do but seem so for they are miserably divided in the great fundamentall of their faith their infallibility and are not they very unjust to us to exact our beliefe of that which they themselves know not where to find for some of them tell us 't is fixed to the Popes chair some say 't is to be found in a Generall Councell ot●●rs believe it to be in neither but in both united together others would perswade us that 't is in the whole body of the Church so that if you seek after this pretty knack of infallibillity you will be abused as young apprentices are used to be in great Cittys and corporations who in waggery are sent from shop to shop for a penyworth of Ell-broad Packthred or a pound of stock-fish Tallow or a Lefthanded Shuttle after these poore novices have been sent from one end of the Citty to the other they returne home without such ridiculous Commodities and are sufficiently exposed to laughter and derision There 's scarce a Controversy in all Bellarmin's voluminous workes wherein he recites not the different opinions of the Roman Catholicks among themselves insomuch that this great Cardinals workes were not to be bought in Rome as Sir Edw Sandyes reports in his Europa speculum because he had so imprudently discovered the nakednesse of his mother in point of unity To say nothing of the contentions betwixt the Thomists and Scotists Ochamists c 't is pleasant to see how sweetly the Dominicans Franciscans Iesuites Molinists Iansenists Regulars and seculars agree together Though a laté Pope durst be so bold as to decide a Controversy for the Molimists against the Iansenians and so that which was none before very luckily became an article of Faith such is the Popes omnipotent Power that he can create Articles of Faith out of that which was a pure no●-entity a very nothing in the primitive times yet I heare that the Iansenists are so saucy as to continue very Iansenists still notwithstanding his holinesses in●allible determination Dub. I see there is no such unity in the Church of Rome as they bragg of I desire to heare what you can say against the Sanctity of their Doctrine Firm the Sanctity of their Doctrine referrs to that of Faith and Manners for that of Faith which is briefly comprehended in the Apostles Creed or any other Doctrinall poynt contained in holy Scripture expressly or by good consequence deduced from thence by the generall consent of Fathers we allow of but as for popish additions of new atticles by Pope Pius the 4. and the councell of Tr●nt that are against Scripture and can never be justified by the generall consent of the ancient Doctors of the Church we reject as false and consequently not Holy this I suppose you will dem●ns●rate when you please to give me the reasons which made you forsake the present Church of Rome As to their Sa●ctity of manners their

to the Sight the Smell the Tast shall we think that the God of truth Gave to m●n five Scences to deceive 4 of them by one pretended miracle or that 't is his method to informe the mind by Impostures if one or two or three Senses may be deceived why not all then what will become of Romes orall Tradition for may not the eare be deceived as well as the eye the nose the tast the touch here are 4 Sences to one against that tradition and then how are the papists certain of what they have received from the present Church or how is shee certaine of what shee received from the Church immediatly before her is not the doctrine of Transubstantiation which teaches men not to believe their eyes and other of their Sences a ready way to Atheism and infidelity for if four of the five Sences may be deceived then farewell all tradition and if these inferiour faculties may be thus bafled what satisfaction could it have been to St. Thomas that Christ was truly risen from the dead by putting his finger into the print of the nailes or his hand into his side But beside what sence and reason witness against this monstrous opinion the Scripture is clearely opposite unto it for Christ at the institution of this Sacrament did not take his own Body into his hand● but Bread he brake not his owne Body but Bread he did not eat his own Body he did not drinke his owne Blood but he drank of the fruit of the Vine Mat. 26.29 for so he called it after Consecration and Distribution I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine c. in like manner St. Paul 'T is stil this bread and this cup. 1. Cor. 11.26 When our Saviour saies Hoc est corpus meum what doth hoc stand for either it must signify this thing in my hand i. e. the bread or else his own body which body he holding in his hand utters these words hoc est corpus meum that is corpus meum est corpus meum a mere Identical trifleing proposition which according to all Logick is most absurd and destroys the very nature of a Sacrament which consists of two essential parts the sign and the thing signified besides they of Rome con●ess that the Body of Christ is not present under the species of Bread and Wine when the Preist begins to pronounce hoc nor till he hath uttered the last sillable um hoc est corpus meum such poore shifts these men are forced to use As for antiquity so much boasted of by those of Rome I know that some of the fathers to draw mens minds from the earthly elements to heavenly misteries used now and then high Rhetoricall expressions never dreaming of any substantiall change of the elements into the Body and Bloud of Christ as is evident from Iraeneus Panis Communis post consecrationem non est amplius panis communis sed efficitur Eucharistia quae constat ex duabus naturis terrenâ cael●sti haec oblatio ●st figura corporis sanguinis Christi Ambrose 1. ad Cor. Cap. 11. lib. 4. de Sacram. Non dubitavit dominus dicere hoc est corpus meum cum dedit fignum sui corporis Aug Epist 23. ad Bonifa 12. Cap. contra Adiman Hoc est corpus meum i. e. typus corporis mei Ter●ull Panem vinum Appellatione corporis sanguinis honoravit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adjiciens Theod. dial 1. 2. In a word the ancient fathers who opposed the Eutychian haeresy did make use of the sacramentall union of Bread and Wine to the body and blood of Christ shewing that the humane nature of Christ is not more changed into the divine then the Sacramentall Bread and Wine is into the very Body and Blood of Christ therefore they believed no such thing as that monstrous Popish transubstantiation So that we see the falsity and absurdity of it by Scripture antiquity common sence and reason besides the great danger of Idolatry in worshipping a piece of bread if there be no transubstantiation as some of the papists themselves confesse and they also acknowledge that if the Priest that consecrates were not rightly ordained or that he did not actually intend to consecrate or that he omitted any one Ceremony which they call necessary at the time of consecration that the Bread and Wine are not duely Consecrated and consequently no transubstantiation and therefore great probability that the Papists in worshipping the host do frequently comitt the very great Sin of Idolatry which was to me one great reason of forsaking their Communion Firm. Truely 't was a substantiall reason and such an one that has wrought upon others beside your selfe however I desire to hear from you what further reasons you had to leave the Church of Rome Dub. The next which I shall acquaint you with is the half Communion so manifestly against scripture and antiquity Our Blessed Saviour at the instituition of the Sacrament commands drinke yee all of this whereas at the giveing of the bread he said only take Eate foreseeing and obviating this grand error of the Church of Rome 't is true the persons then communicating were only his disciples which had received their Commissio● to preach the Gospell before that time but not in that ample and full manner as they received it after his Resurection as is plain from Iohn 20 22 23. and M●t. 28 29. but be it granted that they were all in full orders and upon that account the Cup was given them otherwise they should not have received it by the same reason the bread might be denyed to the people because none but Priests did then Communicate but we know that a Priest when he doth not consecrate is in the place of a Lay-man and consequently the disciples not consecrating at the Supper were no better and therefore according to the doctrine and practise of the Church of Rome should not have received the Cup. But what will they thinke of the whole Church of Corinth to whom St. Paul sent a first and second Epistle they cannot imagine they were all Priests observe then how ●e ●xhorts all of them to examine themselves in order to the receiving of the holy Eucharist under both kinds 1. Cor 11. this is so evi●ent that our adve●saries have nothing to Reply As for Antiquity the practise of the C●urch of Rome is clearly against it as Iam able to demonstrate from express testimonies of the fathers but our learned writers have ●aved me that trouble those that please may peruse Chami●re Ch●mnitius Iewell Cracanthorp The confe●sion of the Councell of Co●stance stands as a lasting Monument against the Popish innovation in this particular the words are these we decree in like manner that though in the Primitive Church the holy Eucharist was received under both kinds by the faithfull yet this Custome to avoid some dangers and scandals is reasonably