Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A71074
|
A second letter to Mr. G. in answer to two letters lately published concerning the conference at the D. of P.
|
Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.; Godden, Thomas, 1624-1688.
|
1687
(1687)
|
Wing S5635; ESTC R14280
|
27,300
|
46
|
you How you could prove the Church of Rome to be Infallible And in a Copy sent from Ch. where you dispersed it the Title of the second Dispute is Stillingfleet's first Question How do you prove c. so that my Name was here falsly put in and it is easie to guess with what design But to proceed When you said the Infallibility of the Church of Rome consisted in following the universal Testimony of all Traditionary Christians Your Copy makes me ask a very wise Question upon it viz. How does if appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in Traditiun Whereas I put two Questions to you 1. How does it appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in the sense and meaning of Tradition 2. Is this Tradition a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture The Design of which Questions was to shew 1. That to receive a Doctrine by mere Tradition can afford no Infallible Ground of Faith unless persons be assured of the true Sense and Meaning of the Doctrine so delivered As for instance suppose the Doctrine delivered be that Christ was the Son of God if the Infallibility of Tradition goes no farther than the bare delivery from Father to Son then Faith can go no farther than the general words though an Heretical sense may lie under them If the Infallibility doth extend to the sense and meaning of these words then either every Traditionary Christian is to give this sense which will make a very large Infallibility in the whole Body of Traditionary Christians or else the explaining the sense and meaning of Tradition must belong to a certain Order of Men by virtue of a divine Promise If so then the Infallibility of Tradition cannot consist in holding the same Doctrine to day that was delivered yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour as you asserted For if the Church may explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as to oblige Men to believe that by virtue of such explication which they were not obliged to before then it is impossible the Infallibility of Tradition should be in a constant Tradition from Father to Son. For they have no power to oblige to any more than they received but according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and some will tell you it is Heresie to deny it and I appeal to F. Warner if it be not the Church hath power and authority to explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as persons are obliged upon pâ—in of Damnation to believe that Sense and Meaning of Tradition which the present Church delivers As will Appear by an undeniable instance The Tradition of a Real Presence in the Eucharist is allowed on all hands but all the Controversie is and hath been for some Ages what the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition is Whether it be a Real Presence by way of Efficacy and Influence or by a mystical Union or by a substantial Change of the very Elements into the Body and Bloud of Christ. The Tradition of the Real Presence may be preserved under every one of these Explications the Question now is whether it be sufficient to adhere to the general Tradition of the Church or it be not necessary to Salvation to adhere to the Churches Explication of the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition in the Councils of Lateran and Trent If it be said that the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition as there expressed viz. Transubstantiation was always deliver'd from Father to Son I answer 1. This is more than is pretended by many of the greatest Men in the Roman Church as hath been lately abundantly shewed And it is impossible to make it out that the manner of the Presence hath been constantly delivered from Father to Son from the time of Christ and his Apostles for the main Testimonies alledged out of Antiquity are onely for a Real Presence and there are as express Testimonies against the Change of the Elements as there are any for the other 2. This takes off from the Power and Authority of the Church of Rome if it cannot make a necessary Explication of the Sense and Meaning of Tradition and resolves all into a meer humane Faith which is the unavoidable Consequence of this Doctrine of Oral Tradition For no other Account can be given of it than from meer Natural Reason viz. that Traditionary Christians could not believe otherwise to day than they did yesterday Granting this to be true which is very far from being so as shall be shewed when Your Answer to the Instance of the Greek Church comes abroad yet the utmost this can amount to is that I resolve my Faith into a Logical Demonstration And is this the Faith Christians are to be saved by What Grace of God what Assistence of the Holy Spirit are necessary to such a Faith as this But for this I refer you to the Haeresis Blackloäna c. 2. I intended by the second Question to put a Difference between the Tradition allowed by us and the Tradition disputed If no more were meant by Tradition than the Universal Tradition of the Christian Church as to the Books of Scripture this I had before granted to be a sufficient Ground for the Certainty of our Faith as to the Canon of Scripture which is our Rule of Faith but if by Tradition be understood either some necessary Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture or a Power in the Church to make unnecessary to become necessary this I denyed and desire to see some better Proof of it than you produce All the Answer which you give in your own Paper to these two Questions is that All Traditionary Christians that is all Bishops all Priests all Fathers and all People following this Rule and receiving Faith because it was received the day before could not innovate in Faith unless they could all either forget what they received the day before or out of Malice change it therefore because no cause can be assigned for such an effect they cannot innovate If there can Assign it Now to which of the Questions that I put is this an Answer Doth this shew that the Church of Rome is Infallible in giving the Sense and Meaning of Tradition or that this Tradition is a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture But it seems to be an Answer to the Question in your Copy and therefore it is very suspicious that the Question was so framed that the Answer might seem pertinent to it To shew the vanity of this Demonstration I produced the Instance of the Greek Church which followed Tradition from Father to Son and yet you charge it with Errour in matters of Faith so that a Church following Tradition may err in matters of Faith. Here again your Copy notoriously fails for it makes me put such another wise Question as before Whether the Greek Church did follow from Father to Son the Tradition in matters of Faith or no As though I had desired Information from
A SECOND LETTER To Mr. G. In ANSWER to TWO LETTERS Lately Published concerning The Conference At the D. of P. Imprimatur Guil. Needham Apr. 22. 1687. LONDON Printed for H. Mortlocke at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard 1687. A SECOND LETTER To Mr. G. SIR YOU may wonder that I continue my Application to your self when two Gentlemen have appeared in Print so lately for You but the Character they give of You is so extraordinary that I have no mind to change my man and therefore hope you will at last generously undertake the Defence of your own Cause The Authour of the first Letter saith Those that know you better think there is not an honester Man in the Nation and that if you have wronged me it is the first wrong you ever did in your Life I am afraid some will suspect your Friend was not in earnest when he wrote this and that it rather looks like libelling the Nation than commending You. But because it is so rare a thing to meet with a Person set forth with such Advantage you cannot blame me for desiring to hold a Correspondence with You in the way of Letters For all Mr. M's Arguments for Verbal Conferences have not prevailed upon 〈◊〉 and therefore I proceed in Writing another I 〈◊〉 to You looking on this Way as much freer 〈…〉 sudden heats and surprises more cautious and 〈…〉 erate and less liable to Cavils and Misrepresete 〈…〉 And methiâ—ks the Account Mr. M. gives of our Conâ—â—rence confutes all his Arguments unless they â—e â—etter managed in â—â—ffee-houses and other places i. e. with more Temper â—nd Fairness than he represents ours to have been The Truth is the Experience I have had of the Disingenuity both in and after them hath made me not very fond of them But it may be Verbal Conferences are most agreeable to Oral Tradition but we who prefer a Written Rule as far more certain rather chuse to publish in Writing the Sense of our Minds than leave it to the arbitrary Representing of others Words Which I had suffered so much by that I was forced for my own Vindication to betake my self to Writing a former Letter to you wherein I complained of the Injury done me by false and imperfect Copies of our Conference dispersed by you If that were the first wrong you ever did in your Life I am very sorry you should begin with me For after all that your Friends have said for you I am still of the same Opinion And in this Letter shall more fully give you my Reasons But I hope you are not now one hundred and fifty Miles off lest I be told again that I take advantage of your great Distance as though I durst not write to you at a less distance than between L. and Ch. But in case you were there still am I the less injured by your going so far or less obliged to vindicate my self among those who had been abused by false Reports and Copies of the Conference I now apply my self to what Mr. M. hath said for you in Answer to my former Letter Mr. M. saith p. 5. you were far from making great Boasts of a Victory after the Conference Must I rely on Mr. M.'s Authority against the Infallibility of Oral Tradition The matter of fact was deliver'd to me from several Persons who themselves heard you and in several Places What must I now believe according to your Infallible Rule of Oral Tradition Here are several Witnesses of unquestionable Credit who had it not by a long series from Father to Son but immediately from your own Mouth who could not easily forget what they heard you say and would not out of malice alter it and yet your own Advocate declares expresly contrary to them and thinks I am bound to believe his Testimony against them all I pray Sir consider what a reflexion this is upon your Rule and what little security we can have for our Faith then by Oral Tradition If so many Persons who were competent Judges of what they heard themselves and whose Testimony I had no reason to suspect could so strangely deceive me at so little a distance what Infallibility can you pretend in bare Tradition of matters of Faith when the things themselves are so much harder to conceive and deliver entire and the distance so very much greater Either therefore you must renounce your Advocate if you hold to the Infallibility of Oral Tradition or if you hold to Mr. M. you must renounce your Rule of Faith. Mr. M. seems to deny the charge of your giving out false and imperfect Copies of the Conference But that which I charged you chiefly with was from one that was received from your own hands and the rest I saw afterwards agreed with it And yet Mr. M. cannot deny that the Copies given out contained lame and unfinished Discourses p. 5. that the Noise and Wrangling might hinder the Writers from being so exact p. 15. that we parted in so great a hurry that those things which were spoken were not written nor some perhaps of what was written so nicely exact c. p. 19. that in the latter part of this Dispute things were not set down so exactly as they ought to have been ibid. that the Disputations of the Conference are lame and imperfect p. 25. These being the words of your own Advocane had I not just cause to complain that such Copies should be dispersed abroad as a true Account of the Conference between us whereas himself confesses them to have been so lame and imperfect And yet these were given about with great industry and care as though an entire Account of what passed at the Conference were contained in them and few days passed but I heard great Boasts were made of this Conference and some said that they had it under my hand that I was baffled I think therefore I had reason to complain of imperfect Copies since Mr. M. confesses they were no better But this is not all for I had said the Copies I had seen were false as well as imperfect To make out this charge I must insist on some particulars as they are in that Copy which was given by your self When Mr. T. declared himself satisfied as to the Grounds of Faith without the Roman Churches Infallibility which was the true state of the Question debated in the first part of which more by and by He desired to know for his own satisfaction How you would prove the Church of Rome to be infallible This in your Copy is said to be put by me And lest this might be thought a mere casual mistake I am certainly informed that Mr. M. told a Gentleman to whom he gave a Copy that I proposed the Question about the Church of Romes Infallibility as though I did it on purpose to divert the Discourse whereas Mr. T. declaring himself satisfied with the Answers given about the Grounds of our Certainty desired that he might propose a Question to