Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A67103
|
Truth will out, or, A discovery of some untruths smoothly, told by Dr. Ieremy Taylor in his Disswasive from popery with an answer to such arguments as deserve answer / by his friendly adversary E. Worsley.
|
E. W. (Edward Worsley), 1605-1676.
|
1665
(1665)
|
Wing W3618; ESTC R39189
|
128,350
|
226
|
force of his Argument Sunt certe saith the Saint libri Dominici quorum Authoritati utrique consentimus utrique credimus c. There are certain books of our Lord He means Scripture to whose Authority we both yeild we both believe Ibi Quaeramus ecclesiam Let us look for the Church there c. That is seeing we both who now dispute admit of Scripture and believe it let us upon such a supposition go forward and prove the Church by Scripture which is an excellent way of Arguing but if any question the Authority of Scripture it self take it we must when we make a right Analysis upon the Church's Authority solely and say with St. Austin I would not believe the Scripture but for the Church I omit the brags he hath pag. 6. of Protestants being more then indubitably Conquerors meer empty words and observe how he puts himself on a new trouble pag. 7th where he saith Whatsoever we cannot prove by Scripture we disclaim it I will not here tell the Doctor he must then disclaim every Tenet of Protestant Religion no more in Scripture then Arianism as it stands opposite to the Roman Faith But briefly I argue thus A Church secured from Error and which Infallibly proposeth Divine Truth can be proved by Scripture or cannot If the first there was is and shall ever be in the World a society of Christians un-crrable and certain in Doctrine that neither injures Faith nor by intromitting Novelties destroy Apostolical Doctrine for the Scripture as we now suppose saith so and what it saith is true One favour therefore I humbly beg of the Doctor that he would by a plain designation point me out this unerrable body of Christians and clearly also design me such known out cast Christians that are not of this Moral body my demand is reasonable and require's no long discourse nor any definition of a Church but to have this unerring company design'd and candidly If the Scripture Warrant 's not such an Infallible company of Christians the Doctor though he pretend to it can never believe with a true and infallible Act of Supernatural faith that the Ancient Church Inherited Catholick Doctrine that it sent Milions of Souls to Heaven That what we now read is the Apostles Creed that the Ancient Councils erred not in their Definitions No nor that there ever was or is now Pure and Incorrupt Scripture among Christians I say he cannot believe these truths with a certain assent of Supernatural Faith but at most with a meer opinative Judgment which may as well be wrong as right false as true staggering assuredly it is and not steddy if a meer Opinion yes and wholly destitute of that strength which God requires to Supernatural Faith In his 10th page he is fierce against the Church of Rome for pretending to a power not only of declaring New Articles of Faith but of making new Symbols and Creeds and imposing them as necessary to Salvation To this purpose he cites the Bull of Leo the tenth against Martin Luther whose twenty seventh Proposition is this and condemned Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae non esse statuere Articulos fidei imo nec leges morum seu bonorum operum It is certain that it is not in the hand of the Church or Pope to appoint or determine Articles of Faith nor Laws of manners or good Works First here is not a word of making new Articles or Creeds and the word statuere may as well signifie to determine a Question not yet decided as to make any thing a new but to pass these niceties and shew clearly the Doctors Error I demand whether the Fathers assembled together in the Nicen Council made new Articles of Faith against the Arians whether St. Athanatius in his Creed did the like who was no Pope What the Doctors Answer is here is ours also for all and every Definition made by the Church in after Ages And I would have him to reflect that as he now cavil's at both Pope and Church for constituting new Articles so the Arians might have done against the Nicen Council and Athanasius his Creed yes and cried out Novelties novelties as loud as the Doctor In a word then I answer with St. Gregory in Ezechiel homit XVI post med pag. 1164. 6. edit Antwerp 1615. that per incrementa temporum Crevit scientia spiritalium Patrum With time Faith encreased hut how not that either the Church or Pope have Power to coin Articles at pleasure or to force Christians to the acceptance of Novelties contrary to Scripture or ancient Tradition No but the Power given them is to dispence the Mysteries of the Word of God to lay out more clearly verities contained in Scripture so the Fathers did in the Nicen Council when they defined the Son to be consubstantial with his Father which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never read in Scripture Finally to declare more explicitely what the Ancient Tradition of the Church and sence of the Fathers hath been within such a compass the Church holds it self when after mature deliberation it defines in Council Hence both Divines and Canonists teach that rigorously speaking the Church hath no new Articles of Faith but only a more full and explicite knowledge of that belief which anciently was among Primitive Christians yet none there is that reads our Doctor both in the page now cited and elsewhere after but must have this perswasion wrought in him that the Church and Pope may define as it were at Random make new Articles new Creeds as they list and impose them as necessary to Salvation All is false and fraudulent dealing CHAP. II. The Doctors Quotations not true His Errors concerning the Index Expurgatorius His ill dealing with Sixtus Senensis THe Doctor in his tenth page to prove our making new Articles cites Augustinus Triumphus de Anconâ—a quaest 59 Art 1 2. and pittifully abuseth that Catholick Author who in his resolution Art 1. â— concludes thus Respondeo quod hanc quaestionem determinat Augustinus libro 1. de symbolo ubi vult quod omnis symboli condendi ordinandi in sancta dei ecclesia terminatur authoritas I Answer St Austin resolves this Question lib. 1. de symbolo Where he saith That all Authority of making and setting a Symbol in order is within the bounds of the Church Mark first St. Austins words Omnis authoritas condendi ordinandi c. Then follow these other in Anconitanus his resolution wrongfully interpreted and unhandsomly mangled by the Doctor Ex his patere potest quod novum symbolum condere solum ad Papam spectat nam in symbolo ponuntur illa quae universaliter pertinent ad Christianam fidem By this you may see that to make a new Symbol belongs only to the Pope for those things are set down in a Symbol which Universally concern Christian Faith These last words which explicate both St. Austins and Anconitanus his meaning are fraudulently left out
whoever gives a penny or such a small pittance and the Rich man gives so much and the Poor man also These two will be equal and the one have as much as the other yet upon other accounts the Poor mans condition will be better Here is all I can find in this Author and it is most blamless Doctrine nothing to the Doctors sence viz That Indulgences are not to be given to them who have a desire of giving money but cannot And that in such a case it is not inconvenient that the Rich should be in a better condition then the Poor If the Doctor will give me better direction to find what he quotes out of this or any other Author he shall have his answer But I perceive his way is not to examine the Originals and therefore abuseth a simple Reader who when he sees such a cluster of Marginal Quotations glitter like the Sun thinks our Doctor more Learned then Rabbi Kimki CHAP. XV. Of the Doctors weak Argument against one satisfying for another Of his new Divinity that the habit of sin is sin Of his worse Doctrine that all sins are mortal Of his mistaks and charging on Catholicks what they hold not THe Doctor pag. 103. and 6 Section I think his 5th Section hath suffered ship-wrack in the fourth no great loss of it assaults us many ways First he likes not our Doctrine That one man may satisfie for another and cites Suarez for it by halfs Part. 4. we say Tomo 4. in 3. partem disp 38. Sect. 9. I say by halfs for Suarez holds expresly one cannot satisfie for another unless the Confessor Licenses that way of satisfying for Example if the Confessor injoyns his penitent to fast Certum est saith Suarez It is certain that another mans fasting will not be satisfactory He saith 2. That a Confessor is not to do this without a just and necessary cause perhaps of weakness and infirmity because it is not usual in the Church These limitations our Doctor leaves out and runs on with a jest The Rich man is whip'd upon another mans back and his purse only is the Penitent I answer If the Rich mans back deserves stripes as well as some body does no Confessor causelesly laies them on another nor makes his purse the penitent No it is a slander to say that injoyned satisfaction is thus bought off with money Next comes the Doctors weighty Argument For by this Doctrine saith he viz. that one man may satisfie for another it is not to be said of Christ alone that he was wounded for our transgressions that he only satisfied for our sins I answer If this Argument have force it proves as much against a mans own satisfaction as against satisfaction done by another for if Christ satisfied for all in the Doctors sence the Penitents own satisfaction who is one amongst all is vain and fruitless which is not here in question Again our good Doctor gainsaies all the severity of those ancient Canonical Penances practised in the Church and praised by him for if Christ only hath satisfied for all what need was there of such rigid Penances among the primitive Christians it was done to their hands by Christ their Penances therefore were superfluous 2. He blames us for saying The habit of sin is no sin distinct from the former Actions by which the habit was contracted So the Doctor page 104. Answ Here is the most strange Doctrine I ever read Know therefore that Divines distinguish between actual sin habitual sin which is sin past not yet pardoned and the habit of sining generated by frequent acts of vice which makes a man unhappy prone ready and facile to sin again just as the often repeating of a Verse gives facility to say it anew with ease Now to affirm that this habit contracted by former multiplyed acts of sin is a sin seems a piece of new coyned Divinity and proves that no sinner habituated in Vice if he dies immediately after his first act of Contrition or ardent Love of God which justifies him can be saved Why This fervent act of Contrition Roots not quite out the contracted habit of sin no saith our Doctor and truely There is required a longer time and a procedure in the Method of a holy life to do this But this contracted habit of sin is a sin which the most fervent act of Contrition takes not away in a Moment therefore if a sinner dies suddenly after his first Contrition he cannot be saved consequently had St. Mary Magdalen departed this life the next instant after her ardent Charity she had been a lost Soul and so the Doctor must say the good Theif on the Cross is who had little time granted to Root out his bad habits What the Doctor adds that in our Doctrine a man is not bound to interrupt the procedure of his impiety is most unjust dealing for such an one is bound by the Law of God and reason not to sin yes and by Repentance too in case Repentance be the only means to help him The Doctor speaks not well while he insinuates that we are obliged to repent of our habits if Repentance be taken properly Repent we must of our sins and Root out ill habits by contrary acts of Vertue this is our duty Finally he is strangely out in saying As for those sins that come after they are excused if they be produced by a strong habit Answ A strong habit of erring brought forth this assertion it is highly injurious to Catholicks and as far from truth as the Doctor is from honest dealing with us Page 106. he teacheth that every venial sin in its own Nature and the rigor of Divine Iustice is damnable and that in the unregenerate these venial sins are so accounted Answ Most merciless and execrable Doctrine against the very light of Nature For who can say if a spark of Reason lives in him that in case one by special favour pass his whole life without all other sin then once speaking an idle word and dies immediately who I say dare affirm that this man in rigor of Gods Divine Justice is a damned Soul and must for that one little transgression suffer the torments of Hell for eternity Where is your Scripture good Doctor for this desperate Doctrine produce it let us read the place with you but never shall you do it till you prove it by Scripture that a Gnat is as big as a Camel and a Mote in the Sun as great as a House-beam He may say the case now set down is somewhat extraordinary be it so it implies no impossibility and therefore laies open even to Turks and Heathens the prodigious impiety of this Doctrine The Doctor goes on and tells us That though venial sins of their own Nature are damnable yet by the Divine Mercy the smaller committed by invincible ignorance inadvertency or unavoydable infirmity shall not be imputed to those who love God Answ First if these sins be damnable in the