Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	article_n	church_n	creed_n	2,425	5	10.1630	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A71285	The infallibility of the Roman Catholick church and her miracles, defended against Dr. Stillingfleets cavils, unworthily made publick in two late books, the one called An answer to several treatises, &c., the other A vindication of the Protestant grounds of faith, against the pretence of infallibility in the Roman church, &c. / by E.W. ; the first part.	E. W. (Edward Worsley), 1605-1676.	1674 (1674)	Wing W3615; ESTC R21280	182,231	392

Again those ancient Miracles though supposed true are far from giving any undubitable assurance by their Sight alone without further light that such was and yet is the genuin and pure Sence of God's word for how many thousands are there now in the world who willingly own all the Miracles wrought by Christ and yet are at implacable discord concerning the true meaning of what our Saviour and his Apostles taught which strifes cannot be ended by à bare owning those Miracles true but by the Infallible Decision of an ever living manifested Church I say manifested by Miracles and other weighty Motives that laid before mans rational Power led it on to believe in Christ and his Church for these two Articles go together and are proposed in the Creed as necessary believeable Verities I believe in Iesus Christ I believe the Holy Catholick Church As therefore to believe all that Christ taught confessedly required the light of glorious Motives whereby his Doctrin Christ was manifested by rational Motives and so is the Church was made Credible to reason so also to believe what the Church teaches requires the like light or an answerable evident Credibility grounded on convincing and rational Motives I desired the Dr Reas and Relig Disc 3. c. 16. n. 28. to consider how cold and faint Christian Faith would have grown in the hearts of men before this day had all Church Motives fail'd or ceased soon after the Apostles preaching Had no more Conversions been wrought no more Martyrs dyed for God's truth no more contempt of the world been evidenced in thousands and thousands and finally had no other Miracles been don in after Ages but such only as the Scripture relates It is therefore open impiety in the Dr to slight all Church Motives and her Miracles calling them à grand Salade too often served up It is worse then Perverness to tell us as he doth in his last book P. 665. That the Doctrin of Christ and his Apostles being confirmed by Miracles wrought by them there can be no The Continuation of Miracles proved necessary such necessity in succeeding Ages to confirm the same Doctrin by Miracles I have answered this very Obiection Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 7. and shewed the Continuation of Miracles in the Church both useful and necessary not only because our Saviour fore told they should be done Iohn 12 but upon this account also that the Conversion of Infidels to Christ was wrought as well in the Ages after the Apostles as when those blessed men preached to the world If therefore the first Apostolical Miracles were necessary to convince unbelieving Jewes and Gentils Then it is plain ungodliness to deem them fruitless Now when God is pleased to work them by Missioners lawfully sent to convert as Barbarous Nations as ever S. Paul preach't to 24 Again Miracles most evidently have been wrought and very frequently The end of God's Concurring with his servants to work Miracles I ask for what end did God concurr with his Servants to do them No other reason can with probability fall into mens minds but this That an infinit Power and wisdom intended thereby to make his Church glorious and to induce the most obdurate hearts to believe her Doctrin The Dr yet seems not satisfied for he thinks the conveyance of the Apostolical Miracles being wrought for the benefit of succeeding Ages may well serve the turn in all after Times without more I wish this man were sent with his Bible to some Barbarians in America who never perhaps heard of Christ or Scripture and only read them such Miracles as Scripture relates without working any himselfe as S. Xaverius and other Missioners have done How many think ye would the Dr draw to Christ if he told his Hearers that all the certainty men have of those ancient Miracles and Christ's Doctrin comes from fallible Tradition which may be false My thought is he would convert this way very few or rather none at all Let others judge as they please Now because the main ground whereon he relies is his much driven in conveyance by Tradition we will bestow à little pains upon it and shew if ever man lost himselfe in a Labyrinth it is Dr Stillingfleet Of the Dr's errour in conveying to us by Tradition what Christ did and spake 25 THe Substance of the Dr ' s Discourse Account P. 205 is thus Tradition to us doth only supply the want of our senses as to what Christ did and spake it being à perpetuated sensation and of the same use to us now as if we had been actually present with Christ and seen his Miracles or heard his Doctrin when he delivered it Soon after It is apparent that the use of the senses to those The substance of the Drs Discourse laid down in his own words who saw Christs Miracles and heard his Doctrin was not to give any Credibility to either of them but only to be the means of conveying them those things which might induce them to believe The same is Tradition now to us it doth not in it selfe make the Doctrin more credible but supplies the use of our senses in a certain conveyance of those things which were Motives to believe them Hence he inferr's That the motives to the primitive Christians and to us are the same only the manner of conveyance differ's 2. He inferr's as it was not then necessary for those who saw our Saviours Miracles wrought for the confirmation of his Doctrin to have the inward Testimony of the Spirit or any external Infallible Testimony of à Church to assure them that those Miracles were really done by Christ but God left them to the judgement of sense so proportionably neither of these two are now necessary for the resolution of Faith but God instead of sense leaves us to the evidence of Tradition Thus the Dr where you se his whole labour spent in vain and à gross mistake with it for he think's the main difficulty lies in the conveyance of the things written in Scripture to this Age whereas the reall difficulty is to prove that there ever were any He waves the real difficulty such things true and written by Divine inspiration as he supposes to be conveyed Unlesse this particular be first rationally evinced the Turks will dare to argue as the Dr doth In Mahomet's time there was reason to believe Mahomets Miracles and wonders Ergo there is reason to believe them now because they are conveyed down by Tradition And thus the followers of every false Sectarie may make any Religion true But here is not all 26 Mark I beseech you how pitifully the Dr shuffles He own 's à tradition which conveigh's unto us what Christ did and spake That is we may No man is wiser by the Dr's lame Tradition know by his fallible tradition received among Christians that our Saviour wrought such Miracles and spake such words for example I and my Father are one The word is

without all hope of bettering it The Assertion stand's firm upon this ground No man can rationally charge errour upon à whole Church never censured by any in former Ages but known and condemned Hereticks without Principles more convincing vveighty and ponderous than the Churches Sole Authority is But there are no Principles in Being powerful enough to uphold any such discourse and not to make long vvork about à manifest Truth pray tell me vvhither can the Dr goe for Principles vvhereby the Church is proved so much as liable to errour Will he take recourse to the unanimous consent of Fathers The attempt is desperate while they generally teach quite contrary Doctrin as is amply proved in my two last Treatises Nay more can the Dr produce Se Reas and Relig Disc 2. c. 14. n. 10. ●1 one ancient Father who saies plainly the Roman Catholick Church can err I will return him hearty thanks if he point out one but suppose which is false one or two glance at any such thing have their doubtful words thinke ye force enough to Counterpoise the Authority of So renowned an Oracle as this Church is Say I beseech you what if one or two English Dr's should boldly tell us that the nine and thirty Articles are matters of Divine Faith and that all vvho teach the Doctrin are by Divine Assistance made Infallible Oracles is this sufficient to overthrow the Sentiment of the vvhole English Church vvhich hold's Herselfe fallible in delivering the Doctrin She maintains No certainly Much less say I can the Authority of one or two Fathers only supposed not proved of à different opinion in judging the Roman Catholick Church errable availe one whit to make it probable that She is guilty of errour or liable to it when contrary to Protestants both She and all the learned Dr's of one Faith with her boldly assert She cannot erre Hence I infer that no Authority taken from this or that ancient Father much less from this or that private man can rationally oppose the Church in her just claim to Infallibility The next Principle the Dr and others use to rely on is taken from General Councils approved by the Church How I beseech you or in what manner Did any Council ever yet expressly define that the Church can err You will say no but these Councils contradict one another and no infallible Oracle doth so The weakest Pretence and least worth of any For doth not Holy Scripture also seemingly speak contradictions in many Passages You will say though they appear like Contradictions yet learned men have already cleared such Antilogies Besides Scripture is God's word and all know that God cannot contradict himselfe Very right this is my Answer also The learned of our Church have over and over cleared all such passages in Councils as appear to some short sighted eyes contradictions from all opposition and we more assuredly know that the Roman Catholick Church is God's own infallible Oracle than any Sectary can shew by reason that Scripture is the word of God or written by Divine Inspiration Please now to compare Principles together The Dr impeaches this Church of errour and takes his proofs from the seeming Contradictions of Councils A Catholick Adversary no less learned than he solves all the Dr Obiects The Church while these two Combatants are hot at vvork stand's by and positively declares She never delivered contrary Doctrin in any of her Councils Here is the Clear Catholick Principle Against this Principle the Dr makes his exceptions which thousands and thousands as learned as he judge to be feeble forceless and long since ruined Fallacies The Question is now and t is worth the while to drive it on further because it is most useful in all debates with Sectaries The Question I say is vvho shall judge in this Contest between the Church and this Dr vvith all his exceptions Have vve means to know vvho speaks truth in so vveighty à matter and upon vvhom the errour lies To clear this you shall se how indifferently I proceed I will as yet neither suppose the Church nor the Dr blamable but leave this to the just trial of some Iudge let that Iudge be named and much is done The Church never censured by any Orthodox Christian and defended by the most learned in the world think 's her own Authority worth something and powerful enough to bear up her cause against à single Dr with all his crew of Sectaries but let that be yet disputable whither will the Dr lead us for à final Sentence in this yet debatable case Has he any ancient Church any consent of Fathers any one word of Scripture any received Tradition whereby he evinces the Church errable in her Councils These are excellent Principles but I absolutely assert he has none of them not one vvas ever yet produced by him nor shall hereafter be brought to light while the world stands as is clearly made out both in this and my former Treatises Contrarywise it is certain that the Church and all her learned Doctors plead strongly by every one of these Principles therefore She stand's upon surer grounds than the Dr vvho as I now said has none of them The Dr may reply These very Scriptures and Fathers the Church plead's by for her not erring are only doubtful proofs and therefore convince nothing I answer if these be doubtful the Dr's Assertion vvhile he saith They are doubtful is I am sure no selfe-evident Truth but either utterly false or at least fearfully doubtful and therefore must be proved by à stronger Principle than his own proofless vvord Leave us not now Mr Dr in darkness give us I beseech you some light of that Principle or ultimate proof vvhereby it may appear that you speak truth or so much as Sence vvhen you tell us All our proofs alledged in behalfe of the Churches Infallibility are doubtfull and controverted Name the Church the Fathers or Councils Scripture you have none that speak as you do You may introduce Sectaries vvho say so but they come unarmed vvithout Scripture Church-authority Fathers or Tradition and to these men of yesterday vve oppose thousands more ancient on our side Thus Mr Dr we proceed in every other particular Controversy and will shew you when you please so non-plus't and soon driven to an end of all discourse for want of Principles that the ultimate proofs of your Assertions whether you defend Protestancy or impugn This great truth I intend to enlarge further upon another Occasion Catholick Religion Shall at last be brought to nothing but to your own bare naked and unproved Assertions themselves which stand tottering unprincipled Now that you may se I speak seriously I challenge you once more to discusse with me this particular Question concerning the Churches Infallibility and if after all you have said or can say I make not vvhat is here asserted manifest I vvill acknowledge my errour before the vvhole vvorld The ground I stand upon is

is to say one part of Scripture proves another before the whole book is proved upon any certain Authority to be God's word or written by the Holy Ghost From hence 2. the necessity of an Infallible evidenced Church is necessarily inferred The necessity of an Infallible Church evinced from our discourse which only bring 's us out of the Labyrinth wherein the Dr is lost This Church as I said proves by her infallible and never interrupted Tradition that Scripture is God's word She and She only ascertain's all that the Contents in Scripture are Divinely inspired and finally when difficulties arise concerning the Sence in controverted passages relating to Necessaries composes all strifes otherwise endless and bring 's all to à perfect unity in Faith 31 I say lastly Could the Dr evince that the book of Scripture contain's true Doctrin could he shew the Doctrin Not one Protestant Tenet proved by Scripture of it to be as it truly is Divinely inspired he yet hath not one clear Sentence in the whole Bible understood according to the obvious sence of the words which proves so much as one Tenet of Protestant Religion as Protestancy is distinguished from Popery and the Doctrin of all known condemned Hereticks The proof of this Assertion is largely laid forth Reas and Relig Disc 1. c. 20. from n. 4. to the end of that Chapter and because I really judge Protestancy utterly ruined upon the reasons there alleged I petition Dr Still to review that short Discourse and if I judge amiss to unbeguile me by à plain Answer showing wherein my Arguments are fallacious 32 I except in that place against his empty Title called A rational Account of the grounds of Protestants Religion and prove as I think demonstratively that if you cast out of Protestancy all it's Negative Articles which the Dr confesses are no Essentials the remainder will either be what the Catholick Church teaches and therefore not peculiar to Protestancy or the Doctrin of some one or other condemned Heretick In so much that in the whole Essence of Protestancy you will not find one Truth revealed by Almighty God necessary for Salvation or ever taught by any Orthodox Church And Nor one Necessary for Salva tion found in Protestancy herein it differ's not only from Catholick Religion but as I take it from all ancient Heresies for both Arians and Pelagians the like is of the rest thought their particular Doctrins revealed by Almighty God and necessary to Salvation Otherwise they had been worse than besotted to abandon the Catholick Tenents for opinions meerly or Positions not necessary to Salvation Se more of this subiect Disc 3. c. 18. n. 8. CHAP. X. The Church proved Infallible before She interpret's Scripture The reason hereof The Doctors gross errour in charging à Circle on us in the Resolution of Faith VVhat à vicious Circle implies and how it differ's from à rational Regress in Discourse 1 THe rest that followes in the Dr from P. 423. is all along meer Confusion or à horrid jumbling in à speculative matter concerning the resolution of Faith and the notion of à vicious Circle which he truly understand's not but wonder nothing you can expect no better from halfe Scholars in speculative learning if I make not what I here assert manifest blame me boldly 2 To rescue my Doctrin from Blunderers and the Dr if I ever met with any is one I am forced to set down plainly part of it That done you shall se how remote the Dr is from medling with it The most he would except against you have at large Reas and Relig. Disc 3. c. 5. n. 5. where I answer an Obiection proposed in his Account P. 127. And assert Seing Scripture evidences not it selfe to be divinely inspired some other Infallible Oracle distinct from Scripture necessarily ascertain's that The Church not first proved Infallible by Scripture Truth and this is the Church which as rationally proves herselfe by Signs and Miracles an Oracle whereby God speaks independently of Scripture as ever any Apostle proved himself to be so before Scripture was written Hence I inferred that the Church was ever and is yet in à General way believed infallible by Her self and for Her self upon this ground that God speaks by Her as his own Oracle and then concluded that She is not in the first place proved infallible by Scripture I say in à General way for thus the Apostles believed our Saviour to be the true Messias before they received from him à full Account of many other particular Christian Verities learned after that General acknowledgement 3 Thus much and more amply declared in the place now cited comes Dr Still in his last book P. 424. with his old Tautologies and asks again as if nothing had been said why we believe the Churches Infallibility and verily think 's we have no other way to make out Her Infallibility but only by Scripture Is not this worse then jumbling Reflect good Reader I shew that the Church in the first place is proved infallible without recourse at all had to Scripture for so She was proved infallible before Scriptures were written and here he out-faces me with empty words saying I cannot prove the Church infallible but by Scripture only In lieu of this ridiculous Reply He should have refuted my reasons and this is one No man can ascertain any that Scripture is divinely inspired or render the true sence of it relating to Necessaries for Salvation but one only infallible Church Therefore the Church which only can give certainty of these truths must necessarily be first owned infallible before we recurr It is Senceless to prove the Church by Scripture before Scripture be Proved God's word to Scripture for it is more than Senceless to prove by Scripture the Churches Infallibility or any other Article of Christian Faith before we have absolute Assurance that the Book whereby we argue is Gods word and know what its meaning is in à hundred difficult passages But thus much is only known by Church Authority as is amply proved in the place now cited 4 This reason the Dr shamefully waves with à jeer and tell 's me P. 405. that this first act of Faith terminated upon Church Authority hath nothing to rely on but the fallible Motives of Credibility and Consequently cannot be Divine Faith for want of an Infallible Testimony Gross ignorance produced this Answer for have not I proved through my whole last Treatise that God as immediatly speak's to us now by his Church as ever he did by Prophet or Apostle And if God speake by it there is no want of an Infallible Testimony I challenge the Dr to answer my Arguments upon this subiect hitherto never taken notice of neither shall he hereafter reply without apparent shuffling to use his words and running away from the main difficulty here treated How often have I told him that Divine Faith relies not upon the Motives of Credibility though

Holborn that for one Tautologie in mine I will shew five in yours with à pretty addition of new ones in these your two last Treatises Now whereas you tell me the whole substance of my books lies in this one word Infallibility Know Sr you get the worst here for the whole substance of all you have said or can say confessedly lies in à far weaker word called Fallibility Here it seem's the Dr is willing to leave off his long Tattle for fear of more Advertisements And is it possible could that harmless and well meant Advertisement wherein nothing can be found offensive stirr up thus much unruly passion in à Dr I know no remedy yet hope the Preface to this Treatise will à little calm it 4 To end He ierk's me once more and will need 's suppose that Protestancy without Principles was disposed of to better uses than to be read because forsooth he More jerks yet never heard of one man in England that read it over A weak proof of à false supposition Good Sr are all truths conveyed to your ears do not some miss their way thither Be it how you will hear or pretend not to hear most certainly that book was read by many not only in England but Ireland also Nay more all the Copies above six hundred excepting some few seized on were in à short time bought up In so much that à Gentleman of our Nation offered three Crowns for one single Copy yet could not after long enquiry meet with one These truths known to the Printer and others are sufficient to evert your false supposition and your weak proof added to it 5 And thus much of the Dr ' s Comical Introduction If he thinks me too pert or pleasant with him I answer Benedictis si certasset audisset bene Had not à fermentation The Dr's vast conceipt of himselfe of blood transported him beyond all bounds of common civility no ill word should have fallen from me but when we find à vain Bragger gloriously enthrown'd in à vast conceipt of himselfe as if all he treat's with were desplicable Mushromes it is Charity I think not to sooth him up in his folly but to tell him his own home as S. Hierome once did an Adversary Quae voluisti locutus quae non vis audire debes Time I hope may make the Dr wiser Let us now goe on 6 I said above Dr Still answers not directly one Argument proposed by me for the Churches Infallibility If I prove the Assertion it followes clearly that either he understand's them and will not answer because he finds them too strong for him Or 2 he cannot answer because he penetrat's not their force Grant the first he is à meer cheat and deludes the Reader with à seeming reply which is none in substance Say 2. He understand's not the force of my Arguments and cannot answer he is unworthy to be dealt with and ought in that measure to be despised as he despises others 7 Now I prove my Assertion I say as he relates P. 331. That without an Infallible The Dr answers net my arguments Church he means in this present state as I often inculcate there can be no certainty of Faith and have established the Assertion upon these grounds Neither the Canon nor Divinity nor the Infallible truth or sence of Scripture even in points Necessary to Salvation can be probably much less certainly assured to any in this present state but by the Authority of an Infallible Church To this not à word of answer is or can be returned by the Dr. 8 I Assert 2. As the Dr cites that the Roman Catholick Church only is God's Infallible Oracle and prove it Reas and Relig D. 2. c. 14. n. 10. 11. from Scripture Fathers and most pregnant reason 1. If any Church be Infallible it is the Roman Catholick for all others disclaim the Guidance of an Infallible living Oracle 2. As nothing can more discountenance the worth of true Christianity than à stedfast perswasion of it's fallibility or easily being false So nothing can fix in us an undubitable beliefe of Christ's Doctrin but an Oracle not lyable to errour 3. And chiefly If no Church be Infallible to whose Authority Christians must submit when dissentions arise concerning the Fundamentals Proofs for the Churches Infallibility of Faith and the genuin sence of Scripture both Iewes and Heathens may most justly despise Christian Religion and scorn all our endeavours to make them of one Faith with us upon this ground That none can certainly say what Doctrin Christ our Lord or his Apostles taught the world So it is Mr Dr our debates about the prime Articles of Faith no satisfactory means to end them but Topicks and fallible reasoning are so many that all taught Doctrin lies like an undecided Process in law still disputable and therefore of no credit or estimation unless an Infallible Church decide them and bring Christians to acquiesce in one Faith These Arguments and many more I proposed against the Doctor in the Discourse now cited and all the Answer I have is that he set's down some mangled parcels of my Tenents or barely tells me what I say For example I assert Protestancy without Prine Disc 1. c. 2. That à Doctrin which by virtue of all the Principles it has is meerly fallible and no more may be false but Christian Doctrin say Sectaries as it is taught by all Pastors is thus fallible therefore it may be false But God never Sent Christ our Lord nor Christ his Apostles or any to teach Christian Doctrin that may be false Ergo he sent none to teach meer fallible Doctrin This Reason our Dr blindly hints at P. 333. but leaves it without any Answer And thus he run's on to his 339. P. where he tells me He hath laid together so many parcels of my rambling discourse as were necessary in order to the examination of it To the examination of it Mr Dr Not one word true This had been material to shew my Arguments for the The Dr flies from the main difficulty Churches infallibility unconcluding you touch not these or at least to prove by some solid reasoning that the Church is fallible this point you most shamefully shift off and in the next page tell us that the necessity of Divine grace is no way pertinent to our present purpose the Question only being of an external infallible Proponent in order to Faith Sr what you make to your purpose I know not nor much care It was my duty and pertinent when I undertook the full and adequate Resolution of Divine Faith to lay down all the Principles it relies on and à main one is the internal assistance of Grace Had I omitted to treat of an external infallible Proponent you might have justly quarrelled but when that particular is largely handled through the five last chapters of the second Discourse and not à word replyed to any of my Arguments your accusation