Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	church_n	communion_n	schism_n	2,635	5	10.6078	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62581	The rule of faith, or, An answer to the treatises of Mr. I.S. entituled Sure-footing &c. by John Tillotson ... ; to which is adjoined A reply to Mr. I.S. his 3d appendix &c. by Edw. Stillingfleet.	Tillotson, John, 1630-1694.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. Reply to Mr. I.S. his 3d appendix.	1676 (1676)	Wing T1218; ESTC R32807	182,586	472

rational force of Tradition supposing that the Pope and Council hold to it If oral Tradition have brought down a certain sense of these Texts why do they not produce it and agree in it If it have not to use a hot phrase of his own 't is perfect phrenzy to say they can be certain of the true sense of Scripture If he say they are by Tradition made certain of the true sense of Scripture so far as it concerns the main body of Christian Doctrine and do all agree in it and that is suffcient then I ask him What are those points of Faith which make up the body of Christian Doctrine He will tell me they are those which all Catholicks agree to have descended to them from the Apostles by a constant and uninterrupted Tradition I enquire farther how I shall know what is the certain sense of Scripture so far as it concerns these points He must answer as before that that is the true sense which all Catholicks agree to have descended to them by Tradition Which amounts to this that all Catholicks do agree in the sense of Scripture so far as they do all agree in it It is to be hoped that the Protestants how much soever at present they differ about the sense of Scripture may in time come to as good an agreement as this This brings to my remembrance a passage or two of Mr. Cressy the one in his Appendix where he tells us That as it is impossible that Hereticks should agree any other way than in Faction so it is impossible that Catholicks should differ in points of Faith Why so Were not those Catholicks first who afterwards became Hereticks and when they became so did they not differ in points of Belief Yes but here lies the conceit when they began to differ then they ceas'd to be Catholicks therefore Catholicks can never differ in points of Faith The other passage is where he says That he hath forsaken a Church where Vnity was impossible c. and betaken himself to a Church where Schism is impossible This last Clause That Schism is impossible in their Church cannot possibly be true but in the same absurd and ludicrous sense in which it is impossible for Catholicks to differ in points of Belief For he cannot deny but that it is possible for men to break off from the Communion of their Church which in his sense is Schism but here is the subtilty of it No Schismatick is of their Church because so soon as he is a Schismatick he is out of it therefore Schism is impossible in their Church And is it not as impossible in the Church of England Where Mr. Cr. might have done well to have continued till he could have given a better reason of forsaking Her § 10. But to return to our purpose Mr. Rushworth acknowledgeth that the Scripture is of it self sufficiently plain as to matters of practice for he asks Who is so blind as not to see that these things are to be found in Scripture by a sensible common and discreet reading of it though perhaps by a rigorous and exact balancing of every particular word and syllable any of these things would vanish away we know not how So that for the direction of our lives and actions he confesseth the Scripture to be sufficiently plain if men will but read it sensibly and discreetly and he sayes that he is blind that does not see this But who so blind as he that will not see that the sense of Scripture is as plain in all necessary points of Faith I am sure St. Austin makes no difference when he tells us That in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture we may find all those things in which Faith and Manners of life are comprehended And why cannot men in reference to matters of Faith as well as of Practice read the Scriptures sensibly and discreetly without such a rigorous balancing of every word and syllable as will make the sense vanish away we know not how If the Scripture be but sufficiently plain to such as will use it sensibly and discreetly I do not understand what greater plainness can be desir'd in a Rule Nor can I imagine what kind of Rule it must be that can be unexceptionably plain to captious Cavillers and such as are bent to play the fool with it Well suppose the Scripture be not sufficiently clear as to matters of Faith and hereupon I have recourse to the Church for the true sense of Scripture Must I believe the Churches sense to be the true sense of such a Text though I see it to be plainly contrary to the genuine sense of the words yes that I must or else I make my self and not the Church judg of the sense of Scripture which is the grand Heresie of the Protestants But then I must not suppose much less belive that the Churches sense of such a Text is contrary to the genuine meaning of it no although I plainly see it to be so This is hard again on the other hand especially if that be true which is acknowledged both by Dr. Holden and Mr. Cressy viz. That though general Councils cannot mistake in the Points of Faith which they decree yet they may mistake in the confirmation of them from Texts of Scripture that is they may be mistaken about the sense of those Texts And if Mr. S. think his Brethren have granted too much he may see this exemplified in the second Council of Nice to mention no other which to establish their Doctrine of Image-worship does so palpably abuse and wrest Texts of Scripture that I can hardly believe that any Papist in the World hath the forehead to own that for the true sense of those Texts which is there given by those Fathers § 11. Secondly How the Traditionary Church can be more certain of the true sense of their Traditional Doctrines than the Protestants can be of the true sense of Scripture And this is worthy our enquiry because if the business be search'd to the bottom it will appear besides all other inconveniences which oral Tradition is much more liable to than Scripture that the certain sense and meaning of Traditional Doctrine is as hard to come at as the sense of Scripture And this I will make appear by necessary consequence from their own Concessions Mr. White and Mr. S. say that the great security of Tradition is this that it is not tied to certain phrases and set-forms of expression but the same sense is conveyed and setled in mens hearts by various expressions But according to Mr. Rushworth this renders Tradition's sense uncertain for he says 'T is impossible to put fully and beyond all quarrel the same sense in divers words So that if men do not receive Tradition in a sensible common discreet way as Mr. Rushw. speaks concerning reading the Scriptures but will come to a rigorous and exact balancing of every particular phrase word and

but this if a Pope and Council should define a new thing and declare they ground themselves on new lights as did their first reformers in England but I shall find he saith no such fopperies in faith-definitions made by the Catholick Church Is this the man who made choice of reason for his weapon could there be a greater calumny cast on our Church than to say her reformers grounded themselves on new lights when our great charge against the Church of Rome is for introducing Novelties and receding from pure and primitive antiquity Whether the charge be true or no yet sure it follows they did not declare they ground themselves on new lights but expresly the contrary Well but Pope and Councils neither define new things nor ground themselves on them but what means the man of reason that they make no new definitions surely not for then what did they meet for and what mean their decrees but he intends that they deliver no new doctrine but how must that be tried or hath Mr. S. gained the opinion of infallibility both from Pope and Councils that we must believe his bare word but we not only say but prove that even their last Council hath defined many things which never were delivered by Christ or his Apostles And it is to no purpose whether they say they ground themselves on new lights or pretend to an infallible assistance for it comes all to the same at last For if the assistance be infallible what matter is it whether the doctrine hath been revealed or no for on this supposition it is impossible that Pope and Council should miscarry Therefore if any Church be guilty of fopperies in faith-definitions it must be that which you miscall the Catholick but is more truly known by the name of the Roman Church There is yet one piece of Mr. S's sagacity to be taken notice of as to this particular which is that I am at an end of my argument because I say the opinion of the Pope and Councils infallibility is the common doctrin maintained in which I confound the Church with the schools or some private opinaters and then carp at those mens tenets And this is the force of all that Paragraph He tells me I want not wit to know that no sober Catholick holds humane deductions the rule of their faith schoolmen definers of it nor the schools the Tribunal whence to propose it authoritatively and obligingly to the generality of the faithful Neither doth Mr. S. want the wit to know that our present enquiry is concerning the sense of their present Church about the rule of faith Since then Mr. S. must confess it necessary to faith to know what the certain rule of it is let me enquire further whether any particular person can know certainly what it is unless he knows what the Church owns for her rule of faith and whether that may be owned as the Churches judgement which is stifly opposed by the most interessed persons in the Roman Church and the most zealous contenders for it Especially when the Pope who is said to be Head of the Church condemns the doctrine asserted and that only by a small number of such who are as much opposed by themselves as by any of us Is it then possible to know the Churches judgement or not if not 't is to no purpose to search for a rule of faith if it be which way can we come to know it either by most voices or the sense of the Governours of the Church either of the ways I dare put it to a fair tryal whether oral tradition or the infallibility of Pope and Councils be the Doctrine most owned in the Church of Rome But Mr. S. still tells us these are only private opinators and schoolmen who assert the contrary doctrine to his But wiill not they much more say on the other side that this way of oral trodition is a novel fancy of some few half-Catholicks in England and tends to subvert the Roman Church But is the present Pope with Mr. S. a private opinator or was the last a meer schoolman I am sure what ever Mr. S. thinks of him he thought not so of himself when he said he was no Divine in the controversie of Jansenius Doth the Court of Rome signifie no more with Mr. S. than a company of scholastick Pedants that know not what the sense of the Church is concerning the rule of faith I meddle not with the Schools but with the authority of the present Church and him whom Mr. S. owns for the head of it and is it consistent with his headship to condemn that doctrine which contains in it the only certain rule of faith Mr. S. may then see they were no such impertinent Topicks which I insisted on and as stout as Mr. S. seems to be I an apt to believe he would not look on the censure of the Inquisition as an impertinent Topick But at last Mr. S. offers at something whereby he would satisfie me of the sense of the Church as to this particular and therefore asks whether I never heard of such a thing as the Council of Trent I must ingenuously confess I have and seen more a great deal of it than I am satisfied with But what of that there he tells me I may find a clear solution of my doubt by the constant procedure of that most grave Synod in its definitions That is I hope to find that oral tradition was acknowledged there as the only self-evident rule of faith If I do this I confess my self satisfied in this enquiry But how much to the contrary is there very obvious in the proceedings of it For in the 4 th Session the Decree is That Scripture and tradition should be embraced with equal piety and reverence and the reason is because the doctrine of faith is contain'd partly in Scripture partly in tradition but what arts must Mr. S. use to infer from hence that oral tradition in contradistinction to Scripture was looked on as the only rule of faith I cannot but say that the ruling men of that Council were men wise enough in their generation and they were too wise wholly to exclude Scripture but because they knew that of it self could not serve their purposes they therefore help it out with tradition and make both together the compleat rule of faith Where I pray in all the proceedings of that Council doth Mr. S. find them define any thing on the account of oral tradition instead of which we find continual bandyings about the sense of Scripture and Fathers which might have been all spared if they had been so wise as to consider they could not but know the sense of the present Church nor that of the precedent and so up to the time of Christ. But they were either so ignorant as not to light on this happy invention or so wise and knowing as to despise it It is true they would not have their doctrines looked

on as novelties therefore they speak much of tradition and the ancient faith but that was not by what their Parents taught them but what the Fathers of the Church delivered in their writings for by these they judged of traditions and not the oral way And therefore I see little reason to believe that this was either the sense of the Council of Trent or is the sense of any number of Roman Catholicks much less of the whole Church none excepted as Mr. S. in his confident way expresses it And if he will as he saith disavow the maintaining any point or affecting any way which is not assented to by all I hope to see Mr. S. retract this opinion and either fall in with the Court of Rome or return as reason leads him into the bosom of the Church of England But there seems to be somewhat more in what follows viz. that though schoolmen question the personal infallibility of the Pope or of the Roman Clergy nay of a General Council yet all affirm the infallibility of tradition or the living voice of the Church essential and this he saith is held by all held firmly and that it is absolutely infallible To this therefore I answer either Mr. S. means that none do affirm that the universal tradition of the Church essential can err or that the Church of Rome being the Church essential cannot err in her tradition But which way soever he takes it I shall easily shew how far it is from proving that he designs it for For if he take it in the first sense viz. that all the faithful in all ages could not concur in an error then he may as well prove Protestants of his mind as Papists for this is the foundation on which we believe the particular Books of Scripture If this therefore proves any thing it proves more then he intends viz. that while we thus oppose each other we do perfectly agree together and truly so we do as much as they do among themselves But if Mr. S's meaning be that all of their Religion own the Roman Church to be the Church essential and on that account that it cannot err setting aside the absurdity of the opinion it self I say from hence it doth not follow that they make oral tradition the rule of faith because it is most evident that the ground why they say their Church cannot err is not on Mr. S's principles but on the supposition of an infallible assistance which preserves that Church from error So that this falls far short of proving that they are all agreed in this rule of faith which is a thing so far from probability that he might by the same argument prove that Scripture is owned by them all to be the rule of faith For I hope it is held by all and held firmly that the living voice of God in Scripture as delivered to us is infallible and if so then there is as much ground for this as the other But if we enquire what it is men make a rule of faith we must know not only that they believe tradition infallible but on what account they do so For if tradition be believed infallible barely on the account of a promise of infallibility to the present Church then the resolution of faith is not into the tradition but into that infallible assistance and consequently the rule of faith is not what bare tradition delivers but what that Church which cannot err in judging tradition doth propose to us It is not therefore their being agreed in general that tradition is infallible doth make th●m agree in the same rule of faith but they must agree in the ground of that infallibility viz. that it depends on this that no age could conspire to deceive the next But all persons who understand any thing of the Roman Church know very well that the general reason why tradition is believed infallible is because they first believe the Church to be infallible whereas Mr. S. goes the contrary way and makes the infallibility of the the Church to depend on the infallibility of tradition And therefore for all that I can see we must still oppose private Opinators in this controversie the Church of Rome not having declared her self at all on Mr. S's behalf but the contrary and the generality believing on the account of the present Churches infallibility And it is strange Mr. S. should find no difference between mens resolving faith into common sense and into the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost If this then be the first principle of controversie as Mr. S. pretends we see how unlikely they are to agree about other matters who are so much divided about the principle of resolving them And if this be the ground of faith then most Romanists build on a wrong Foundation But if the infallibility of oral tradition be the foundation on which that formidable structure is erecting which he speaks of wo then to the Court of Rome for that is known to build on quite a different foundation And if this as he saith rises apace and has advanced many stories in a small time it only lets us know how fast their divisions grow and that they are building so fast one against another that their Church will not stand between them By this discourse Mr. S. pretends to answer all those If 's which follow which are these In case the Church may determine things de fide which were not before whether the present Church doth then believe as the precedent did or no if it did how comes any thing to be de fide which was not before if it did not what assurance can I have that every age of the Church believes just as the precedent did and no otherwise when I see they profess the contrary And if a thing may be de fide in one age which was not in a foregoing then a Church may deliver that as a matter of faith at one time which was never accounted so before by which means the present Church may oblige me to believe that as a matter of faith which never was so in Christs or the Apostles times and so the infallibility on the account of tradition is destroyed To all which Mr. S. gives a very easie answer viz. that they do not hold any disparate or unimplied points of faith but such as are involved and implied in the main point This is no more easily said then understood for if these be implied in the former how can there come a new obligation to believe them For to take his own instance will any man in his senses say that he that believes homo est animal rationale doth not believe homo est animal and this he makes choice of as an example how one point of faith may be involved in another so as to receive a distinct obligation to believe it I grant that homo est animal is involved in the other but he that shall say that after he hath assented