Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
reason_n catholic_n church_n communion_n 2,927 5 9.4030 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A59789 An answer to the Amicable accommodation of the difference between the representer and the answerer Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1686 (1686) Wing S3263; ESTC R37544 18,103 34

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Papist must believe but does he say The Church says thus or only Stapleton Stapleton might be a Misrepresenter in delivering this as the Faith of the Church That we must simply believe the Church of Rome whether it teach true or false but the Arch-Bishop does not Misrepresent the Church in saying that Stapleton saies so What is the Authority of private Doctors is not the Dispute but whether Protestants be Misrepresenters for saying That such Doctrines are taught by such Doctors of the Church of Rome The Case of Mr. Sutcliff another of his Misrepresenters is somewhat different For besides what he cites from their own Authors which is set down by the Protester without taking notice that he quotes his Authors for it he many times charges them with the Concequences of their Doctrines and Practices not that he charges them with owning such Consequences but proves such Doctrines on them from what they do profess and own and such sayings as these the Protester sets down as charged on the Church of Rome in the first instance as her avowed Doctrine When Mr. Sutcliff only alledges them as the just interpretations and Consequences of her Doctrine which differ just as much as Misrepresenting and Disputing as saying what a Church professes to believe and what the consequence of such a Faith is As to show this by an instance or two The Protester sets these Propositions down as Mr. Sutcliffs Misrepresentations That Papists speak what they can in disgrace of the Holy Scriptures That they give the Office of Christs Mediation to the Virgin Mary to Angels and to Saints That by the Doctrine of Papists the Devils in Hell may be saved Now indeed had he said That the Papists teach this in express Words he had been a Misrepresenter in a proper Sense for they teach no such thing but Mr. Sutcliff never charges these Doctrines Directly upon them but saies That they say the Scriptures are obscure and hard to be understood and this is to speak in disgrace of the Holy Scriptures That they teach that by the merits of Saints Christians obtain their desires and are delivered out of Purgatory And this is to give the Office of Christs Mediation to the Virgin Mary and to Saints That they teach that the Devils in Hell may have true Faith and yet our Saviour saith Whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life So it follows by the Doctrines of Papists That the Reprobrates and Devils in Hell may be saved So that he expresly distinguishes between what the Papists teach and what himself concludes from such Doctrines and therefore he does not Misrepresent the Papists for he charges them with owning no Doctrines but what they do own but if he be guilty of any fault it is in reasoning and Disputing and there is no way that I know of to confute such Consequences but by Reason and Dispute the very Name of which is very uneasie to the Representer and there is good reason why it should be so And this I suppose may satisfie the Accommodator Why I charged him with setting down these sayings of Mr. Sutcliff seperated from the Reasons of them for how little soever he may think himself concerned in his Reasons yet it is of great Consequence in the matter of Representing to distinguish between the Doctrines of Papists and what is charged on them only as the Consequence of their Doctrines To charge them with teaching such Doctrines as they do not teach is Misrepresenting and therefore had these sayings which he Transcribed out of Mr. Sutcliff been charged upon the Papists as their sayings it had been Misrepresenting and this was the design of the Protester in quoting these sayings without giving an account upon what occasion they were said to perswade his Readers that Mr. Sutcliff had directly and immediately charged these Doctrines upon Papists as expresly taught by them and then he had been a Misrepresenter indeed But since it is otherwise it is plain Mr. Sutcliff was Misrepresented by the Protester but he did not Misrepresent Papists as that signifies charging them immediately with such Doctrines as they do not own In the next place he charges me with translating dishonestly for not rendring proper Deum or for Gods sake in English in the form of consecrating the Cross. Now I confess why this was not translated I cannot tell and knew nothing of it till I was informed by him had it been in a dispute about the nature and reason of that worship which they pay to the Cross these words had been very considerable but it relating only to the manner of consecrating the Cross they signified nothing as any one will see who consults the place Especially considering that the whole design of that Discourse about the Worship of Images against which he has not one word to object but this Omission was to show the evil of Image-worship tho they gave no Worship to the material Image but only worshipped God or Christ or the Saints by Images and therefore I had no occasion at all to conceal the English of propter Deum In my Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant-Popery I took occasion to examine the Bishop of Condom's Exposition in two very concerning Points viz. The Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images our Accomodator it seems could see no reason why he should engage in this Dispute and therefore thinks it sufficient to show that my Reasons for this Dispute are not cogent and he names two such as they are 1. That I know no reason for all this Dispute But this saying related to the Dispute about the Bishop of Condom's Authority not about his Exposition of the Catholick Faith 2. His second Reason is like the first Because I said He was not satisfied with my bare telling him That I was not satisfied with his Religion and therefore now I would give him my Reasons for it which he huffs at and says he was never concerned with my not liking his Religion What pretty Reasons will serve to excuse a Man from Answering a Discourse which he knows he cannot answer The plain case is this The Representer made his Appeals and put great confidence in the Bishop of Condom's Authority whose business is to put the softest sense he can upon the Doctrines of the Council of Trent and such Interpretations of the Catholick Faith as have been condemned by other very Catholick Doctors In my Reply to the Reflections I considered what this Bishops Authority is and in my last Answer I examined what the Protester had returned in the defence of it which our Accommodator now says not one word to But yet I told him I knew no reason for this dispute Whether the Bishop of Condom's Exposition were to be the standard of the Roman Catholick Faith for if we should allow this yet Popery is a very corrupt Religion tho the Bishop of Condom were the Authentick Expositor of it And to show that it is so I undertook to examine that Bishops Exposition in those two great Articles of the Romish Faith the Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images and how this should be a Reason for our Accommodator to take no notice of it I cannot imagine Had he any zeal for his Religion and could have answered that Discourse I believe all that I could have said would not have hindred him To conclude this whole matter He peremptorily adheres to his first Title of a Representer and declines all manner of disputation tho in vindication of the Bishop of Condom's Exposition to which he so often Appeals The only point he sticks to is That to assent to the Catholick Faith as expounded in his Character and by the Bishop of Condom is sufficient for any Man to be received into the Communion of the Church of Rome But both he and the Bishop of Condom do not meerly Represent but Reason and Argue also and I should have thought they had been a little concerned to justifie their own Representations and Reasonings But whether this Reasoning and Disputing were agreeable to his design or not it was very necessary to ours For when they endeavour to soften the Doctrines of their Church and to abate a great deal of Bellarmin's Popery to reconcile our people to them it is necessary for us to warn them of the snare and to show them what an ill thing Popery is in its best dress and therefore I as little desire that he should answer what I have said to this purpose as he cares for doing it I never writ a Book with a desire to have it answered but to inform those who otherwise might be imposed on And I suppose our people will think never the worse of any Book because Papists decline the dispute who were never known to avoid Disputing when they thought they could get any thing by it And thus I take a fair leave of the Representer for this matter I think is driven as far as it will go We have by his own confession cleared our selves from being Misrepresenters in the true and proper sense of the Word for we have not falsly charged them with any Doctrines and Practises disowned by their Church and as for their Character of a Papist Represented tho' it falls very short of what some great Divines among them of equal Authority with the Bishop of Condom have thought to be the Doctrine of the Council of Trent yet we are willing to joyne issue with them upon their own terms and to shew them our Reasons why we cannot comply with this refined and new-modelled Popery But this is to dispute and that does not agree with a Representer whose business is to make Characters without any concern to defend them And I am not so fond of disputing as to dispute with him whether he will or no. FINIS Amicable Accommodation p. 6. P. 7. P. 8. 22 Josh. 1 Sam. 1. 13. P. 12. See Foxes and Firebrands P. 25. P. 31. P. 35. P. 36. P. 37. P. 38.