Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
scripture_n apostle_n church_n creed_n 2,605 5 10.2206 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
A33224 The summ of a conference on Feb. 21, 1686, between Dr. Clagett, and Father Gooden, about the point of transubstantiation Clagett, William, 1646-1688.; Gooden, Peter, d. 1695. 1689 (1689) Wing C4401; ESTC R7092 13,374 33

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

the Contrary is barely Possible Pap. To a Parliamentary Protestant the Antient Fathers can't be such a Rule because they are Accounted fallible Ans We never said they were such a Rule This therefore is Impertinent Pap. Nor Councels because they also are accounted fallible Ans This is Impertinent also for we never said they were our Rule of Faith. But we have better Reasons to give why Fathers and Cou●●ils cannot be our Rule of Faith than this that the Disputer has made for us And one is this That we cannot make them the Rule of our Faith but by so doing we must depart from the Primitive Fathers and the ancient Councils in as much as all agree That the Holy Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and they made it theirs Pap. Nor Scriptures senced by a fallible Authority because all such Interpretations may be false Ans This is the Place where I shall tell the Disputer what we believe and why we believe it And when I have done I shall consider whether he hath said any thing in this clause to shake our Assurance We firmly believe all the Articles of the Creed into the Profession whereof we have been Baptized We moreover believe all other Doctrine that is Revealed in Holy Scriptures The Grounds of this our Faith are these That in the Holy Scriptures are Recorded those Testimonies of Divine Revelation by which the Doctrines therein contained are confirmed That these Testimonies were too notorious and Publick to be gainsaid in so much that the Doctrine built upon them could not be overthrown by the Powers of the world engaged against it That the holy Books were written by the Inspired Preachers of that Doctrine which they contain And that for this we have the Testimony of Vniversal and uncontroulable Tradition which is a thing credible of it self This is the Sum of that External Evidence upon which our Faith is grounded In assigning of which I do by no means exclude that Internal Evidence that arises from the Excellent Goodness of the Doctrines themselves which shews them to be worthy of God. Now whereas this Disputer says That these Scriptures cannot be an Infallible Rule to us because they are sensed by a fallible Authority that is because we who are fallible understand them as well as we can I answer That no man needs to be Infallible in order to the understanding of plain Scripture I who do not pretend to Infallibility am yet certain which is enough for me That I do find the Articles of the Creed in the Scriptures and many other Doctrines besides which I do understand I am sure that I know what these words of St. John signifie 1 John 2.25 And Chap. 5.3 This is the Promise that he hath promised us even eternal life And this is the love of God that we keep his Commandments and the like The Antient Fathers thought the Scriptures to be so plain that they argued out of them without pretending to an Infallible Authority of Interpretation as I will shew this Disputer when he pleases If nothing less than Infallibility will serve to understand or as he says to sense words why does this Disputer put into my hands this Paper of his which is none of the plainest neither I am sure he does not take me to be Infallible and yet I am confident he would be angry if I should say his Paper was not to be understood without an Infallible Interpreter let him answer this if he can The Reason he gives why Scripture sensed by a fallible Authority cannot be the Rule of Faith is because all such Interpretations may be false That is to say because there is a bare Possibility of any fallible man's mistaking the sense of plain Texts Which kind of Reasoning makes impossible that every man should come to be a Believer unless himself be first Infallible And this I shall Demonstrate so plainly that no man who has any share of Understanding and modesty shall be able to deny it There is no possible way for any sort of Christians to make known either the Articles or Reasons of Faith to those that are yet Ignorant of them but by words or sentences written or spoken He who hears or reads the words and Sentences cannot tell either what is to believe or why he should believe till he understands or in the Disputers Phrase till he Senses those words and Sentences but as yet his Authority is but fallible and words sensed by a Fallible Authority can never give a man certainty either of the Rule or of the Reason of his Faith If this Disputer be in the Right therefore 't is impossible to make him a Believer unless you can make him Infallible first that it may not be Possible for him to be mistaken in Sensing the words which he hears or reads And thus farewell to all Advantage that any man can have by the Infallibility of Popes and Councils or Oral Tradition as well as by the Scriptures Nay and to all Possible means of arriving to certainty in any matter of Faith unless every body be Infallible first so that upon supposition that God would have all men to be saved and therefore to believe it inavoidably follows from the wild Reasoning of this man that God has made every Man Infallible But if it be evident that men are fallible Creatures then this Disputer has Advanced a Principle the most destructive to all certainty of Faith that ever was heard of in the world But the comfort is that 't is so very absurd that no body well in his wits can be misled by it Pap. And therefore Faith cannot be obtain'd by any such means Ans Which is as much as to say that Faith cannot be obtain'd till a man have the gift of Infallibility And if every man has it before he can be taught to any purpose what need can there be of an Infallible Interpreter to teach him But as I observed before 't is impossible to make Believers of those that are not Infallible unless the Disputer or his Church has a way to make known the Doctrines and Reasons of Christian Faith without words Pap. For that which is doubtful can only create opinion which is also doubtful Ans Therefore since all words are doubtful to him that has but a fallible Authority to sense them as no man has more before he believes 't is impossible for the Disputers Church to create any thing more than opinion which is also doubtful in those whom she teaches unless as I have already said she can make them Infallible first and teach them afterwards And even then there would be no need of teaching them at all because they are now Infallible themselves Of all the Papers that ever I read I never met with any thing more absurd and contradictious than the Reasoning of this In which the Disputer out of a vehement desire to overthrow our Faith and the Grounds of it has laid down Principles that do effectually overthrow all ways of making men sure of any thing and in particular the use of those very methods by which his own Church pretends to lead men to Faith. Pap. And he that doubts in Faith the Apostle saith is Infidelis and a company of Doubters are not a Church of Faithful but a society of such as the Apostle calls Infidels Ans What Apostle says this if the Disputer refers to Rom. 14.23 as I think he does he has shewn his skill in the Interpretation of Scripture to be equal to his mastery in Reasoning If in the Infallible Church they can Interpret Scripture no better than thus give me the honesty and industry of a Fallible Church before it The Conclusion AND now after all this Paper is as absurd in the design as it is in the management for the business of it is to prove That Protestants have no Faith but are Infidels and that by this Argument they are and must be doubters Now whether I doubt or do not doubt is a Question concerning a matter of Fact that I have more reason to know the truth of than the Disputer can possibly have and if I know that I do not doubt and he can yet prove that I do doubt he is an extraordinary man indeed For then I am sure he can prove That Truth not onely may be but is false which perhaps such a man as he can Reconcile with what he said at first That truths are impossible to be false And this alone had been a sufficient Answer to his Paper for nothing can be more frivolous than to go about to prove to a man by fine Reasoning that he does doubt of a thing when he is as sure that he does not doubt of it as he can be of any thing in the World. But the design of this Paper seems to be as Impious as 't is Absurd And that is to bring weak Persons to Infidelity first that they may afterwards be setled upon Romish Grounds I do acknowledg 't is a very proper way to bring us over to the Church of Rome to make us Infidels first But this they will not find so easy a matter for we trust that we are not of those who draw back to Perdition but of those that believe to the saving the Soul. I have omitted nothing in the whole Paper but to take notice of that little and mean Reflection in calling the Protestant a Parliamentary Protestant I have told this Disputer the Reason and Ground of our Faith If we moreover are Protected in the Profession of it by the Laws of the Land I suppose 't is no more than what he would desire for the Profession of Popery and he would think never the worse of himself for being a Parliamentary Papist Thus I have Answered this Paper through every clause of it And I am confident destroy'd all that little Appearance of Reasoning that it made Let the Disputer build it up again if he can I promise him by God's Grace that I 'le pull it down again FINIS