Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	authority_n	church_n	infallible_a	2,008	5	9.8493	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25228	Some queries to Protestants answered and an explanation of the Roman Catholick's belief in four great points considered : I. concerning their church, II. their worship, III. justification, IV. civil government.	Altham, Michael, 1633-1705.	1686 (1686)	Wing A2934; ESTC R8650	37,328	44

1. This Inference doth plainly imply a necessity of a visible Judge of Controversies to whom in all matters in difference there should be an Appeal and whose decision should be final Now if this be really so Then 1. It is mighty strange that Christ and his Apostles who pretended faithfully to deliver the whole mind and will of God to mankind should never once mention such an Officer in the Church Or 2. If they should omit to mention so necessary a thing in their writings and only deliver it by word of mouth to their immediate Successors it is no less strange that they should either not know or never make use of such an Expedient for the ending of those Controversies that arose in their days 3. We must conclude that either the Church hath been mighty careless of her own peace or that this Judge hath been very negligent in his business to suffer so great and so fatal Controversies to continue so long in the Church of God when there was so ready a way to put an end to them 2. Our Explainer in this Inference acquaints us with the great ends for the sake of which such a Judge is necessary viz. The ending of all controversies in our Religion and settling of peace in our Consciences These indeed are great things and greatly to be desired But whether there be any such Expedient or if there be whether it be sufficient for these ends are the things in question Now that from the first foundation of the Christian Church to this very day these great ends have not been universally attained is very plain and evident which to me is a very great Argument that either God never instituted any such expedient or if he did that it was not sufficient for these ends which would be a mighty reflection upon the power and wisedom of God But because some things in Scripture are hard to be understood doth it therefore necessarily follow that there must be a visible Judge of Controversies to deliver the sense of those places to us without whom we can never attain thereunto and from whose decision there lies no appeal I confess I cannot see the necessity of this consequence For if it be granted as it is on all hands that the Scriptures which we now have are the Word of God revealed by him and of infallible Authority we must believe that either God would not or could not explain his mind to the sons of men in words as plain and intelligible as any such Judge will or can do or else there can be no such necessity of any such Judge upon that account If there be no other way to attain the sense of Scripture but only the decision of such a Judge then what way or means is left us to understand the sense of the declaration of that Judge will there not want another Judge to determine that and another to explain his and so in infinitum But let us for once suppose though we do not grant it that there ought to be a Judge of Controversies in order to the attaining of these great ends let us see how he ought to be qualified and where we shall find him This Judge must be a person or number of people who must have a superiority not only of order but influence over all others to whose decisions and determinations all Christian people ought to conform their judgments and practices Nor must that influence be precarious but authoritative for nothing can warrant their Impositions but the Authority by which they are imposed Nor can any Authority suffice to oblige mankind to believe that which is neither necessary as to its matter nor evident as to its proof antecedently to the definition of such an Authority but only such an one as is infallible Now where shall we und such an one seeing there are so many pretenders to it If we believe the Popes themselves the Jesuits and the rest of the high Papalins then his holiness will carry away the Bell but if we believe General Councils and those who defend their Supremacy then they will carry it from the Pope and if we believe others of equal credit then the Catholick Church diffusive will carry it from both So that if there ought to be such a Judge you see it is not agreed upon among themselves who he is But 3. Our Explainer determines this Controversie telling us that it is the Judgment of the Church in a free General Council that we ought to submit to And in this we heartily joyn with him for we profess to have as great a deference for the Judgment of the Church in a free General Council as they have or can have and to have as great a regard to the sense of the whole Christian Church in all Ages since the Apostles as they nay it may be greater than they will pretend to have for we are so far from declining it that as to the matters in difference between them and us we appeal thereunto and are willing to be concluded thereby being as well assured as the Records of those Ages still remaining can assure us that it is on our side But if by Church here he mean the present Church of Rome as it stands divided from other Communions we deny that she hath any more authority to impose a sense of Scripture upon us than we upon her or any other particular Church upon either of us Or if by Councils he mean those Western Councils which have been held in these parts of the World in latter Ages we cannot allow them either to be free or general and consequently cannot grant nor have they any reason to claim any such authority over us But if by Councils he mean those primitive Councils which indeed were the most free and general and best deserved to be styled the Church Representative we have so great a veneration for their Opinion and Judgment that we shall not decline to submit the Umpirage of our Cause to them But what is all this to the present Church of Rome which at this day so arrogantly claims a right and authority to interpret Scripture and impose her sense upon us For unless she can prove her self infallible all her pretended authority in this case will fall to the ground If she be indeed infallible she would do well to let the world know whence she had her Infallibility She must have it either immediately from God or by delegation from the Catholick Church diffusive If from God let her produce her Charter If from the Catholick Church diffusive then it depends upon her authority and by the same authority she may recall it again when she pleaseth So that upon this ground it will prove but a very Fallible Infallibility We know she challenges it by virtue of those promises of the Spirit in the Scriptures which promises they themselves do confess to have been made only to the Catholick Church and therefore though an Infallibility even in Judgment were

sense and meaning of the Holy Scriptures to others and it were to be wished that none had failed of their duty therein Qu. 12. Whether all that is mentioned in Scripture be not true according to the sense and meaning so delivered Ans All that is mentioned in Scripture is undoubtedly true according to the true sense and meaning thereof Qu. 13. Whether an obstinate Contradiction of any one truth thus delivered in Scripture though there appear no necessity it should have been mentioned in Scripture be not injurious to that divine Authority and veracity and which unrepented of shall bring damnation Ans An obstinate contradiction of any one plain truth delivered in holy Scripture is certainly a very great injury to divine authority and veracity Qu. 14. When difficulties did arise about the sense of Scriptures or matters of Faith whither the dicision of those controversies was carried and whether the present Church of every Age was not to decide it Ans It was undoubtedly the practice and is most rational that the present Church in every Age should decide such controversies For the Priest's Lips should preserve knowledge and they should enquire the Law at his mouth And no question the Church hath Authority to declare matters of Faith but not to make any new Articles of Faith Qu. 15. Whether every particular person was to have an Authoritative power in this decision or whether it was not universally left to the Heads and Governours of the Church Assembled together Ans Every particular person hath undoubtedly a Judgment of discretion allow'd him in matters of that nature but the Authoritative power of deciding and determining was in the Heads and Governours of the Church Assembled together for that end Qu. 16. Whether such a force of Hopes or Fears could possibly happen at once upon all the Heads of the universal Church Assembled together or after consenting to those that were Assembled as should make them declare that to be a truth revealed by Christ which was not so delivered to them to have been the ever esteemed sense of Scripture or perpetual tradition which was not so Ans Whilst men are men they will be liable to hopes and fears and subject to the power and force of them if therefore we consider the Heads and Governours of the Church as such we cannot allow them an Exemption therefrom and consequently there may be no impossibility in the things propounded We grant that in a General Council lawfully assembled we have great reason to hope for the presence direction and assistance of the Holy Ghost ●…t how far the passions and humours of men may frustrate our Hopes we know not This we certainly know that the Acts of one Council have been made void by another and therefore it is more than probable that one of them did declare something to be a truth revealed by Christ which was not so delivered unto them Qu. 17. Whether the Decisions of such Assemblies or general Councils were not always esteemed obligatory in the Church and whether particular Persons or Churches obstinately gainsaying such Decisions received by a much Major part of the Church diffused were not always esteemed to have incurred those Anathema's pronounced by such Councils Ans If those Assemblies or Councils be truly general we do very much reverence their Authority and think their decisions to be obligatory But we do not think all to be such that are called so As for instance The Council of Trent is by some sort of men looked upon as a general Council and all their Religion almost built upon the Authority thereof and yet the Church of England never received the decisions of that Council nor did the Galican Church for many years and yet neither the one nor the other did for all that esteem themselves to have incurred the Anathema's pronounced by that Council Qu. 18. Whether the universal Church did not in all Ages practice this way of deciding controversies and whether these be not as universal a tradition of this as the practice was universal without interruption Ans Universal practice will amount to an universal Tradition and that this hath been the practice of the Church in all Ages especially in matters of great weight we deny not nor should we oppose the same course now provided the Council were free and general But the Enquirer goes on Some will perhaps say that such Councils cannot Err in fundamentals but may in not fundamentals I ask these Qu. What are fundamentals and what not Ans Those things which are essentially necessary to the being of Religion may properly be called fundamental but those things which only respect order and decency therein and vary according to time and place and are alterable by the Governours of the Church when they see cause these are not fundamental Qu. Whether there be not some things fundamentals to the Church which are not to every particular Ans There may be some things fundamental to the Being of a Church which are not so to every particular member of that Church but whatsoever things are ●…ndamental to the Being of Religion are equally so to the whole Church and every member thereof Qu. Whether an obstinate denyal of what is fundamental or necessary to the universal Church or granting as I may say upon what is fundamental by a particular person be not in time a fundamental Errour especially after an universal declaration of it as truth delivered by Christ and his Apostles Ans This Query as it is here worded is hardly reconcileable to sense but I suppose his meaning is Whether for any particular person obstinately to deny what is fundamental or necessary to the universal Church and declared to be a truth delivered by Christ and his Apostles be not a fundamental Errour To which I answer That every particular Christian ought with all deference to submit his own private Judgment to the publick Judgment of the Church and though it do not appear so plain to him yet he ought rather to suspect his own than that of the Church But if in some things he cannot be satisfied and therein happen to differ from the Church provided he do not thereby break the peace and unity of the Church it will hardly amount to a fundamental Errour But what if it be declared by the Church to be a truth delivered by Christ and his Apostles will not that make it so To this I answer That no declaration of the Church how universal soever it be can make that to be a truth delivered by Christ and his Apostles which really is not so And therefore in that case we must have recourse to their Writings and if it be not either in express words contained therein or by sound consequence drawn therefrom we ought not to comply with it nor is it a fundamental Errour to differ therein Qu. Whether the universal Church assembled in a General Council ought not to be justly esteemed the decider of what is fundamental and what