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
A71074	A second letter to Mr. G. in answer to two letters lately published concerning the conference at the D. of P.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.; Godden, Thomas, 1624-1688.	1687 (1687)	Wing S5635; ESTC R14280	27,300	46

you How you could prove the Church of Rome to be Infallible And in a Copy sent from Ch. where you dispersed it the Title of the second Dispute is Stillingfleet's first Question How do you prove c. so that my Name was here falsly put in and it is easie to guess with what design But to proceed When you said the Infallibility of the Church of Rome consisted in following the universal Testimony of all Traditionary Christians Your Copy makes me ask a very wise Question upon it viz. How does if appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in Traditiun Whereas I put two Questions to you 1. How does it appear that the Church of Rome is Infallible in the sense and meaning of Tradition 2. Is this Tradition a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture The Design of which Questions was to shew 1. That to receive a Doctrine by mere Tradition can afford no Infallible Ground of Faith unless persons be assured of the true Sense and Meaning of the Doctrine so delivered As for instance suppose the Doctrine delivered be that Christ was the Son of God if the Infallibility of Tradition goes no farther than the bare delivery from Father to Son then Faith can go no farther than the general words though an Heretical sense may lie under them If the Infallibility doth extend to the sense and meaning of these words then either every Traditionary Christian is to give this sense which will make a very large Infallibility in the whole Body of Traditionary Christians or else the explaining the sense and meaning of Tradition must belong to a certain Order of Men by virtue of a divine Promise If so then the Infallibility of Tradition cannot consist in holding the same Doctrine to day that was delivered yesterday and so up to the time of our Blessed Saviour as you asserted For if the Church may explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as to oblige Men to believe that by virtue of such explication which they were not obliged to before then it is impossible the Infallibility of Tradition should be in a constant Tradition from Father to Son. For they have no power to oblige to any more than they received but according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and some will tell you it is Heresie to deny it and I appeal to F. Warner if it be not the Church hath power and authority to explain the Sense and Meaning of Tradition so as persons are obliged upon p●in of Damnation to believe that Sense and Meaning of Tradition which the present Church delivers As will Appear by an undeniable instance The Tradition of a Real Presence in the Eucharist is allowed on all hands but all the Controversie is and hath been for some Ages what the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition is Whether it be a Real Presence by way of Efficacy and Influence or by a mystical Union or by a substantial Change of the very Elements into the Body and Bloud of Christ. The Tradition of the Real Presence may be preserved under every one of these Explications the Question now is whether it be sufficient to adhere to the general Tradition of the Church or it be not necessary to Salvation to adhere to the Churches Explication of the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition in the Councils of Lateran and Trent If it be said that the Sense and Meaning of this Tradition as there expressed viz. Transubstantiation was always deliver'd from Father to Son I answer 1. This is more than is pretended by many of the greatest Men in the Roman Church as hath been lately abundantly shewed And it is impossible to make it out that the manner of the Presence hath been constantly delivered from Father to Son from the time of Christ and his Apostles for the main Testimonies alledged out of Antiquity are onely for a Real Presence and there are as express Testimonies against the Change of the Elements as there are any for the other 2. This takes off from the Power and Authority of the Church of Rome if it cannot make a necessary Explication of the Sense and Meaning of Tradition and resolves all into a meer humane Faith which is the unavoidable Consequence of this Doctrine of Oral Tradition For no other Account can be given of it than from meer Natural Reason viz. that Traditionary Christians could not believe otherwise to day than they did yesterday Granting this to be true which is very far from being so as shall be shewed when Your Answer to the Instance of the Greek Church comes abroad yet the utmost this can amount to is that I resolve my Faith into a Logical Demonstration And is this the Faith Christians are to be saved by What Grace of God what Assistence of the Holy Spirit are necessary to such a Faith as this But for this I refer you to the Haeresis Blackloäna c. 2. I intended by the second Question to put a Difference between the Tradition allowed by us and the Tradition disputed If no more were meant by Tradition than the Universal Tradition of the Christian Church as to the Books of Scripture this I had before granted to be a sufficient Ground for the Certainty of our Faith as to the Canon of Scripture which is our Rule of Faith but if by Tradition be understood either some necessary Articles of Faith not contained in Scripture or a Power in the Church to make unnecessary to become necessary this I denyed and desire to see some better Proof of it than you produce All the Answer which you give in your own Paper to these two Questions is that All Traditionary Christians that is all Bishops all Priests all Fathers and all People following this Rule and receiving Faith because it was received the day before could not innovate in Faith unless they could all either forget what they received the day before or out of Malice change it therefore because no cause can be assigned for such an effect they cannot innovate If there can Assign it Now to which of the Questions that I put is this an Answer Doth this shew that the Church of Rome is Infallible in giving the Sense and Meaning of Tradition or that this Tradition is a Rule of Faith distinct from Scripture But it seems to be an Answer to the Question in your Copy and therefore it is very suspicious that the Question was so framed that the Answer might seem pertinent to it To shew the vanity of this Demonstration I produced the Instance of the Greek Church which followed Tradition from Father to Son and yet you charge it with Errour in matters of Faith so that a Church following Tradition may err in matters of Faith. Here again your Copy notoriously fails for it makes me put such another wise Question as before Whether the Greek Church did follow from Father to Son the Tradition in matters of Faith or no As though I had desired Information from

whether the Penalty would be reasonable in case they could not understand their duty by them but in our case the matter is of far greater moment for mens Eternal Salvation or Misery depends upon knowing and doing the will of God contained in Scripture and therefore it is of so much greater consequence and necessity that all persons who are concerned for their Salvation should be able to understand by diligent and carefull reading the Scripture so much as is required of them in order to it And this was the certain Faith of the Primitive Church that all things necessary to Salvation were plain in Scripture and if they were plain they needed no Interpreter But we have not the consent of all Christian Churches that the Scripture is a Rule of Faith without the Churches Interpretation I answer that we have the consent of all Christian Churches that the Scripture is a Rule of Faith but whether besides this Rule there be an Infallible Iudge of Controversies or Interpreter of Scripture is another distinct Controversie We have the unanimous consent of all Christian Churches for the one but in the present state of Christendom we do not pretend it for the other for we are well enough acquainted with the pretence of Infallibility in the Church of Rome but then we say that it is impossible for you to bring such an unanimous consent of all Christian Churches for your Infallible Iudge as we do bring for our Rule of Faith and therefore we have much greater certainty of our Rule than you can have of your Infallible Iudge We appeal to all the Churches of the Christian World for our Rule you dare not appeal to any one Church besides your own for your Infallibility For it is utterly denied by all the Eastern Churches though of very different denominations And when you bring an universal consent of all Christian Churches for the Roman Churches Infallibility I may safely promise to become your Convert But yet they do not agree that every man is to interpret Scripture for himself What is the meaning of inter preting Scripture for himfelf If it be that a man is to rely on Scripture as his Rule of Faith in order to Salvation then we have their universal consent in as much as they deliver this as the Rule of Faith. If it be that in doubtfull places he is to rely on his own Judgment without making life of the best helps then we pretend to no such thing for we assert the contrary and do think in all doubtfull cases that persons are bound to make use of the best and most reasonable means for their satisfaction among which we not only reckon Prayer Meditation comparing Scripture and Expositors upon it but the help of Spiritual Guides and the Sense of the Primitive Church which our Church doth especially recommend and which we look on as the best Arbitrator between us in all our Controversies about the sense of doubtfull places of Scripture But after all either there must be an Infallible Iudge or every man must judge for himself in all matters that concern his Salvation And therefore if we have the consent of all Christian Churches against the only pretended Infallible Judge we have their consent likewise that every man is to judge for his own Salvation And this all Mankind are really agreed in whatever some may pretend or else it is to no purpose for you to go about to make Converts for in so doing you make the person you intend to convert Judge of the best way to Salvation and not only so but you make him Judge of all the Controversies between Us and You and especially of the true grounds of Faith. And how ridiculous after this is it to pretend that a man is not to judge for himself in matters that concern his Salvation 3. Lastly Mr. M. p. 29. desires to know what those Christian Churches are whose Testimony is required towards the assuring us what is Scripture and what not and by what mark I distinguished them from others I answer again by no other mark than that they are Christian Churches and it is a great satisfaction to any mans mind that however they differ about other matters yet they are all agreed in the Canon of the New Testament I am by no means bound to assign any Rule in this case as you desire whereby to distinguish Orthodox Churches from Heretical for whatever they are in other points they all agree in this which is the Foundation of our Faith. As to the 2d Point I proposed in my Letter to be made good viz. That the Tradition from Father to Son is an infallible conveyance of matters of Faith notwithstanding the Greek Church is charged by you with Errours which adhered to Tradition the Author of the first Letter thinks you are concerned to answer it But then he thinks I am as well bound to answer your Argument In good time But was not that very instance of the Greek Church produced on purpose to shew the weakness of the Argument And is not making that plain answering it as effectually as the Philosopher's Argument against Motion was when the man moved before him For he proved that impossible which he shewed was so far from it that he saw him doe it And Sophistical Arguments are best answered by clear and undeniable Instances and this of the Greek Church is of that nature But he saith Objections may be raised against the most undeniable Truth and he instanceth in two things mathematically demonstrable and yet Objections may be made against them which cannot easily be answered But the difference of the case is very plain for those instances only shew that there are some things above our comprehension about Matter and Motion but what is this to an infallible Rule of Faith which every one is bound to know if according to you he would have any certainty of his Faith And if it appears by a notorious instance that it fails for a whole Church and a very great and ancient Church is accused by you of no less than Heresie and yet it adhered to Tradition then the Demonstration is quite gone But Mr. M. saith p. 29. That you never acknowledged that the Greek Church erred while it adhered to tradition and therefore my supposing it is to beg the Question and mis-represent the state of the Argument But whether you acknowledged it or not the Greek Church did adhere to Tradition when the Latin Church charged it with Heresie And certainly I may be allowed to argue from an undeniable instance as I shall believe it to be till I see the Answer to it which Mr. M. promises in his Conclusion Before he comes to that he lets me know p. 31. that himself and several others upon comparing my two Propositions together had found a contradiction in them and so they had once more Dr. St. against Dr. St. This is as witty an observation as the Author of Pax vobis had made upon