Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	doctrine_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	1,725	5	9.4842	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96332	A demonstration that the Church of Rome, and her councils have erred by shewing, that the councils of Constance, Basil, and Trent, have, in all their decrees touching communion in one kind, contradicted the received doctrine of the Church of Christ. With an appendix, in answer to the XXI. chapter of the author of A papist misrepresented, and represented.	Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.	1688 (1688)	Wing W1721A; ESTC R226161	116,790	130

A DEMONSTRATION THAT THE Church of Rome AND HER COUNCILS HAVE ERRED BY SHEWING That the COUNCILS of Constance Basil and Trent have in all their Decrees touching Communion in one Kind contradicted the Received Doctrine of the Church of Christ WITH AN APPENDIX In ANSWER to The XXI Chapter of the Author of A Papist Misrepresented and Represented LONDON Printed by J. Leake for Awnsham Churchill at the Black-Swan in Ave-Mary-Lane MDCLXXXVIII IMPRIMATUR Apr. 11. 1688. Guil. Needham THE PREFACE TO THE READER The Contents of the Preface This Discourse plainly overthrows all the Foundations of the Romish Faith shewing 1. That the Romish Councils and the Church of Rome cannot be the sole authentick Interpreters of Scripture or the true Judges of Tradition § 1. 2ly That they were not assisted by the Holy Ghost in making this Decree touching Communion in one King § 2. 3ly That the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent were not true General Councils or that such Councils must be subject unto Error § 3. 4ly That there is no Certainty of the Romish Faith by oral Tradition § 4. 5ly That these Councils ridiculously do assert That they made their Decrees touching Communion in one King consulting the Advantage and Salvation of Christian People § 5. 6ly That the Decrees of the Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil concerning the Superiority of a Genral Council over the Pope and their Authority to decree matters of Faith without him must be allowed to be valid or we can have no Assurance of the Validity and Infallibility of any of their Councils § 6. BY way of Preface to this Discourse I shall endeavour briefly and plainly to demonstrate 1. That it plainly overthroweth all the Certainty of the Romish Faith and that if they have made these Definitions and Decrees in opposition to the plain Sence of Scripture and the Interpretations of it by the Holy Fathers and to the full Tradition of the Church in former Ages these their received Councils cannot be by Gods Appointment the Judges of our Controversies the authentick Interpreters of Scripture or assisted by the Holy Ghost in making these Decisions nor can they be Assertors of or Adherers to primitive Tradition but rather plain Desertors of it And First Whereas they challenge as their undoubted Right Authority to be the sole authentick Interpreters of the Sence of Scripture and the true Judges of the Tradition of the Church of Christ Hence we may learn what excellent Interpreters they are of Scripture and Tradition For whereas the Trent Council hath in General defined that it belongeth to the Church alone (a) Sess 4. Judicare de vero sensu interpretatione Sanctarum Scripturarum To judge of the true sence and meaning of the Holy Scriptures And particularly That being taught by the Holy Spirit (b) Sess 21. c. 1. Atque ipsius Ecclesiae judicium consuetudinem secuta And following the Judgment and Custom of the Church she made the forementioned Decrees touching Communion in one Kind Secondly Whereas the Council of Constance saith That they made their Decrees concerning the same Matter (c) Sess 13. Plurium doctorum tam divini quam humani juris deliberatione praehabitâ After mature Deliberation had with many Doctors skilful both in divine and humane Laws And lastly whereas the Council of Basil hath declared That they determined the same Matter (d) Sess 30. Post diligentem perscrutationem divinarum Scripturarum sacrorumque Canonum doctrinarum à Sanctis patribus Doctoribus traditarum in hac Synodo longis temporibus habitam After a diligent Search made in this Synod for a long time of holy Scriptures of the sacred Canons and of the Doctrines delivered by the holy Fathers I say Whereas they do expresly and confidently pretend these things I think it will be evident from this Discourse That in those Matters they plainly have decreed against the clear and formerly received Sence of Scriptures against the Doctrines delivered by the Holy Fathers and by the sacred Canons and against the Judgment and Custom of the Church of God in former Ages So that if it belong unto the Church alone to judge of the true Sense and Meaning of the Holy Scriptures these Councils and those Churches which have embraced their Interpretations of the Scriptures concerned in this Dispute could not be the Church Representative or Catholick but falsly did and do pretend to these Titles If it belong unto the Church to teach us what is Tradition they who assert these things as suitable to the Doctrines delivered by the Holy Fathers and to the Judgment of the Church cannot deserve that Title § 2 Again Thirdly Whereas the Trent Council saith That in making these Decrees she was (e) Ipsa Synodus à Spiritu Sancto qui est Spiritus sapientiae intellectus Spiritus consilii pietatis edocta Sess 21. c. 1. Ibid. Instructed by the Holy Ghost who is the Spirit of Wisdom and of Understanding of Counsel and of Pieyt whereas the Council of Constance and of Basil in making their Decrees touching this Article Declare they were a Holy General Synod in Spiritu Sancto legitimè congregata Met rightly together in the holy Ghost Hence it is evident that 1. They falsly pretended to the Assistance of the Holy Spirit who being the spirit of Truth the Inditer of the Sacred Scripture would not assist them to determine contrary to the Truth delivered there and being also the Spirit promised to assist his Church and guide her true and living Members into all saving Truth could not assist them to Decree against the Practice and the Judgment of the Church of Christ for a Thousand years 2. Hence also it must follow that these Councils tho as to these Definitions they are own'd as truly General by the whole Church of Rome were not true General Councils or that true General Councils confirmed by the Pope and owned by the whole Church of Rome may erre in Matters of Faith in the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and in their Judgment of Tradition 3. And whereas our late Roman Disputants have laid the whole Certainty of their Faith upon the Infallibility of oral Tradition §. 4. Mr. G. Mr. M. delivering to them the same Doctrine to day which was delivered yesterday and so up to the time of our Saviour it must be as evident they have no Certainty of Roman Faith as it is evident from this and other late Treatises That they have varied from the Tradition of the Church in the Practice of latin Service the Veneration of Images and the Substraction of the Cup and we desire nothing more of the most wavering Persons than that they would not go over to that Church till they see greater Evidence that they have never varied from what was once taught and delivered in the Church of Christ than these Discourses offer to evince that they have actually done it § 5 4. Moreover hence we

as certainly true and necessary and therefore fear not any Retortions of this Nature from our Adversaries Had I designed any thing of that Nature I would more cpiously have insisted on those Arguments from Scripture whence that conclusion can alone be made and which I therefore have so briefly touched upon because I was so happily prevented in that matter by the unanswerable Treatise on this Subject against the Bishop of Meaux with which I was unwilling to interfere but finding that the forementioned Bishop had with great confidence appealed for this matter to the constant practice and to the Principles of the Primitive Church P. 160 161. and told us That the constant Practices of the Primitive Church received with universal approbation from the Origin of Christianity till the time of the Council of Constance do invincibly demonstrate that the Council did but follow the Tradition of All Ages when it defined That the Communion under one kind was as good and sufficient as under both with many other things of a like nature in which he is also followed by the late Writers of the same Communion And finding also that the once exploded Blackloists were again admitted to plead the infallibility of the Roman Church from practical Tradition and that this was done upon the strength of these two Propositions 1. J. S. That the Church of Rome hath always held close to Tradition and received still her Doctrine by Tradition from the Father to the Son from the first to the second and so to the present Age. 2. That she could not mistake the sense of Tradition in particular points In contradiction to these confident Assertions I have here shewed by confronting the Doctrines and Sayings of the Fathers to the express Determinations of their Councils 1. That the present Church of Rome hath varied in this matter from Antiquity both in Doctrine and Practice and that Tradition plainly contradicts all their Assertions and Decrees relating to it And therefore that all her late Defenders are much mistaken or which is worse would lead others into a known Error when they undertake to perswade them that the practice of their Church in denying the Cup to the Laity and to Priests non-conficient is warranted by Tradition and Primitive Practice and by the Principles on which they builded that pretended Practice 2. That in this particular Point she hath either actually mistaken the Sence of Tradition or actually devidated from Tradition And seeing whether she does not differ from or agree with the Primitive Belief and Practice in this Article is a matter of Fact and so may be determined by the Testimony of good Witnesses of what was practised and believed in their Times and by plain Allegations of matter of Fact without Infallibility In plain reason and from her own avowed Principles it follows that her Authority in saying she does not differ from the Tradition of the Ancients and much more in asserting That she hath always held to it and therefore could not mistake the Sence of it can be of no force against plain evidence of Fact to the contrary If then the difference betwixt the Belief and Practice of the Ancients and of the present Church of Rome in this matter be evident as I think I have made it it must be owned that the present received Tradition of that Church can be no certain Rule of Truth and no sure Argument that such was the Tradition of the Primitive Church since in this Controversie she hath actually varied from the Tradition of the Ancients And thus far 1. and no farther would I be thought to drive the Argument drawn from the Citations of the Ancients The Right or Authority claimed by that Church will be best judged of by other Intrinsick Arguments which ought to have the greater force when it appears that Prescription is against our Adversaries Only I cannot but admire why the Trent Council should found their Power of making such a Change in our Lord 's Institution on those words of the Aposlte 1 Cor. iv 1 (t) Id autem Apostolus non obscure visus est innuisse cum ait sic nos existimet c. Sess 21. c. 2. But let a Man account of us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dispensatores mysteriorum Dei as Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the Mysteries of God. Since in that very place it is immediately added That of a Steward it is required that he be found Faithful that is saith (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Locum Chrysostom that he do not usurp Authority over the things of his Lord but administer them as a Steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it belongeth to a Steward to administer or distribute well to the Family the things committed to his hands And St. Basil (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haec ipsis integra custodiat Tom. 2. de vera ac pia fide p. 385. b. saith It is the property of a faithful Minister whatsoever things are committed to him by his Lord to distribute them to his fellow Servants and to preserve them for him without Adulteration or Deceit or purely and entirely saith the Latin. 2. The Second thing which I desire may be considered is That nothing in the following Citations can be urged against the Church of England as Erroneous in this Matter Art. 6. For since she professeth to admit nothing as necessary to be believed but what is either expressed in or fairly deducible from Scripture and that it is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike Art. 34. How can in reflect upon her that S. Cyprian for Example held it necessary to mix the Wine with Water or that others have held it necessary to use Unleavened Bread c. All that her Sons are in this Case obliged to is only to give fair and satisfactory Reasons why these things are not necessary which they are both able and willing to do whereas if a disagreement between the present Church of Rome and the Primitive Christians be once proved against them in any of their Articles all their fine Pleas for the certainty of their Traditions Mr. M. Quest of Quest p. 395 396 397. the Infallibility of their Councils as proceeding upon Tradition and meeting only to consult about the Tradition of the Church diffused and all the Prejudices they advance against the Protestants from the present Tradition of their Church must be confessedly vain and Sophistical And the attending to this difference of Principles in each Church will shew how much the Testimonies of the Ancients do affect the one and how little they concern the other and so will prevent the Objections of an Vnwary and the Cavils of a captious Reader THE INTRODUCTION Shewing what the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent have determined touching Communion in one kind THOUGH in many other Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome she contradicteth the plainest Evidence of

all Crimes objected to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we partake of humane flesh it is not possible we should be guilty of so vile a thing Amongst us there is no eating of Man's flesh saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Contr. Graec. p. 162. Tatian you are false witnesses who say this of us No Man saith Legat. p. 38. Athenagoras who is not mad can charge us with this thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for we may not eat humane flesh It is the Calumny of the Devil saith P. 32. Minutius You may be ashamed to object it to us Christians saith Apol. cap. 9. Tertullian whereas had they received this as an Article of Christian Faith that they did daily eat the Flesh of the Man Christ and thought that this Discourse not only taught but even obliged them so to do I know not with what Truth or what Sincerity they could without all limitation or exception not only have denied but even detested the doing so But that which puts it without dubt that Christians in the Primitive Ages had no apprehension that Christ by this Discourse had taught them that his proper flesh and Blood was to be eaten in the Sacrament is the memorable History of Sanctus and Blandina two Christian Martyrs written by Iraenene Bishop of Lions and preserved to us in In 1 Pet. ii 12. p. 149. g. a. Oecumenius thus That the Heathens having apprehended the Servants of Christians Catechized and using force with them that from them they might learn something secret the Servants having nothing to say that might be pleasing to their Tormentors in as much as they had heard from their Masters that the Holy Sacrament was the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they thinking that it had indeed been flesh and blood told this to the Inquisitors who apprehending 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the Christians had done that very thing gave notice of it to other Heathens and they endeavoured by torments to force the May tyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess it to whom Blandina readily and boldly answered saying How should they endure these things who so fast as not to enjoy lawful Flesh This I say is a clear indication that the Ancient Christians did not believe that in this Sacrament they did eat Christ's proper flesh and blood or that our Lord did here require them to do so for if they had thus thought how could Irenaeus have represented it as a plain mistake both in these Servants and these Heathens to think the Sacrament was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 really Christ's flesh and blood and that the Christians by receiving of it did really eat Flesh and Blood How could he have introduced Blandina refuting this Imagination had it been the Sentiment of the then Church of Christ since by so doing she must have rejected one great Article of Christian Faith How lastly could Oecumenius have inserted these words into his Commentary without endeavouring to sweeten and explain and reconcile them to the Doctrine of the proper Manducation of Christ's Flesh and Blood. Again since that this Doctrine came into the world that is since it was broached first by Paschasius in the Ninth Century the Assertors of it give two Reasons why though we corporally eat that very Flesh which suffered on the Cross and drink that very Blood which was then shed corporeally yet is that Flesh and Blood concealed from our outward Senses under the shape of Bread and Wine The first is this C. 13. Al. 36. Vt ridiculum nullum fiat Paganis quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus that we might not be ridiculous to the Pagans by eating humane Flesh and drinking the Blood of a slain Man for this saith he would make our Religion execrable and cause them to condemn the Christians as the vilest of Men And again should the shape of Flesh appear it would be C. 37. Perfidis execratio execrable to the Heathens 'T is thus concealed saith Alger l. 2. c. 3. f. 15. b. Algerus Ne infidelibus pateat eorum Blasphemiis vilescat Least it should appear to Infidels and lie open to their Blasphemies and least they should judge us inhumane and cruel as being eaters and drinkers of humane Flesh and Blood. Secondly Least Christians perceiving things raw and bloody should be filled with horrour saith P. 133. b. Lanfrank least if the Faithful should perceive the Colour and the taste of Flesh and Blood humana pietas abhorreret humane piety should abhorr the Action saith L. 2. c. 3. Algerus Should it appear thus saith P. 224. Hugo Lingonenesis Rarius in terris esset qui hoc non abhorreret There would be scarce a Man on Earth that would not abhorr it It would saith P. 215. h. Petrus Cluniacensis Fidem laedere vel ad scandalum quorumlibet possit corda movere Be prejudicial to the Faith and scandalize the Minds of all Men. The profit of the receiving the Sacrament would be hindred saith Impediretur perceptionis ejus commoditas pro humani corporis comedendi horrore injecto L. 1. c. 7. l. 1. c. 16. algerus by the horror of eating humane flesh quoniam Christum vorari dentibus fas non est for it is not lawful to devour Christ with the Teeth Now let us in the fear of God consider whether that Sence of Scripture is to be received which makes that certainly to be believed by the eye of Faith which if it werre perceived by the Eye of Sense would render our Religion Ridiculous and execrable to the Pagan World which did we see our selves but ready to perform what actually we do we should utterly abhorr to do and should be horribly scandalized at our own Actions which did Men see us do they could not but esteem us cruel and inhumane Since that the Heathens have understood this is become an Article of Christian Faith do they not open their Mouths in Blasphemies against us as freely as if they saw us eat and drink Glorist's flesh and blood corporeally Did not Apud Dionys Carth. in Sent. 4. Dist 10. Art. 1. Averroes declare in the 12th Century He found no Sect more foolish than the Christians because they ate the very God they worshipped Doth not Apud Hotting Hist Eccl. Saec. 16. Part. 2. p. 160. Achmed Ben Edris say We use Christ worse than did the Jews because it is more Savage to eat his flesh and drink his blood than only to procure his Death Do not the Monsieur la Boulay Voyag part 1. c. 10. p. 21. Mahometans point at us saying There goes a God-eater And doth not then this their Doctrine render their Religion as plainly Execrable and Ridiculous to the Heathen world as if they saw them eat of humane flesh and drink of humane blood 3. The 53. v. affords two further Arguments in Refutation of the corporeal sence of these Expressions 1. That it follows plainly from it that the Thief upon the Cross and all the pious and