Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	father_n	son_n	substance_n	1,728	5	9.0864	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33205	An answer to the representer's reflections upon the state and view of the controversy with a reply to the vindicator's full answer, shewing, that the vindicator has utterly ruined the new design of expounding and representing popery.	Clagett, William, 1646-1688.; Clagett, Nicholas, 1654-1727.	1688 (1688)	Wing C4376; ESTC R11070	85,324	142

a loss again and the Sence of the Church in Council will do him little Service in those Points where it may be Councils are silent if the Sence of the Church out of Council be plainly and loudly against him and his Party If the Vindicator then should say That tho the Church has a Sence of Doctrines of Faith out of Council yet that Sence cannot or at least is never delivered but by her Voice in General Councils Then I have one other Question to put which will break out into a few more but which he who hath considered these things very well will make no difficulty to answer This Question is How the Churches Sence came to be known concerning Doctrines of Faith before any General and Approved Councils delivered them for such Which Question will appear to be a very reasonable one if he will please to read these that follow 1. Whether Doctrines of Faith be not the same now that they were from the Beginning 2. Whether the Sence of the Church concerning these Doctrines has not been always the same 3. Whether the Church therefore had not the same Sence of them before they were delivered by her Voice in General and Approved Councils that she had afterwards Or Whether she had one Sence and delivered another And then as I said at first 4. If she had the same Sence before it was so delivered that she had when she delivered it and after she delivered it How came that Sence to be known before This I think is plain enough but if it be not I will try to make it plainer Therefore 1. We say with the Romanist That it is a Doctrine of Faith that The Son is of the same Substance with the Father But this Doctrine was never delivered in a General and Approved Council before the First Council of Nice as it was impossible it should because that was the First General Council I would know of the Vindicator whether the Churches Sence concerning that Doctrine was not to be known before and how it was to be known 2. The Romanists say That 't is a Doctrine of Faith That in the Eucharist the Substance of the Bread is turned into the Substance of Christ's Body and the Substance of the Wine into the Substance of his Blood. But this was never delivered in any pretended General and Approved Council as we are very sure before the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. I would know of the Vindicator whether the Church had the same Sence of this Transubstantiation before that Lateran Council which 't is said to have had since and whether that Sence of the Church was known and if so then how it was known I have given the Vindicator two Instances One of a Doctrine of Faith for which we contend no less than the Roman Church and as we think to better purpose Another of a Doctrine which that Church says is of Faith tho we say it destroys All Faith and these two in behalf of all that are Real and of all that are by them pretended to be Doctrines of Faith. For till I am better informed by the Vindicator in answer to the foresaid Questions I say of all the Doctrines of both kinds that there should be some way to come to the Churches Sence about these things before she delivered her Sence of them in the Voice of General and Approved Councils This I shall presume till he acquaints me otherwise and if he does not yet understand which way these Questions drive I will now tell him Let him keep to his Principles and shew me by what way the Churches Sence came to be known concerning Doctrines of Faith before they were delivered by the Voice of General and Approved Councils and then let him leave it to me to shew him by the same way that Old Popery as we call it has been the Sence of the Church of Rome till these expounding and representing Days of ours Nay and that Father Crasset shall prove by the same way that it is now the Sence of the Roman Church whatever some few Men of that Communion may pretend to the contrary And when I have done this the Vindicator shall by me be never contradicted while he on the other side proves the Sense of the Church to be quite different from what Father Crasset in his way proves to be so For most undoubtedly he thereby does our Work for us and enables us to prove that there must of necessity be two church-Church-Senses betwixt them and consequently two sorts of Popery an Old Popery and a New Popery Whereas therefore the Vindicator says Till you can prove by the express Words of a General Approved Council that what you term Old Popery was delivered as a Doctrine of Faith all you say will avail nothing I would be glad to know what the Vindicator would have said in behalf of Transubstantiation so some such Man as Rabanus Maurus or Bertram or Berengarius if he had lived in their Times and they should have said to him tho I think in my Conscience none of 'em would have talked so insipidly Till you can prove by the express Words of a General Approved Council that what you term the Catholic Faith concerning Christ's Presence in the Eucharist was delivered as a Doctrine of Faith all you say will avail nothing Here I will not allow that the Vindicator should bring in the Doctors and Saints of the Church who might be pretended to bear Testimony to the Churches Sense in this Point For he has foreclosed himself as to this Relief and that by giving the Defender a notable Reason why all he can say will avail him nothing if he brings not the express Words of a Council For says he you bring only the Sentiments of Private Men which other Members of the same Church condemn I have urged this Matter further than I intended at first for I meant not to press for Answers to the foregoing Questions with much Importunity And now I say no more than that I shall take it very kindly of the Vindicator if he will please to admit these things into his Consideration and enlighten me with his Thoughts about them II. I proceed in the second place to suppose a very strange thing for fear the Vindicator should affirm it and that is That nothing is to be taken for the Sense of the Church as to Doctrines of Faith but what she declares by her Voice in General Approved Councils For if we take the Cause by this Handle the Distinction between Old and New Popery will I believe go on as roundly as it did before And some Inconvenience too will follow in the Close to trouble the Vindicator no less than this Odious Distinction between Old and New Popery Because I would lead him fairly to the Business I ask him in the First place Whether his Church hath delivered her Sense concerning those two Points which he mentions upon this occasion by her Voice in General and

They are both of them like a pair of Diamonds hard and sharp and nothing can cut the one so handsomly as his Fellow If they should chance to fall foul it would be indeed a Comical end of the Controversie and not unsuitable to the Representer who studied to make a Farce of it when he brought in his Phanatick Sermon But let them make what end of it they please there is a time when it is decent for us to give over that as hitherto Truth has lost no ground for want of Argument so it may lose no honour by want of Discretion I have given up the Representer and shall but once more trouble the Vindicator which will be more than enough for him since ere long he may expect from his Antagonist such an Account of the Articles of the Bishop of Meaux as will be esteemed by Judicious and Impartial men a Final Determination of that Controversie The CONTENTS of the ANSWER to the REPRESENTER HIS Extravagance in diverting to the Case of the Dissenters Page 1 And his Indiscretion in upbraiding us with their Sufferings Page 5 That the Discourse against Transubstantiation is not scurrilous Page 9 His Pretence that we have written against Popery without Success is false and impertinent if it were true Page 10 That the Papists are to thank the Representer for the Revival of these Controversies Page 13 That he now writes to praise himself and what he had written before Page 16 And presses upon us with meer Confidence and tedious Repetitions Page 21 That he is a False Representer because he has concealed one part of the Character of a Papist Page 28 The Folly of his Clamour that we pretend to know what Popery is better than the Papists Page 29 His Offer to receive us into the Church of Rome upon the Terms which he propounds considered Page 31 That we cannot with a good Conscience accept his Offer Page 32 That if we could he can give us no Security against Old Popery Page 33 That if he were able to secure us we have no reason to think that he is willing Page 34 His Insincerity in telling us that he detests some Doctrines and Practices with which his Answerer charged the Church of Rome and in refusing to say what they are in particular Page 35 The true meaning of these Offers to receive us upon the Profession of his New Popery Page 38 And this exemplified by the Terms upon which the Converts of the City of Orange were reconciled to the Church of Rome P. 39 That he has abused Mr. Montague by a False Representation of his Judgment concerning the Homilies of our Church P. 45 That he continues his Charge of Misrepresentation upon some of our Men without replying to the Answers made in their Defence P. 49 But makes bold to say that the Author of the View confessed what that Author clearly diproved Pag. 53 His Pretence for declining a particular Answer to the View Pag. 57 His pleasant way of proving that he has not forsaken the Defence of his Double Characters Pag. 58 A brief Rehearsal of the Representer's Performances Pag. 66 The CONTENTS of the REPLY to the VINDICATOR THAT the Apologies of the New Converts in France are a clear Evidence both that the Distinction between Old Popery and New Popery is generally understood there and that 't is not a Distinction without a Difference Pag. 71 That he strives in vain to shew the Case of Monsieur Imbert to be no Argument of such a Difference Pag. 78 That the New Popery is offered for the sake of the Old one Pag. 82 The Good-Friday Service of the Missal as to the Worship of the Cross once more explained Pag. 83 How Matters stand between Mr. de Meaux Mr. Widenfelt and Father Crasset as to the Worship of the B. Virgin. Pag. 85 The Vindicator's Rule to know the Churches Sense in these things by her General Councils and by her Universal Practice considered Pag. 88 That if there be another way to know the Churches Sense in Doctrines of Faith besides her Voice in General Councils and Two Poperies be made to appear that way the Vindicator gets nothing by Councils P. 90 That if there be no other way yet even by this way it is demonstrated that they have Two Poperies amongst them Pag. 93 That the Vindicator has brought things to that pass that he makes Councils as insignificant as the Representer has made the Scriptures to be Pag. 101 That to avoid Two Poperies he has in truth not left so much as One Popery amongst Papists Pag. 105 But after all the ill Language we have from the Vindicator here for not granting that his is the True Popery and the ill Usage we should meet with elsewhere for contending that it is the True one is a sensible Demonstration of Two Poperies Pag. 106 A final Defence of our Charge against the Council of Trent about the Veneration of Reliques Pag. 107 Of Judging of the Churches Sense by her Universal Practice Pag. 110 The Bishop of Meaux's arguing against the Pagans from their Practices shewn to be good against the Church of Rome Pag. 111 That the Vindicator has utterly ruined the Representer's Designs Pag. 113 And at the same time betraied the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition too Pag. 118 Particular Replies to what remains in his Full Answer Pag. 120 AN ANSWER TO THE REPRESENTERS REFLECTIONS UPON THE STATE and VIEW OF THE CONTROVERSY HIS first Reflection upon the Stater is for Misrepresenting the case of the Dissenters Had the Stater done so the Representer had business enough of his own to let them speak for themselves But he had a better opinion of himself than so Hitherto says he I have been concerned with such who have most unjustly traduced and exposed the Doctrine and Faith of our Church Pref. p. 1. and now of late an upstart sort of Misrepresenter has called upon me who pretends to give an account of the Present State c. Which is just as if he had said Have not I for this three years and upwards so mauld the Traducers and Exposers of Papists that they feel it to this very hour How then durst this upstart sort of Misrepresenter shew his head as if there were not such a Man as I in the Nation To this tune he begins which is not seemly in a Man whose Character requires more Humility and Modesty than this comes to For I am told he is a Reverend Father which makes me the more sorry for him I am resolved to be very Civil to the Representer but as he has behaved himself I am at a great loss how to express it His falling upon the forementioned Author as a Misrepresenter and the pretence upon which he does it too is so very much out of the common Road of pertinence that I know not what to do with him It looks as if he had been a little unsettled with that overweening opinion I mentioned just now and then

have a strong Fansie that the Good Advice is the Representer's own But the Vindicator's good Words of it will not I guess make amends for undoing the Representer in his main Chance 7. For that Parallel which the Defender required to the account of things in Q. Elizabeths time for which Dr. Heylin is quoted this Man says no more than to this purpose That if it were not for some hot-headed Spirits these brangles about Religion might be ended Which is as much as to say that he insinuated something which his Superiours have forbidden him to own It seems that it was to be insinuated but not spoken plainly But because he forbears I shall do so too and refer my self to the World if he has not now made Nonsence of the Application of Heylin's Account 8. As to his being a Spy upon the Defender his Vindication of himself is the very Master-piece of his Answer For no Man that closely attends to his Words can tell whether he denies or confesses it tho to a Superficial Reader he seems to deny it His Words are elaborately put together and tho I am in very great haste yet I must needs let the Reader see them If I reflected upon your preaching it was from meer report but he might be at Church when he did not reflect upon the Defenders preaching for I assure you Sir what you were told of my being sometimes a part of your Auditory is like many other Stories which you abound with in all your Writings I suppose too from hear-say But if the Defender were not told of it but saw him at Church then this comes not within the Case because he had it not then from Hear-say but from Eye-sight Again if the Defender were told of it then indeed he had it from Hear-say but he might hear the Truth for all that The Vindicator was afraid of Proof and I advise him to be so still That which follows is just such another pleasant Strain it concerns the Sunday Night Conferences but the Reader shall go for that himself as he likes the other But whereas upon this occasion of the Defenders Preaching he bids him ask his Conscience Whether they who acknowledge only One God whom they must adore can be guilty of such a Horrid Crime as to give Divine Worship to Saints I have asked the Defender about it who has also asked his Conscience and in the name of his Conscience he says That they may be guilty of that Horrid Crime And more then that he intends to give these Men such Reasons for his Conclusion as he is in his Conscience persuaded cannot be fairly answered In the mean time I will give the Vindicator a Question for his Question and desire him to put it to his own Conscience Whether a Woman who acknowledges only one Husband to whom she must pay Conjugal Duty can be guil-of such a horrid Crime as to give her Husband's Bed to another And then let him use a little Conscience in the Application 9. For what next follows That he would not be thought to have abused the Defender's Auditory that the Defender had better give up the Cause that he gave ill Language and justified it that he believes every idle Report of the Bishop of Meaux Pag. 11 12. rather than his Vindication and his explaining of the Word Reveries this shall all pass off quietly 10. And so should his next Reflexion too but that he is so warm upon it that he must not be neglected The Defender had affirmed those Expressions of St. Germane St. Anselm and the rest of 'em concerning the Virgin which Crasset had transcribed to be horrid Blasphemies This the Vindicator could not endure The Defender therefore transcribed them out of Crasset and left the Reader to judge What now says the Vindicator Why truly he knew not well what to say To confess plainly that they were Blasphemies would be to vindicate the Defender To deny it plainly was yet a little too soon for tho New Popery was drawing on it had not yet breathed its last He took a middle Course and thus informs the Defender Pag. 12. Had you only said that Father Crasset had collected such Passages from those great Saints as if taken in that strict and dogmatical sense he brought them for might be called Blasphemies that Father must only have answered for them This Man has a notable Gift of Speaking and saying nothing which does him great service at a pinch He does not say That if those Passages were taken in that strict and dogmatical sense for which Crasset brought them then they might be called Blasphemies for this had been to bring Father Crasset upon his back with all those great Saints which Crasset had already raised up against Widenfelt And yet he does not say That if the Defender had said what he supposes for him that Father Crasset could have brought himself off No he answers more warily That that Father must only have answered for them which it may be he could and it may be he could not Now here he should have ended For Crasset may take himself to be sacrificed in what follows But to lay them to those Holy Saints Charges to call them Superstitious Men their Expressions horrid Blasphemies is what truly pious Ears cannot hear without Indignation For Father Crasset is in an ill case if to lay the Holy Saints Expressions in Crasset's sense to the charge of the Holy Saints be what truly pious Ears cannot hear without Indignation But I beg the Vindicator's Pardon for now I see how Crasset may be brought off again or rather the Vindicator For perhaps that which pious Ears cannot hear is not every Particular by it self but altogether i. e. pious Ears may hear those Passages laid to the charges of the Saints even in Crasset's sense but that therefore those Saints should be called Superstitious Men and their Expressions Horrid Blasphemies as they were not by Crasset but by the Defender this is what truly pious Ears cannot hear without Indignation Now after all this dexterity he has not offered to shew that those Passages which the Defender produced are not horrid Blasphemies or that they are capable of a good sense If the Reader has forgot them he may go to the Defender for them p. 89 90 c. and then he will be satisfied that all this shuffling comes to no more than this that the Vindicator cannot bear any thing that reflects dishononourably upon his Great and Holy Saints but his pious Ears can hear Expressions from them that do blasphemously reflect upon Almighty God without any Indignation at all 11. The Defender produced those Prayers and Ceremonies in the Consecration of a Cross which to him seemed to be Magical Incantations rather than Prayers The Vindicator to be even with him says That we use the like Prayers and Ceremonies in the Consecration of Churches and Chappels Now if we do then I for my part will say