Selected quad for the lemma: word_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A61635
|
A vindication of the answer to some late papers concerning the unity and authority of the Catholic Church, and the reformation of the Church of England.
|
Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.
|
1687
(1687)
|
Wing S5678; ESTC R39560
|
115,652
|
138
|
Rule without the Church but the Church cannot without the Scriptures The Replier like a fair Adversary mentions that which looks like an Objection viz. That there was a Church before the Scriptures were written and some Ages were passed before the Canon of Scripture was made and owned by the Church To which I Answer That when I said the Church cannot be a Rule without the Scripture it was upon the supposition that the Canon of Scripture had been long since owned by the Church and that the Church derives its Infallibility from the Promises contaiâ—ed in the Scripture But the Defender goes another way to work for saith he The Scriptures I say may be a Rule without the Church that is without Faithful for a Congregation of them is a Church What! in the Sense now before us as it is taken for a Guide Is every Congregation of the Faithful a Church in this Sense Then well-fare the Independents And this me-thinks makes Infallibility sink very low I do not say There could be no Church before Scripture nor that they had then no Rule of Faith nor that the Church depends on writing these are but mean Objections but I â—ill say That where a Church challenges her Authority by the Scripture it can signify nothing without it Which is so plain that I need not multiply words about it As to his Church-Security we have considered it enough already but it would make one mistrust a Security which is so often offered I said that suppose Infallibility be found in Scripture there is yet a harder Point to get over viz. how the Promises relating to the Church in general came to be appropriated to the Church of Rome From hence he insers That I have at last found the Promises of Infallibility to the Church there Is not this a rare Consequence Suppose I should say I know a Book of Controversy in the World that hath very little of true Reasoning in it but if it were to be found there it doth not reach to the Point in hand Doth this imply that I affirmed in the latter part what I denied before Is this finding out true Reasoning in the latter Period which was not to be found in the former There may be true Reasoning when it is not to the purpose So there might be Infallibility and yet the Church of Rome not concerned in it Suppose the Church of Jerusalem as the Mother Church might be Infallible by the Promises of Scripture what would this be to the Church of Rome But I never said or thought that there were any Promises of Infallibility made to any Church in Scripture Proâ—ises of Divine Assistance and Indefectibility I grant are made to the Church in general but these are quite of another Nature from Promises of Infallibility in delivering Matters of Faith in all Ages Yet if this were granted the Church of Rome as it takes in all of her Communion hath no more reason to challenge it to her self than Europe hath to be called the Face of the whole Earth As to his Sandy Foundation I tell him in short He that builds his Faith on the Word of God builds on a Rock and all other things will be found but Sandy Foundations 4. The next thing laid to our Charge is That we draw our Arguments from Implications and far-fetch'd Interpretations at the same time that we deny plain and positive words In Answer to this 1. It was shew'd that in many of the Points in Difference we have express words of Scripture for us As against the Worship of Images and giving Divine Worship to any but God and for giving the Eucharist in both kinds and praying in a Language we understand The Defender would have me produce the very Words to shew that the Scripture saith No to what their Church saith I or contrariwise He talked much before that we give the same Answer the old Hereticks did and now I think he hath matched them Shew us say they in Terms the direct contrary to our Propositions where the Son was said to be Consubstantial to the Father or the Holy Ghost was a Divine Person or the Blessed Virgin the Mother of God or that there are two Natures in Christ after the Union Will Reason and Consequences signify nothing when founded on the Word of God But I need not this answer for I assirm that the words of the first and second Commandment of the Institution of the Sacrament Drink ye all of this of S. Paul 14. of the first Epistle to the Corinthians against Publick Service in an unknown Tongue are so plain and evident that there is no Command of Scripture but may be avoided and turned another way as well as these And herein we go not upon our own Fancies but we have the concurrent Sense of the Christian Church in the best and most Primitive Ages in every one of the Points here mentioned And whether we are right as to the sense of the second Commandment and as to Divine Worship in general as to Christ's Institution amounting to a Command as to St. Paul 's Discourse Which the Replier insists upon next to the Scripture it self and the Force contained therein we appeal to the Primitive Church as the most indifferent Arbitrator between us 2. I answered That where words seem plain and positive they may have a Metaphorical or Figurative Sense as when God hath Eyes and Ears c. given him and the Rock was Christ. And so in the Words This is my Body it was a Sacramental Expression as the other was and the other words are figurative when the Cup is said to be the New Testament in his Blood and St. Paul notwithstanding those words called it Bread after Consecration Here the Defender will not bite the Light being too clear for him but descants upon denying plain words and so runs clear off from the Point which seemed to be chiefly meant by the Paper But the Replier is a generous Adversary and attacks what stands before him He endeavours to shew a Difference between God's having Eyes and Eaâ—s c. and those words This is my Body as to the receding from the literal Sense because saith he there is an implication of impossibility in the one but not in the other But withal he grants that if by This be meant the Bread it would have implied an equal impossibility I am very glad to see this Point brought to so fair an Issue For if I do not prove by the general Consent of the Fathers both of the Greek and Latin Churches that by This the Bread is meant I dare promise to become hiâ— Prosclyâ—â— 5. The last Thing objected is That our Church sâ—bsists only on the Pleasure of the Civil Magistrate who may turn the Church which way he pleases To this it was answered 1. That the Rule of our Religion is unalterable being the Word of God tho the Exercise of it be under the Regulation
see because Faith is of things not seen This Cavil had been as good against our Blessed Saviour when he said to Thomas because thou hast seen thou hast believed I hope upon second thoughts they will not tell him that this was improperly spoken and not like a Schoolman Call it what you will the single Question is Whether your Church will allow us to Judge of things according to the plain Evidence of Sense One saith It is impossible that any Man should be commanded not to believe what he sees Believing here is the Judgment of the Mind upon the Representation of Sense and will he secure us that the Church can never require us to judge otherwise than according to the Evidence of Sense I wish he would make his words good for I assure him he would remove a terrible block out of our way My Senses plainly tell me what I see and feel and taste is as much Bread after Consecration as it was before how then comes it to pass that my Judgment that it was Bread before was very good but although there be the very same Evidence afterwards without the least alteration to Sense yet then I am to judge just contrary i. e. that it is not Bread which I see and feel and taste just as I did before But he saith what is seen is only the form shape and sigure of Bread and Wine and that they believe to be there But alas This doth not reach to the point For the Question is not about external appearances but about the Iudgment of the Mind upon the Evidence of Sense I will make this matter plainer that they may know where the Difficulty lies When Christ's Body appeared to the Disciples after his Resurrection there was no dispute among them concerning the form shape and figure of his body but the doubt was whether from these they were to conclude that it was Christ's real Body or not If not they could not believe from the Evidence of Sense that Christ's Body was risen from the dead if they were let them tell us how Christ's Body comes to be so much changed and to lose those essential properties of a body which it once had and was judged by and farther what ground there is for us now not to allow that Judgment of Sense which Christ himself appealed to after the Institution of the Sacrament For if Christ had therein declared that our Senses are not to be our Rule of judging concerning his Body he would certainly not have appealed so soon after to the Senses of his Disciples concerning that very Body and neither he nor his Disciples have given the least intimation that what we see and feel to be one body we must believe to be quite another which we can neither see nor feel Did not two Angels appear to Lot in the figure and shapes of Men and the Holy Ghost descend in the form of a Dove And were they who saw them to believe according to the Evidence of Sense I answer that there is a great deal of difference to be made between Invisible Powers appearing under bodily shapes and a natural visible palpable extended body losing the Properties of a body abd becoming invisible impalpable and indivisible And withal there is a great difference between Spiritual Powers uniting the real particles of Matter into a Body and the making the Form Figure and Shape of a real Body to be where there is no substance of a body We do not pretend to judge by our Senses of Invisible Substances under outward appearances but of the Truth of a bodily Substance by all the Appearances of a body under all the Circumstances necessary for the right judgment of Sense The other saith he knows of no Church which allows not People to believe all they see May we then believe that to be still Bread which we see to be so No he saith the What of a thing is not the Object of Sense I perceive then our Senses are very impertinent things and only give an account of the Circumstances and not of the Substances of things But I pray did not the Disciples perceive the What of Christ's Body by their Senses How do we know the What of any bodily Substance but by them It is meer Collusion to say our Senses do not judge of Substances for our bare Senses judge of nothing but are the means of conveying the impressions or Representations inward whereby our Minds do paâ—s Judgment upon things And either we cannot know the Substance of any thing sensible or we must know the What of it as he speaks by our Senses We now come to the main business which for the clearer proceeding I shall put under three distinct Heads I. Concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church II. Concerning the Authority of it III. Concerning the Reformation of the Church of England I. Of the Unity of the Catholick Church ANd here the point to be discussed is viz. Whether that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church be that one Church which Christ has here on Earth 1. The first thing I objected against it was that a Part cannot be the Whole but that which is called the Roman-Catholick Church is but a Part and therefore it cannot be the One Catholick Church of Christ here on earth Here to prevent cavilling I must declare that I meant not the Roman Diocese or Province but all the Churches which live in Communion with and Subjection to the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church and look on it as necessary to Salvation so to do And this I still assert to be but a Part of the Catholick Church and a corrupt one too The Author of the Defence saith all this Riddle of Part and Whole comes from my Inadvertence How so Because I confound the Roman Diocese with the Roman-Catholick Church No I assure him I did take it in their own sense for all that embrace the matters of Faith which are received in the Roman Communion And He need not fear my doing otherwise for I intend to discourse of no other Church but this and this I deny as so taken to be the One Catholick Church Doth not Catholic signifie all the Parts I am sure it ought to do so but I say it doth not when Roman is joyned to Catholick for then it excludes all those from being Parts of the Catholic Church which do not joyn in the Roman Communion and this I say is unreasonable And here I expected some Proof in so material a Point but there is not a Word farther than that Catholic comprehends all but I say again Roman Catholic excludes all that are not in its Communion As suppose any one should say the German Ocean is the whole Sea and to prove it should reason as this Gentlemen doth Ocean is the whole Sea is it not And is it the less the Ocean because German is added to it No the Ocean is just as large as ever it was but