Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	authority_n	holy_a	scripture_n	3,181	5	5.9823	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69095	The third part of the Defence of the Reformed Catholike against Doct. Bishops Second part of the Reformation of a Catholike, as the same was first guilefully published vnder that name, conteining only a large and most malicious preface to the reader, and an answer to M. Perkins his aduertisement to Romane Catholicks, &c. Whereunto is added an aduertisement for the time concerning the said Doct. Bishops reproofe, lately published against a little piece of the answer to his epistle to the King, with an answer to some few exceptions taken against the same, by M. T. Higgons latley become a proselyte of the Church of Rome. By R. Abbot Doctor of Diuinitie.; Defence of the Reformed Catholicke of M. W. Perkins. Part 3	Abbot, Robert, 1560-1618.	1609 (1609)	STC 50.5; ESTC S100538	452,861	494

This deniall of a third place M. Higgons z Book 1. part 1. ch 2. § 4. num 10. acknowledgeth and noteth me in his margent for citing the places where it is denied but seeketh to auoid it by saying that Austin thereby onely denied against the Pelagians any third place of eternall rest heere vpon earth after the day of iudgement for children dying without baptisme for this is the briefe of the differences that hee hath there set downe But this will not serue his turne because Austin doth not meerely deny their third place but from the absolute denial of a third place inferreth that their third place cannot be a August de peccat mer. remiss l. 1. cap. 28. Non est vllus vlli medius lo●us vt possit esse nisi cum diabolo qui non est cum Christo Hinc ipse dominus volens auferre de cordibus malè credentium istam nescio quam medietatem quam conantur quidam parunlis non baptizatis tribuere c. definitiuam protulit ad haec ora obstruenda sententiam vbi ait Qui mecum non est contra me est There is not any middle place for any man saith he that he may be but with the diuell that is not with Christ He addeth Heereupon the Lord himselfe also willing to take away from the hearts of misbeleeuers this I know not what middle place which some seeke to assigne to children vnbaptised hath to stop their mouthes pronounced a definitiue sentence where he saith He that is not with me is against mee There is then no middle place for infants vnbaptised because there is not after death any middle place for any man and therfore doth the Lord pronounce that definitiue sentence from which how M. Higgons will shift Purgatory I cannot well tell The other sentence is as plaine b August Hypognostic lib. 5. Da mihi praeter hunc alterum locum vbi vitae possit requies esse perennis Primū enim locum fides Catholicorum diuina authoritate credidit regnum ess● coelorum c. Secundum Gehennam vbi omnis Apostata vel à fide Christi alienus aeterna supplicia experietur Tertium penitùs ignoramus imò nec esse in Scripturis Sanctis inuenimus Giue me beside this that is the kingdome of heauen any other place where there may be perpetuall rest of life For the first place the faith of catholick men by diuine authority haue beleeued to be the kingdome of heauen The second hell fire where euery Apostata and alien from the faith of Christ shall feele euerlasting punishments A third we are vtterly ignorant of yea wee finde by the holy Scriptures that there is none such Where we see that S. Austin taking in hand to refute the third place affirmed by the Pelagians distinguisheth generally how many places there be and resolueth that that third place of theirs cannot be because there is no third place Heauen and hell he saith he findeth in the Scriptures but third place he findeth none and therefore maketh vs confident against beleeuing any Purgatory because in the Scriptures we find none The Papists say they find it there but they say vntruely they finde it in their owne constructions forced vpon the Scripture but in the Scripture it selfe they finde it not All the places which they alleage haue their iust and perfect vse euen by the exposition of the fathers themselues without any Purgatorie to be inferred thereby 37. In the same chapter num 12. he toucheth me again for that wheras Austin reuerenceth Epiphanius as a holy man and famous in the Catholike faith it seemeth good to me to iustifie Aerius a damnable heretike against him But I reuerence Epiphanius as farre as Austin did or teacheth me to doe I acknowledge hee was a holy man and famous in the Catholike faith but yet I say of him as S. Austin saide of Ambrose another holy man and famous in the Catholike faith c August con Pelag. Cele lib. 1. cap. 43. Quantis praedicat laudibus quamlibet sanctum doctū virum nequaquam tamen authoritati Canonicae Scripturae comparandum Though he were a holy and learned man yet is he not to be compared to the authoritie of the Canonicall Scripture I dissent from Epiphanius as Austin himselfe did concerning fasting daies as I touched a little before who denieth that to be Apostolike tradition which Epiphanius affirmeth to be so I iustifie Aerius against Epiphanius in one point as in another point S. Hierome did as I haue shewed also d Sect. 21. before not reiecting a truth for that either an heretike hath affirmed it or a Catholike doctour hath denied it but therefore embracing it wheresoeuer I finde it because God hath taught it And although Aerius for Arianisme were iustly to be accounted a damnable heretike yet doe I not thinke that M. Higgons can make good his word which before hee hath giuen that for those matters wherein we approoue him there were beside Epiphanius and Austin many other that did condemne him Epiphanius indeed doth so and Austin professing to follow Epiphanius transcribeth the same from him but Philaster and Theodoret writing of heresies mention no such matter neither doe I thinke that M. Higgons can bring vs any father or story of those times that taxeth Aerius in that behalfe Yea I may not omit that which I pointed at before that when Dulcitius mooued the question to Austin e Aug. ad Dulcit quaest 2. Vtrum oblatio quae fit pro quiescentibus aliquid eorum conferat animabus c. Ad quod multi dicunt quòd si aliquis beneficij in hoc locus esse possit post mortem quantò magis sibi anima ferret ipsa refrigeria sua per se illic confitendo peccata quàm in eorum refrigerium ab alijs oblatio procuratur Whether the offering that is made for the dead doe auaile their soules any thing he setteth downe the opinion of many in that time concerning that point Many say to this matter that if heerein any good were to be done after death how much rather should the soule it selfe obtaine ease to it selfe by confession of sins there than that for the ease thereof an offering should be procured by other men which opinion hee would neuer haue set downe neither would Saint Austin haue let it goe without hard censure if it had beene then publikely taken for heresie so to thinke yea Dulcitius would neuer haue mooued the question thereof if Purgatory had been a knowen and vndoubted point of faith as M. Higgons would faine haue it thought to bee But this is not all that hee hath heere to blame me for for in the margent he chargeth me that I peruert the sense of Epiphanius as though the church had praied for the Saints c. If they did not so what is it then that Epiphanius reporteth Epiphanius reporteth saith he that when we make a memoriall of

seede of Abraham t cap. 9.28 We be Moses disciples u vers 41. We see x Ier. 8 8. We are wise and the law of the Lord is with vs y ca. 18.18 The law shall not perish from the Priest nor counsell from the wise nor the word from the Prophet and yet they persecuted Christ the sonne of God who only is the Truth How then may we now be assured that the Church of Rome is not the same to the church of Christ as they then were to Christ himselfe How may we poore creatures certainely vnderstand that those rich creatures are not subiect to error and mistaking as well as we Well if we will not beleeue it we may chuse but assurance M. Bishop can yeeld none He can tell vs a discourse what Christ said to Peter but that Christ euer spake either of Pope or Cardinall he can shew vs nothing And yet as if this matter were cleere he telleth vs of this church of theirs that whereas we are subiect to mistaking and errour God hath ordained and appointed the same to be a skilfull and faithfull mistresse and interpreter to assure vs both what is his word and what is the true meaning of it But againe we aske him where hath God so ordained and appointed in what Scripture hath he written it or by what words hath he expressed it that the church which he meaneth should bee our mistresse to tell vs what is Gods word what is the true meaning of it If he haue euidence authority for it let him shew it if he haue not what shall we thinke of him that dareth thus to bely the maiesty of God But if he considered the matter aright he would conceiue that those rich creatures of his haue no other or better meanes to assure what is Gods word and what is the meaning of it than other poore creatures haue By what touchstone they can make triall thereof by the same can we also as well as they Which comparison of the gold-smith and the touchstone which he himselfe vseth if it be rightly explicated serueth notably to set foorth the fraud and falshood of that church for which he pleadeth True it is that the church in this behalfe may rightly bee compared to the Goldsmith Now the Gold-smith for the discerning of true and perfect gold doth not take his owne fingers ends but goeth to the touch-stone and no otherwise can hee either make triall himselfe or giue assurance thereof to other men In like sort therefore the church which is the Gold-smith must vse a touch-stone for the assuring of that which it propoundeth to bee receiued and beleeued Now then whereas M. Bishop saith that we must rely vpon the churches declaration to be assured which bookes of Scripture be Canonicall I answer him that we cannot be assured thereof by the churches declaration vnlesse the church declare it and manifest it by the touch-stone The touch-stone whereby we are to take assurance heereof is the constant and perpetuall tradition and testimony of the former church And this testimony we first deriue from the church of the Iewes z Rom. 3.2 to whom the words of God were committed and to whose Scriptures a Luk. 24.44 the law and the Prophets and the Psalmes and to no other b Aug. cont Gaudent lib. 2. cap. 23. quibus dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis Christ himselfe hath giuen testimony as witnesses of himselfe reckoning them for c Luk. 24.27 all the Scriptures and wherof the Iewes in their dispersion giue acknowledgment vntill this day God so prouiding that d Aust in Psa 58. Per omnes gentes dispersi sunt ludaei testes iniquitatis suae veritatis nostrae ipsi habent codices de quibus prophetatus est Chrislus in Ps 56. Codicem portat Iudaeus vnde credat Christianus Christian faith should be prooued out of those bookes which are acknowledged for true by them that are enemies thereto This testimony the Christian church receiued of the Apostles and hath continued the same together with the acknowledgment of those other bookes of the new testament which by the Apostles and Euangelists were added to the former What bookes then haue had this generall and vndoubted auerment and witnesse of the church continued from time to time those and no other are to be holden for Canonicall bookes and this is the true touch-stone for trial of certaine and vndoubted scriptures By which touchstone the church of Rome is found to bee not a faithfull Mistresse but a false harlot bringing her bastards into the Church and forcing men to take them for lawfully begotten And whereas it is the tradition and declaration of the former church which hath beene from the beginning by which both they and we are to be instructed as touching the true bookes of Canonicall Scripture they force vpon vs the tradition of their owne church now deliuered vpon their owne word howsoeuer contrary to that which the church formerly hath declared If we follow the declaration of the ancient church then are no other bookes to be taken for Canonicall but what are now accknowledged and approoued in our Church the same onely being testified concerning the old testament by the Church of the Iewes concerning both new and old by the whole Christian church both the Greeke and Latine the Easterne and Westerne churches as e Of Traditions sect 17. before hath been declared But the church of Rome perceiuing the authorising of some other writings to be likely to gaine credit to some broken wares whence her thrift and gaine ariseth hath taken vpon her very presumptuously as a Mistresse or rather a goddesse to giue diuine authority to those bookes reiecting the testimony of that church which in this behalfe should bee mistresse both to her and vs. In a word whatsoeuer is to be attributed to the church in this respect it is idlely by M. Bishop referred to the church of Rome as if all other churches must rely vpon her declaration we our selues being able by the touchstone to make triall of true Scriptures as well as the church of Rome and therefore there being no cause why we should rely vpon them more than they vpon vs. And as vainely doth he apply to his purpose the saying of Saint Austin that he should not beleeue the Gospell except the authority of the church mooued him thereunto there being nothing therein meant but what may bee applied to the church England as well as to the church of Rome Saint Austin speaking generally of the vniuersall church thorowout the world without any maner speciall intendment of the church of Rome But how leudly they abuse those words of Austin wholly against his meaning and purpose I haue f Of Traditions sect 22. before sufficiently declared and neede not heere to repeat againe As for the churches declaration for vnderstanding the Scripture that is also to be tried and made

purpose he misinforceth the testimony of Epiphanius whereby he would exempt Aerius from the crime of heresie iustly laied vnto his charge by S. Austin and many others But I answer him that though as a man I may be deceiued yet God hath giuen me more grace than that in these matters I will willingly deceiue my selfe In this matter of Epiphanius I do not take my selfe in any sort to be deceiued His conclusion against Aerius as touching praier for the dead is this r Epiphan haer 75. Ecclesia necess●r●ò hoc perficit traditione à patribus accepta quis autem poterit staturum matris dissoluere aut legem patris velut Solomon dicit Audi fili fermones patris tui ne repudies statuta matris tuae ostendens per hoc quòd in scriptu sine scripto decuit pater mater autem nostra ecclesia habet statuta in se posita indissolubilia quae dissolui non p●ssunt●● Cùm itaque ordi nata sint in ecclesia statuta benè se habeant omnia mirab●ittèr fiant confuta●us est tursus etiam hic seductor The Church necessarily doth this by tradition receiued from the Fathers and who may dissolue the statute of his mother or the law of his Father as Solomon saith My sonne heare thy Fathers words and refuse not thy Mothers statutes heereby shewing that both in writing and without writing the Father hath taught and our Mother the Church hath statutes set downe in her which are inuiolable and may not be broken Seeing then saith hee that there are statutes ordeined in the Church and they are well and all things are admirably done this seducer is confuted Now then doe I say that praier for the dead is a tradition Epiphanius saith the same that the Church doth it by tradition from the Fathers Doe I say that he maketh it a statute or ordinance of the Church He himselfe expresly calleth it so and finally presseth the authority of the Church onely for the confuting of Aerius He alleageth no Scripture his words import that he hath none to alledge Onely to grace the ordinances of the Church he wresteth a saying of Salomon nothing pertinent thereto as if we were taught that God without scripture teacheth vs by the Church And if he meane any otherwise but that it is the ordinance of the Church very vainly and idlely doth he heere name the ordinance of the Church But M. Higgons will say that though Epiphanius name it thus a tradition and an ordinance of the Church yet he meaneth it to be such a tradition and ordinance as is from the Apostles But let him meane what he will yet so long as he maketh it a tradition without Scripture my words stand good which I vsed to M. Bishop ſ Answer to Doct. Bishops epistle sect 10. pag. 79. 80. Epiphanius resolueth vs that praier for the dead is a matter of tradition and an ordinance of the Church and therefore freeth vs from any trespasse against any thing that Moses or the Prophets or Christ and his Apostles in the Scriptures haue deliuered vnto vs. If it be no matter of Scripture with Epiphanius then I say rightly that he cleereth vs from impugning therein any thing that is deliuered in the Scriptures Albeit because it is by Epiphanius his confession a tradition without Scripture therefore we resolue vndoubtedly that it came not from the Apostles because whatsoeuer they taught concerning faith and saluation is conteined in the Scriptures as before hath beene shewed at large Yea and how vnsoundly Epiphanius vrgeth Apostolike tradition is to be seene in the point which he speaketh of immediately before where he saith that t Epiphan haer 75. Decreuerunt Apostoli quarta prosabbato ieiunium per omnia excepta Pentecoste de sex diebus Paschatis praecipiunt nihil omninò accipere quàm panem salem aquam the Apostles decreed a fast vpon Wednesdaies and Fridaies continually saue betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide and that six daies before Easter men should receiue nothing but bread and salt and water whereas S. Austin professeth that u Aug. epist 86. Quibus diebus non oporteat ieiunare quibus oporteat praecepto Domini vel Apostolorum non inuenio de finitum what daies to fast or what daies not to fast he findeth it not defined or set downe by any commandement of Christ or his Apostles and by Tertullian it appeareth that the Primitiue Church alledged against the Montanists x Tertul. de ieiunio sic Apostolos obsernasse nullum aliud imponentes iugum certorū in cōmune ●mnibus obeundorum ●etunorum that the Apostles imposed no yoke of standing and common fasts and of the Lent-fast Socrates resolueth that y Socrat. hist. li. 5. c. 21. Quoniam nemo de ea praeceptum literarum monumentis proditum potest ostēdere perspicuum est Apostolos liberam potestatem in eadem cuiusque menti arbitrio permisisse vt quisque nec metu nec necessitate inductus quod bonum est faceret because no man can shew any written commandement thereof it is manifest that the Apostles left it free to euery mans will and discretion that without feare or necessity euery man should doe what good is Now we cannot wonder that he that would thus vnaduisedly name Apostolike tradition for the one should do the same for the other also Albeit if M. Higgons can iustifie praier for the dead according to Docter Fields rule we will not sticke with him to grant it to be an Apostolicall tradition But he might haue seene that I had put it without the compasse of that rule if he had been desirous to know the truth and had not resolued first vpon other occasions to fall away and afterwards to seeke shifts to excuse his fall I shewed by Origen that the Church at first vsed no praier for the dead by the authour of the ecclesiasticall Hierarchy that when it was first vsed it was vsed onely for iust and holy men of whose soules they were resolued that they were in heauen for what causes I haue expressed there by Epiphanius that they added afterwards to pray for euill men also and publicke offenders by Austin that there was not knowen any definite and certaine vse and effect of praiers and offerings for the dead and that many in his time did plead that if any good were to be done for the soule after death it should rather be by it owne confession of sinnes than by offerings procured by other men And lastly whereas praier for the dead by M. Higgons confession dependeth vpon Purgatory I shewed by Austins expresse words that he had no certaine beleefe or knowledge of any such place which are more cleere to that purpose than that by any Popish sophistications they can be shifted or deluded 36. Albeit I did not only alledge him doubting of Purgatory but also plainly excluding it vpon occasion by denying any third place