Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	christian_a	church_n	scripture_n	2,641	5	5.9474	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A04215	A defence of the churches and ministery of Englande Written in two treatises, against the reasons and obiections of Maister Francis Iohnson, and others of the separation commonly called Brownists. Published, especially, for the benefitt of those in these partes of the lowe Countries.	Jacob, Henry, 1563-1624.	1599 (1599)	STC 14335; ESTC S107526	96,083	102

did somtime ioyne and cōmunicate This therfore he saith maketh for them and against vs most notably 1 But first let him tell vs if many “ As that of Leu 10. Num. 16.1 c. Esa 1.11 12 13 14 15. Zeph. 1.12 1. Cor. 11.19 thinges which are verified sometimes of the members of a true Church may not also fitly be applyed and alleadged against a false Church and yet not iustifie their estate and constitution neither make for them but against them altogeather Otherwise he condemneth at once all the Martirs heretofore who vsually alleaged this * Mat. 15.9 very Scripture against the false worship of the Romish Church as him selfe cannot he ignorant Yet in his learning it seemeth the Papistes might well haue aunswered the Martirs againe that this Scripture was verified of them that were of the true visible Church and therefore made for them and against the Martirs most notably 2 Secondly when he saith this Scripture is verified of such as were of the true visible Church with whom Christ and his Apostles communicated Let him also tell vs whether he meaneth that Christ and his Apostles communicated with them in their vaine traditions If he thinke they did that very “ Mat. 15.2 Chapter sheweth the contrary besides that the whole Scriptures testifie that Christ was altogeather free from sinne which hee could not haue bene if he had ioyned with them in those their inuentions If they did not as it is without all question then what doth this helpe those men who all of them ioyne and communicate with the false worship of these assemblies 3 Thirdly we aunswer that his note is not worth the noting being nothing at all to the purpose for the question in hand For first who knoweth not that in the Iewish Church the doctrine publiquely professed practised by their law did not appoinct or ratifie any of those vaine traditions but vtterly forbid them Wheras contrarily the very doctrine publiquely professed and practized by law in England appoincteth and ratifieth the false worshiping of God by the inuentions of men Secondly those vaine traditions aforesaid were the personall sinnes of some particuler men in the Iewish Church not publiquely established by law nor generally receiued and practized in that Church * Luk. 1.5 6 8 9 10. 2.21 22 23 24 25 27.36 37 38 39 Mat. 15.7 8.4 and 15 2. Ioh. 10.34 Zachary and Elizabeth Simeon Anna Mary Ioseph and Christ himselfe and his Apostles with many others kept the ordinance of God giuen by the hande of Moses and obserued of that Church Neither did they ioyne or pollute them selues with that vaine worship aforesaid whereas in the church of England the false worship thereof deuised by men euen by that man of sinne is not the personall sinne of some particular men in it but is publikelie established by law and generally receyned and practised in these assemblies of all the members thereof So then this scripture maketh nothing for them but against them most notably Nowe whereas in the margent he wisheth the Reader to marke a contrarietie with our selues by comparing this and our 6. Reason together we also referre it to the Reader to iudge whether there be not euen an harmonie with this and a confirmation of it Hetherto of the defence of our second Reason H. IACOB his 2 Reply to the 2. Reason TO this your defence of your Second Reason I say you haue answer in your last Exceptiō pag. 22. You aske what Propositiō I doe deny I answer I distinguish your Aflumption as being a fallacie called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cōcluding a thing simply from that which is after a sort like vnto that Reason which I framed against you in Pag. 22. A man hath a woodden legg an eye of glasse c Therefore hee is no true man Cranmer Ridley c. held asmuch as wee after mens precepts Ergo they worshiped in vaine Geneua holdeth her wafer cakes in the Supper Ergo Geneua worshipeth God in vaine Euen so your Assumption runneth Our doctrine say you Pag. 35. appoincteth Gods worship by mens precepts This is false vnlesse you meane it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after a sort not simply For our doctrine appoincteth not all Gods worship by mens precepts nor the chiefest part of it as the preaching of the Gospell of life Sacramentes and Prayers c. So that it concludeth nothing in that sence Therefore here you play the false Sophister not the Christian and conscionable Disputer Thus you haue answer enough to this in the aunswer to your last Exception though you would not see it Further I noted Secondly * Pag. 35. That this your Scripture of Mat. 15. Yeeldeth the offenders to be of a visible Church with whom Christ did communicate though they held also traditions of men Therfore it affirmeth nothing against vs. Is not this true Why then doe you not admit it We neuer denyed but this Scripture condemned our corruptions But this onely wee affirme it disanulleth not our Churches Euen as Christ here condempned the Iewes corrupt traditions but hee meant not thereby to disanull their Church Therefore all this is not against our purpose but not ably for vs as is before obserued 1. Concerning your First aunswer in Pag. 36. I know this Scripture may be applyed against false worshippers which are no true Church But it proueth not I say all them to whom it may bee applyed to bee no true Church Therefore you abuse it against vs Except you had first proued vs no true Church nor Christians which yet is in question 2. Where in your Second answere * Pag. 37. you say That this helpeth vs not except we say that Christ communicated with the Pharisies in these traditions like as wee doe in the vaine traditions now For shame leaue this folly I say againe I seeke not to iustifie our partaking in our traditions but I renounce it in sobrietie asmuch as you yea better then you doe Yet I say this place shall admit those who doe in simplicitie partake of them to be true Christians neuerthelesse like as it admitteth the Iewes then 3. In your Third aunswer “ Pag. ibid. You deny that those Jewish traditions of wasshings c. were with them receiued generally or by Law in their Church Whereto I aunswer That they were generally receiued as Marke in his 7. Chapter and 3. verse doeth testifie and that they were rebuked who vsed them not which is sufficient to make it their Churches doctrine practize though no expresse law commaunded it But I suppose verse 5. where they say Why walkest thou not after the tradition of the Elders he meaneth the ordinances of their Forefathers which were to them as lawes besides the lawe of Moses What else is their Thalmud which is till this daye euen like to the Canon lawe of Poperie and the Alcoran of Turky Some also vnderstand this of the ordinances of the Elders that is their

present Gouernours and then doubtlesse it was lawe And though Zachary Elizabeth Symeon Anna Mary Ioseph Christ and his Apostles did not actuallie ioyne in these corruptions yet they were generall no doubt and by lawe neuer the lesse and a number of the Iewes simply vsed them yet fell not from God as † The Sixe waterpots of the Iewishe purifyings Iohn 2.6 Therefore your Replies here are most vaine and false Lastlie in pag. 37. you will not confesse your contrarietie that is to saye betweene this your Second Reason and certen wordes in your Sixt Reason But the greater is your sinne to doe euill and defende it too Here in this Reason pag. 35. you would haue this scripture Mat. 15. to be meant against such vaine worshippers that they become heereby no true Church Or els what doe you vrge it against vs But in your Sixt Reason following you say That the Iewes euen nowe when these words were applyed to them were the true worshippers of God Are not these contrarie I pray you then reconcile them Maister IOHNSONS III. Reason against the former Assumption with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same REASON III. IF the whole doctrine as it is publiquely professed and practized by law in Englande be not sufficient to make a Galatian a true Christian that should with all submit vnto Circumcision Then much lesse is it able to make him a true Christian that togeather with it submitteth vnto a false Ministerie Worship and Gouernement of the Church deuised by man euen the man of sinne But the first is true Therefore also the latter The consequence of the Proposition is good because Circumcision was once the holy ordinance and appointment of God himselfe to his Church and people whereas the Ministerie worship and gouernement aforesaid neuer was so but is mans deuice in religion euen Antichrist that capitall enemie of Iesus Christ. The Assumption is proued Gal. 5.2.3.4 where the Apostle speaketh of them that helde not onely such truethes of the Gospell as are in that booke of Articles but more then those Yet if they should with all submitt vnto circumcision he sayth they were abolished from Christ Christ would prosit them nothing H. IACOB his I. Reply to the 3. Reason THis your Third Reason is from the more to the lesse negatiuelie to this effect A Galatian vsing Circumcision is a likelier Christian then one of our English holding the Hierarchy and other traditions But A Galatian is a false Christian Ergo An English professor is much more We answer We denie the Assumption Galatians were then true Christians and their Assemblies true Churches Gal. 1.2 Therefore this Reason is nought If he obiect The Apostle saith such are abolished from Christ That is in deed some amongst them as helde Moses ceremonies necessarie absolutelie to saluation as Act. 15.1 And that † Gal. 5.3.4.5 Rom. 10.3.4 iustification was by the morall workes of the law Nowe the Churches of Galatia generallie were not such but held the sauing faith sound doubtles though manie amongest them were tainted with that infection by reason of some mischeuous teachers that were crept in and too well interteyned among them Howbeit with the Church Communion was kept And therefore so with vs you ought to deale If you say we are worse Christians then those grofest Galatians It is vtterlie false proue it if you can and it must drawe in Maister Cranmer c. with vs also If you say there are manie amongst vs as bad or worse then those worst Galatians you may say it but proue it you cannot Also if it were so yet this disagraceth it destroyeth not the Church like as hath bin said of the Galatians F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 3. Reason TO this our Third Reason His First answer is That he denyeth the Assumption which is asmuch in plaine termes as if he had giuen the holy Ghost the lye who by the Apostle Paule affirmeth it Gal. 5.2 3 4. As in the proofe of the Assumption we shewed before But for the more euidence of the trueth we will set downe the proofe of the Assumption in a Sillogisme thus If a Galatian submitt to Circumcision though he hold all the truthes of the Gospell professed in England withall yet be notwithstandinge abolished from Christ and falne from grace Then is he not in this estate a true Christian. But the former is true as the Apostle testifieth Gal. 5.2 3 4. Therefore also the latter Next he answereth That the Galatians were then true Christians and their Assemblies Churches Gal. 1.3 Therefore sayeth he this reason is nought But he may not thus runne away with the matter and deceyue himselfe and his simple fauourers The question is not whether anie Galatians were true Christians or any of their Assemblies true churches For who euer doubted of that But this is the question Whether a Galatian holding all the truethes of the Gospell nowe professed in Englande and withall submit to Circumcision were in that estate a true christian Or putting the case that there were whole Assemblies consisting of such Whether those assemblies then in that case were by Gods worde to be deemed the true churches of Christ. The Apostle testifieth and saith no This man saith yea Nowe whether of these two we shall beleeue let all men iudge But what is it then that the Apostle termeth the assemblies of the Galatians true churches Gal. 1.2 This man sheweth the reason him selfe the light of the trueth is so cleare and manifest There were but some of the Galatians sayth he that were infected with this error of Circumcision True in deed say we of such onely is the suppositiō made in the case afore said But the churches of Galatia sayth he generally were not such but held the sauing faith sound which also is most true they being set in the way and order of Christ Iesus and therefore though there sprang vp some heretikes and schismatikes amongest them which is the “ 1 Cor. 11.19 Actes 20.30 lott and triall of the true churches of God in all ages yet was there not cause to breake the Communion with those assemblies but to proceed with them in the faith and order of Christ and to * Gal. 5.12 1 Cor. 5.7 11 13. cutt off and cast out such troublesome leauen from amongst thē Now this being duely weighed it is nothing for but altogeather against the hauing of communion with the assemblies of this Lande which are not set in the way and order of Iesus Christ as were those churches of Galatia but in the Apostasie and confusion of Antichrist as hath ben at large declared before in the defence of the former Reasons where also that of Maister Cranmer Ridley c. is answered H. IACOB his II. Reply to the 3. Reason TO this your Defence of your Third Reason I answer First it is too impudent a cauillation That you charge me to giue the H. Ghost the lye in denying your Assumption I meant