Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	church_n	good_a	scripture_n	2,095	5	5.9073	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25216	A reply to the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls's reflections on the Rector of Sutton, &c. wherein the principles and practices of the non-conformists are not only vindicated by Scripture, but by Dr. Stillingsfleet's Rational account, as well as his Irenicum : as also by the writings of the Lord Faulkland, Mr. Hales, Mr. Chillingworth, &c. / by the same hand ; to which is added, St. Paul's work promoted, or, Proper materials drawn from The true and only way of concord, and, Pleas for peace and other late writings of Mr. Richard Baxter ...	Alsop, Vincent, 1629 or 30-1703.; Barret, John, 1631-1713.	1681 (1681)	Wing A2919; ESTC R6809	123,967	128

not the Psaltzgraves Churches to be reckoned among the reformed Churches And were they for our English Ceremonies Do not the Lutheran Churches hold some things lawful and indifferent which in the Judgment of the Church of England are unwarrantable As things indifferent and lawful in the Judgment of the Church of England are not so in the Judgment of some other reformed Churches I do profess plainly says Chillingworth p. 376. that I cannot find any rest for the Sole of my Foot but upon this Rock only the Bible I see plainly and with mine own Eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a consent of Fathers of one Age against a consent of Fathers of another Age the Church of one Age against the Church of another Age. 6. Is this Rule of the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches indeed applicable to your established Rule Do you find the one agreeable to the other Were the Primitive Churches for imposing the same Liturgy the same Rites and Ceremonies which they yet held undetermined by God's Word Was it their Judgment that each Nation or Province should be tied up to a strict Vniformity in such things Do you find this within the first five hundred years Can you gainsay those Words of yours cited Rector of Sutton p. 19. which I think are pertinent and material here We see the Primitive Christians did not make so much of any Uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies nay I s●arce think any Churches in the Primitive times can be produced that did exactly in all things observe the same Customs which might be an Argument of Moderation in all as to these things but especially in pretended admirers of the Primitive Church And yet would you have every one bound to submit to the determination of Church-Governors in such Matters whatever his private Iudgment be concerning them As Eusebius notes from Irenaeus l. 5. c. 26. English c. 23. the Primitive Christians could differ in such Matters and yet live in Peace And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Anicetas and Polycarpus could differ in such Matters and yet communicate one with another The Primitive Christians retained c●ntrary Observations and yet as Irenaeus said held fast the bond of Love and Vnity Can you ever prove that the Primitive Church or the best reformed Churches have assumed a Power of suspending Ministers from their Office and of debarring Christians from Communion for such Matters Here comes to my Mind that which you say Vnreas of Separat p. 14. that our Reformers preceeded more out of r●verence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery Yet with King Iames Defence of the right of Kings p. 47c the Christian Religion reformed is as to say purged and cleansed of all Popish Dregs And p. 17. Altho they made the Scripture the only Rule of Faith and rejected all things repugnant thereto yet they designed not to make a Transformation of a Church but a Reformation of it by reducing it as near as they could to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors c. Agreeable to Chillingworth p. 287. ● 82. But whether you took not the hint of distinguishing the Transformation of a Church from the Reformation of it from Arch-Bishop Whitgift I cannot tell However T. C. latter part of his second Reply p. 172. could not discern it to have any Solidity but called it a single solid Argument seeing Transforming may be in part as well as Reforming And you have not improved it at all But what a strange Assertion is that of yours p. 96. That there are in effect no new Terms of Communion with this Church but the same wich our first Reformers owned and suffered Martyrdom for in Queen Mary's Days And will you stand to this that they died M●rtyrs for Ceremonies and for such Impositions as have thrust out so many Ministers that are most ready to subscribe to the same Truth for which indeed they laid down their Lives I had thought that I. Rogers the Proto-Martyr in that Persecution had been a Non-conformist As there were other Nonconformists also that suffered And can you make the World believe that they suffered for Conformity And did not the Martyrs in Queen Mary's Days suffer in one and the same Cause whether Conformists or Non-conformists Indeed they agreed well in Red in Blood and Flames who before had differed in Black and White But as you will have it p. 2. Our Church stands on the same Grounds c. And p. 4. I would only know if those Terms of Communion which were imposed by the Martyrs and other Reformers and which are only continued by us c. I say you would persuade us that you are upon the same Grounds with our first Reformers who were for Reforming according to the Scripture rejecting all things repugnant thereto only they would have the Church reduced as near as they could to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors p. 17. Now to make this good it lieth on you to prove from Catholick written Tradition that the present established Rule was the Rule for Admission of Ministers into their Function and other Church-Members into Communion observed in those Antient Churches or one as near as could be to it and further to make it good that it is not at all repugnant to the Scripture-Rule Or if you cannot do this you must then grant that you are gone off from the Rule of our first Reformers that is the Scripture and those Primitive Churches and that the Terms of Communion are not indeed the same Propter externos ritus disciplinae homines pios ferire neque Domini est voluntas neque purioris Ecclesiae m●s 7. Would not such a Rule be point-blank contrary to Scripture-Rule If never so many Councils if all the Churches upon Earth determined that they had such Power that they could cut off both Ministers and Members of the Church for Matters left undetermined by God's Law we could not submit to such Determination while we believe the Scripture which tells us so plainly that they have no Power for Destruction but for Edification I subscribe to that of Panormitan Magis Laico esse credendum si ex scripturis loquatur quam Papae si absque verbo Dei agat Is not the Scripture-Rule plain here 1 Pet. 5. 3. that the Governours of the Church must not Lord it over God●s Heritage And tho the Laity or common Christian People are directly and properly intended there yet no doubt by just and undeniable Consequence it will as well follow that they are not to Lord it over the Clergy And when Peter Martyr sets down the just causes of separation from Rome he gives this for one good Reason Because they usurp more Power than the Ap●stle Paul accounted belonging to him 2 Cor 1. Not as if we had Dominion over your Faith Quibus verbis testatur fidem n●mini subjectam

esse ●isi verbo Dei And then it would be seriously enquired whether to require Assent and Consent to another Book besides the Bible a Book in Folio and to all things contained in it be not to have Dominion over Mens Faith Many are in doubt here whose doubts you have not so far as I can perceive yet resolved You your self must grant that the Churches of God have or should have no such Custom to tyrannize over the Faith and Consciences of Men that is Lording it indeed As here Vnreas of Separat p. 184. You cite M. Claude allowing or maintaining Tyranny over Mens Consciences to be a justifiable Reason of S●paration And Le Blanc p. 185. And the Confession of Strasburg p. 188. That they look on no human Traditions as condemned in Scripture but such as are repugnant to the Law of God and bind the Consciences of Men. And Io● Crocius ib. Ceremonies forbidden break the Churches Unity yet its Communion is not to be forsaken for one or two of these if there be no Tyranny over the Consciences of Men. And Bishop Daven●nt p. 189 190. Who grants that Tyranny over Mens Faith and Consciences would be a s●fficient Reason to hinder Communion As he says Sentent D. Dav. p. 6. If some one Church will so have Dominion over the Faith of others that she acknowledgeth none for Brethren or admits none into Communion with her nisi credend● ac loquendi legem ab eadem prius accipiant the Holy Scripture forbids us thus to make our selves the Slaves of any Mortals whosoever they are our one only Master Christ forbids Quae hâc lege in Communionem alterius Ecclesiae recipitur non pacem inde acquirit sed iniquissimae servitutis pactionem Here I set down a little more than you cite as indeed it was not for your purpose To these you agree P. 221. Not but that I think there may be a Separation without Sin from a Society retaining the Essentials of a Church but then I say the Reason of such Separation is some heinous Error in Doctrine or some idolatrous Practice in Worship or some Tyranny over the Consciences of Men c. This Tyranny over Conscience with you is an imposing of unlawful things Which I infer from those Words p. 208. A prudent and due submission in lawful things lies between Tyranny over Mens Consciences and endless Separation With Bishop Davenant it is credendi ac loquendi legem dicere Now if this be the Case of Non-conformist Ministers that others would tyrannize over their Consciences will it not justify their Separation which is but a Separation secundum quid And if you deny this to be their Case be pleased to give a sound and solid Answer to those few Pages of the second Plea for Peace towards the end p. 116 c. Qui tyrannidem in Christianissimum vel usurpat vel invehit ille Christum quantum potest ê solio dejicit c. Amyrald in Thes. Salmur p. 435. §22 8. Will you say every Man is bound for Peace-sake to submit to the Determination of Church-Governours whatever his private Iudgment may be When his Judgment may be that such a Determination is against the Word tho never so many Churches and Councils judg otherwise And when his Judgment may be that submission to such Determination of Men would be real Disobedience and acting contrary to the Will of God If his Conscience be rightly informed then he opposeth the Authority of Scripture and the Iudgment of God to the Iudgment of Men as Chillingworth says p. 309. which is certainly allowable If his Conscience and Judgment be erroneous yet he must suspend the act of Submission to such Determination till he can be better informed or acting here against his Iudgment and Conscience tho erroneous he would greatly sin As suppose the Governours of the Church to have determined that we shall all declare our Assent unto that in Preface before the Book of Ordination That it is evident unto all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons as several Officers You could not have submitted to such Determination while your Judgment was the same as when you wrote your Irenicum This is evident from what I noted thence Rector of Sutton p. 41 66. Nothing can be more evident than that it rose not from any divine Institution c. Could you have dissembled with God and Man for Peace-sake But more of this afterwards But I am thinking you may possibly object That you speak of things supposed to be left undetermin'd whereas I Instance here in a matter that the Word determines Yet I hope this may be more convincing Let us for this once suppose that you could now prove from Scripture that the Bishops Office is distinct from that of Presbyters yet I hope you will grant me that you could not have submitted to such Determination of the Church while you believed no such thing And then I have what I would have Every Man cannot lawfully submit to the Churches Determination though it be according to the Scripture that is so long as his Judgment is the Determination is without and against Scripture then must not the same be said of such Determination as is besides the Scripture I know you will not say the Churches Word is above God's So you see how this part of your Rule falls short of what you aim at One thing you have under this Rule Irenic p. 124. I should take a little notice of some-where and let me do it here There must be a Difference made say you between the Liberty and Freedom of a Man 's own Judgment and the Authority of it So by being under Governours a Man parts with the Authority of his Iudgment but you would not have him deprived of the Liberty and Freedom of his Judgment otherwise to what purpose is this distinction brought Now I would not be so uncharitable as to think that by the Liberty of a Man 's own Iudgment you could mean a Liberty of professing and declaring contrary to his own Judgment in Submission to the Determination of Church-Governours for the Churches Peace And therefore I say your Rule here is short and reacheth not to our Case 2. You say in this last Conclusion that in M●tters of meer Order and Decency every one for the Churches Peace is bound to submit to the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church Here 1. This is readily granted if by Matters of meer Order and Decency you understand Matters of meer Order and Decency As you seemed to understand no more when you wrote your Iren. For there you distinguish betwixt Ceremonies and Matters of meer Decency and Order for Order-sake And you further say that Matters of Order and Decency are allowable and fitting but Ceremonies properly taken for Actions significative their Lawfulness may with better Ground