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	great_a	scripture_n	3,498	5	5.9348	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10190	Lord bishops, none of the Lords bishops. Or A short discourse, wherin is proved that prelaticall jurisdiction, is not of divine institution, but forbidden by Christ himselfe, as heathenish, and branded by his apostles for antichristian wherin also sundry notable passages of the Arch-Prelate of Canterbury in his late booke, intituled, A relation of a conference, &c. are by the way met withall.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1640 (1640)	STC 20467; ESTC S115311	76,101	90

the Lords day which is an open proclaiming of Warre against God against Christ against his holy Laws against all holinesse against our Christian vow in Baptisme against the good Laws of the Land and Acts of Parliament and against the very bonds of all Civill and Natural Societies And thus our Prelates are the most notorious Lawlesse men onely excepting the Grand Antichrist the Pope unlesse in some things they doe outstrip him that ever were in any Age of the world Further two wayes more doe the Prelates prove themselves to be o`i a'nomei those Lawlesse men As first in hanging the Keys of Scripture at their Girdle saying that the Credit and belie●● of Scripture to be the word of God doth necessarily depend upon the Authority and Tradition of the present Church as the prime inducing cause to that bel●●f This our great Prelate in his said Book boldly affirmeth● and often repeateth saying withall that the Scripture hath not light enough in it selfe is not sufficient to shew and prove it selfe to be the word of God So as the whole Authority of Scripture● depending upon Church-Tradition and Authority is necessarily made subject to Episcopall Power and so consequently the Law of God contained therein shall not be Divine unlesse it please their good Lordships to give their good word for it and to make it of so much credit by the vote of their Authority and Tradition as that men may beleeve it to be Gods Law And upon this ground it is that if the Prelates shall pronounce the 4th Commandement not to be Morall for the sanctifying of a Seventh day yea the first day of the weeke for Sabbath and that Servants and Children are not bound to yeeld obedience to their Masters and Parents on that day in Case Civil or Ecclesiasticall Authority shall dispense with them to be free that day for their Sports then all men must be of their opinion that those Commandements are none of Gods Commandements The second way whereby Prelates doe shew themselves Lawlesse men is by denying the Scripture to be Iudge in Controversus of Faith For the said Prelate pe●emptorily saith * I absolutely make a lawfull and free Generall Councel Iudge of Controversies by and according to Scriptures Which By and according to the Scriptures come in by the By and are meere Cyphers For by these words he either meanes That By and according to the Scriptures hee absolutely makes c. which is most false for by and according to the Scripture no Generall Councel is Iudge of Coneroversies Neither by and according to the Scriptures hath the Prelate power absolutely to make a Generall Councel Iudge of Controversies or els by these words he doth but cast a ●yst before his Readers eyes to make him beleeve upon the first rebound of his words that he makes Scripture the Rule for Generall Councels to determine Controversies by Whereas he meanes no such thing For elswhere he hath sundry speeches to the contrary as ‡ The Churches Declaration can bind us to peace and externall obedience where there is not expresse letter of Scripture and s●nce agreed upon And againe If there be a a●eal●usie or doubt of the sense of Scripture a Generall Councel must judge the Difference onely Scripture must be the Rule Now if Scripture be doubtfull and not cleare how can it be a rule to others to judge by But if Scripture be sufficiently and aboundantly cleare in it selfe in resolving of matters of faith for salvation how come men to take upon them to be Iudges But that the Scripture it selfe should be Iudge the Prelate in no case in no place of his Booke will allow of that Onely he confesseth that the Scripture is a * Iudge but without light Sufficient visible but not living not speaking but by the Church So as the Iudge he makes upon the matter both blind and dead and dumb As the ‡ Papists make it a dead letter and Leaden or Lesbian Rule that so they may set the Church above it to be Supreme Iudge Thus our Prelates if they will allow their Primate to speake for them have made the Scripture and so Gods word of no Authority in and of it selfe when it must depend both for its Authority and Sense upon the Church and that the Prelaticall Church or that Catholicke wherein the Church Prelaticall of England and of Rome are one and the Same Are not the Prelates then next after the Pope those Lawlesse men branded here by the Apostle under the name of that Lawlesse one We come now to the Sixth note of Antichrist in the Text which is●that he at God sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himselfe that he is God Now the ‡ Temple of God properly according to the New Testament the ancient Temple of the Iews being abolished is the Soule and Conscience of every beleever or true Christian namely a Spirttuall Temple Now all that beare but the beare name of Christians as Papists doe doe also participate of the bare Name of such as are the true Temples and so in that respect Antichrist is said to sit in or upon or over the Temple of God For sitting argues a Seat Chaire or Throne which Antichrist sets up in the Soules and Consciences of all Papists Sitting and raigning as King over them in all matters of faith So as thus he makes himselfe a Spirituall Lord or King over them And thus by Antichrists sitting is understood his raingning as the Scripture doth often use this Terme as Revel. 17. 1. 3. 15. and 18. 7. And so in other places of Scripture by sitting is understood raigning as Heb. 1. 13. 1. Rev. 1. 13. Now that the Pope doth thus set up his throne and sit and raigne in the Consciences of men who are the Subjects and vassalls of his Spirituall Kingdome himselfe cannot will not deny And he sits as God that is assumes and exercises that power and authority over the Conscience which appertaines to God to Christ alone And thus he makes shew that he is God as to whom God hath committed all his Power and authority unto As the Pope calls himselfe Vice-God Christs Vicar and the like usurping whatsoever Titles of Power Christ hath in the Scripture as we read of Leo 10 in the Councel of Lateran calling himselfe the Lyon of the Tribe of Iudah and the like And Bellarmine blusheth not to say and therein to Blas-Pheme that what soever is attributed to Christ in the Scripture is communicated to his Vicar the Pope And thus is fullfilled that which Christ foretold * Many shall come in my Name saying I am or I am Christ and shall deceive many Thus for the Pope that man of Sinne that Sonne of Perdition who opposeth and exalteth himselfe ab●ve all that is called God or that is worshiped that Lawlesse one that as God sits in the Temple of God shewing himselfe that he is God● Now for our Prelates are they not herein

and this at the end of the Chancel their highest part of the Church Secondly do they not alter Christs institution by adding to the Sacraments of their own superstitious inventions Doe they not adde an empty and 〈◊〉 signe of the Crosse to Baptisme the o mission whereof is no lesse heinous then of Baptisme it selfe And have they not added a long Forme of Liturgie to the administration of both the Sacraments Have they not altered the Table for the Lords Supper into an Altar for a sacrifice which is also as great a derogation from the sufficiencie of Christs onely sacrifice on the Crosse as it is an alteration yea and an annihilation of this Sacrament which is to be administred as a supper on a Table not as a sacrifice on an Altar And this they doe also in imposing a necessity of kne●eling at the receiving of the Sacrament whereby they overthrow the nature of a Supper To omit their necessity of private Baptisme and of carrying their Host to a man on his death bed would they not also of ‡ late yeares have brought againe into the Church of England the other 5 Sacraments of the Romish Church that so the Church of England and of Rome might in nothing be unlike in their practise as they are not in profession as our said Prelate saith Thus are our Prelates herein Successors of the Apostles Secondly for the Apostles practise in point of Discipline And this is either in Ordination of Ministers or Reformation and correction of manners or imposition of Ceremonies For the first Ordination of Ministers we read of Timothies ordination no lesse by the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery then of Paul himselfe Titus indeed was appointed by Paul to ordaine Elders in every City in Creet as was noted before but if he did this alone without the Presbytery 2 necessity must needs be supposed which is neither Rule nor Law in ordinary Cases And by the way whether Titus and Tim●thy were Diocesan Bishops as the Prelates pretend we shall see in a more fit place And for Ordination this we are sure of that whoever have the charge of it Prelates have nothing at all to doe with it because as is already proved they are no lawfull Ministers of Christ much lesse Successors of the Apostles Againe whom did the Apostles and Presbytery ordaine Ministers of the word but such as were every way qualified with gifts and graces for preaching and the like as we see prescribed in 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1 They were not like to Ierobeams Priests nor any of those whom the Prelates doe make Priests which are * dumb dogs as the Prophet calls them blind watchmen that love to s●●ep to take their ease greedy dogs that are never satisfied with heaping up Living upon Living they fill themselves with strong drinke and are good Fellows not good Ministers Yea such as are truly qualified either Prelates doe not ordaine them or they doe afterwards seeing how they prove painfull in their Ministry put them to silence or suspend and persecute them as before is noted And againe Thirdly The Apostles and Presbyters in their time Ordayned none for money for offering whereof ‡ Simon Magus was accursed but our Prelates Ordaine tag and rag for money so as the ordinary Fees come to 3 4 5 or 6 pounds So as in point of Ordination how doe our Prelates prove themselves to be Successors of the Apostles And lastly the Apostles and their lawfull successors Ordained none but lawfull Ministers of the Gospell but our Prelates do ordaine a new Order of Priests bringing in and setting up a new Priesthood which is Antichristian not having any foundation in the Sccripture Prelates therefore in Ordrnation are no Successors of the Apostles Secondly for matter of Censure or for Reformation and correction of Manners as for instance in the Censure of Excommunication the Apostles though as Apostles they might doe of themselves yet as Ministers they did it not but with the whole Congregation or else the Congregation with the Presbyters as we see 1 Cor. 5 3. 4. 5. Insomuch as even Prelates themselves after they first had taken footing as being the time of their Innocency as I may say observed this Order So as Cyprian who lived about 250. yeares after Christs nativity would doe nothing in this kind without the consent both of the Presbytery and people This lasted during the 10. Persecutions but Peace and Prosperity Succeding it degenerated into that height of Tyranny by degrees● to which we see it arrived at this day Secondly Excommunication was for weighty Causes as in the same place and 1 Tim. 1. 20. The Apostles had no Prelates Courts or Consistories where they did Privately by themselves or by a dumb Priest Excommunicatt for every trifle and especially for the least breach of a Canon and the like as we noted before but the Consistory was the whole Congregation solemnly assembled where no Censure was imposed but for great offences and those breaches of Gods Laws and of Christs Ordinance Nor were those Censures remitted but in and by the whole Congregation after publick satisfaction given by the offender to the offended Whereas our Prelates in all doe quite contrary absolving also great offenders for a fee without any signes of Repentance much lesse fruits of Reformation and satisfaction made to the Congregation offended Whereas the Apostles absolved none before the Congregation was first satisfied by and so pacified towards the offender as 2 Tim. 2. 10. Do our Prelates thus No such thing Therfore no Successor of the Apostles Thirdly for Imposition of Ceremonies in the worship of God the Apostles were so farre from laying any such yoake upon Christians necks or any such snares for their feet as they did utterly condemne all humane Rites and Ordinances whatsoever in Gods service laying also a speciall charge upon Christians not to put their necks under such yoakes unlesse thereby they would renounce Iesus Christ for their onely King and Lord over their Consciences and Soules in all matters of faith and the worship of God In one Chapter colloss. 2. the Apostle beats them all down whether they be old Iewish Ordinances now abolished under the Gospell or of mans devising and imposing First for Iewish Ceremonies he saith they are * Shadows which now upon the death of Christ are all vanished and abolished Secondly all other Rites and Ceremonies which are of mans devising he calls them ‡ Philosophy and vaine deceit traditions of men rudiments of the world not after Christ a ‡ voluntary humility as worshiping of Angels and so Idolatry an intrusion into things not seen in Scripture of a fleshly mind vainly puft up which seperate from the § head Christ they † evacuate Christs death wherein he did ‡ blot out the handwriting of all such Ordinan●es nayling it to his Crosse c. So as now to be subject to such is to renounce Christs death and make it of

are comprehended many for it is a Mystery yet one is mentioned Chap. 2. 1. because I say it holds proportion with the vision Againe if by the Angel here they would have to be understood a Diocesan Bishop then they must prove that this Diocesan hath a lawfull Calling as Sent of God Otherwise he is no Angel that is no Messenger no Angel sent of God Or if they say This Angel was sent of God let them prove him to be a Diocesan Bishop And thus they are brought into a Circle and cannot find the way out But they alledge againe That one here notes unity which cannot be without a Diocesan Bishop And therefore a Diocesan Bishop was set up for that end to be a Head of unity for the conservation of Order and Peace in Schismatis remedium for a remedy of Schisme Insomuch as our Arch-prelate as is before noted holds a necessity of one Ordine Primus for the unity and peace of his Catholicke Church Now for answere briefly this being partly touched before true it is that one here is a mysticall note of unity so as in the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is comprehended the whole Church of Ephesus both Ministers and People But one here doth not signifie one Diocesan Bishop Neither is one Diocesan Bishop in a Diocese nor one Metropolitan in a Province or Kingdome nor one Ordine Primus in the whole Catholicke Church of necessity to preserve unity in the Church 'T is true indeed that the Prelates new Catholicke-Church which is Prelaticall may need such a Head as one Ordine Primus to preserve it in unity and peace this being also very usefull for the inlarging of the Tower of Babel for which the Prelate hath so laboured for Peace in the Church of England under the Headship of his Primacy so as had he none to oppose or contradict his wicked practises for the setting up of Popery but all did quietly submit and conforme to his Canon his Babylon would goe up apace and prosper even as * when the old world was all of one language the Tower of Babel went up a maine till God confounded their worke in the division of tongues but the true Catholicke Church of Iesus Christ hath one Bishop of there Soules which is Christ who is that Ordine Primus that ‡ unites the whole body every joynt and every member that is not onely every particular beleever but every particular Christian Congregation is knit to the whole in and under that one Head And so this Body groweth and this building goeth up notwithstanding all the mouths of contradiction and of malicious Sandballets that seek to hinder it Whereas it is not so with the building of Babel For one small breath of the mouth of God in his word breathed by one poore Minister is able to blast the building and therefore the builders cry out against such Fellows as troublers of the State and movers of Sedition And they cannot be in quiet nor their building goe up untill such make-bates be silenced or made our of the way And therefore they labour with the Prince when themselves want power and Law to d●e with such as Constantine did with Athanasius Athanasius was the onely man that refused to hold Communion with a sort of Arian Bishops which caused a great gappe in that unity and peace in the Church which Constantine so much desired Well what 's the remedy He thereupon was easily moved to send Athanasius away into banishment and then he thought all would be quiet and in peace But by the way Truth must be looked unto in the first place otherwise what peace For that a false peace and the moeher of farther discord for the which truth is lost And even our Prelate himselfe in his said Booke doth often harpe upon these two strings together Truth and Peace a good harmony were they rightly meant and that his Truth were not made of a Wolfes gut which will never agree with a string made of a Sheeps gut as he pretends his Peace to be But this by the way And whereas they alledge the Prelacie to be a remedy of Schisme Heare ô heavens and hearken ô earth is not the Prelacy the grand Schismaticke I mean not onely in being the most busie and usuall make-bate in all Civil States dividing Prince and People but in setting up a new and false Catholicke Church altogether seperate from and holding no communion with yea excluding all Reformed Churches not Prelaticall as no members of the Catholicke as indeed they be not of the false Catholicke all Prelacie drawing to one Head of the Papacy and that by a necessity of one Ordine Primus as before is noted But to draw to a Conclusion The last Allegation which I note they make is that S. Marke was Bishop of Alexandria Ergo Episcopall Iurisdiction is an Apostolicall Tradition and so jure divino And for this they alledge the Testimony of Ierome where he saith At Alexandria from Marke the Evangelist the Presbyters alwayes chusing one from among them and placing him in a more eminent degree called him Bishop Whereupon the Prelate thus inferres So even according to S. Jerome Bishops had a very ancient and honourable Discent in the Church from St. Marke the Euangelist and this saith Ierome was a Tradition Apostolicke So the Prelate But first for Ierome we noted his words before of such Bishops saying They were set up by humane presumption and not by divine Institution and consequently not by Apostolike Tradition For Apostolicke Tradition is farre from ●um●ne presumption So as it is humane presumption to make that Apostolicke Tradition And for S. Marke * Ecclesiasticall Story tells us that Marke was the first that preached the Gospell which also he writ at Alexandria But the Story saith not that Marke was Bishop of Alexandria And the Prelate must marke that he was an Euangelist as also Iereme saith for he wrote the Gospel And the History saith he was ‡ a follower of Peter the Apostle Which if true it makes it more probable that it was that Babylon in Egypt whence Peter wrote his Epistle where he saith The Church that is at Babylon saluteth you and so doth Marcus my Son then that Peter was then at Rome which the Papists to make Peter to have been at Rome are content should be that Babylon from whence he writ And if they will needs have it so let them have it with the whore of Babylon to boot But this by the way But be it that Marke was at Alexandria he was there onely as an Euangelist and to doe the Office of an Euangelist of which we have Spoken before Bishop he was not as the Prelates would have him for that we have already proved to be in their sense condemned both by Christ and by his Apostles and therfore is neither an Institution of Christ nor a Tradition Apostolicke And therefore what ever the Presbyters at Alexandria began to