Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	faith_n	salvation_n	scripture_n	1,965	5	5.9989	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00601	A second parallel together with a vvrit of error sued against the appealer.	Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.	1626 (1626)	STC 10737; ESTC S101878	92,465	302

or may bee accounted or is that Antichrist or Antichrists my irresolution grew as I haue remembred from the much insufficiency of their proofs that tender it stoutly strongly affectionately and tantum non as a point of faith Not any one of their arguments is not all their arguments together are conuincing Appeale p. 149. I incline to the more moderate and temperate tenent and rather of the two embrace the Turkish Popish estate not seueral but conioyned doe constitute That Antichrist then either of the two states disioynedly and of the two states rather the Turk by much then the Pope Ibid. p. 144. Why should it not be as lawfull for mee to opine that the Pope is not that Antichrist as for others to write to preach to publish to tender to proceeders this proposition The Pope is Antichrist Ib. p. 154. The Turk is and hath bin long possessed of Ierusalem that holy City The Iewes when Mahomet first declared himselfe came flocking vnto him as to their Messias the sooner rather because hee was circumcised Discord Church of Engl. HOmily against wilfull rebellion 6. part p. 316. The Bishop of Rome vnderstanding the superstition of Englishmen and how much they were inclined to worship the Babylonical Beast of Rome and to feare all his threatnings and causelesse cursings c. The Pope is implyed to be that Antichrist in the prayer of thankesgiuing for our deliuerance from the powder Treason Root out that Babylonish and Antichristian sect And in the morning prayer appointed for priuate houses Confound Satan Antichrist with all hirelings c. See K. Iames in his praemonitory preface his Cōment vpō the Reuelation Iuel Def. of Apo● par 4. c. 9. diuis 3. B. Abbot and ● Downam de Antichristo B. Andrewes resp ad Car. Bel. Ap. à capite 9. ad 13. In this point touching Antichrist the Appealer agreeth with the Church of Rome and di●●enteth from the learnedst Diuines in England and other reformed Churches both touching the maine conclusion The Pope is Antichrist and touching the seat doctrine and character of Antichrist which they apply to the Pope hee with the Papists to the Turke As for the Protestant arguments taken out of the Apocalyps to proue the Pope to be the Antichrist Bellarmine calls them deliramenta dotages and the Appealer to shew more zeale to the Popes cause straineth farther and termes them Apocalypticall frensies which proceeding from the mouth of a Protestant Antigagger and Appealer to King Iames Non sani esse hominis no sanus juret Orestes Of Limbus Patrum Church of Rome BEllar de Anim. Christi l. 4. c. 11. The soules of the godly were not in heauē before Christs ascensiō Id. de Sāct beat lib. 1. c. 20. If they demand why prayers of the liuing were not reuealed to the Fathers in Limbo and are now reuealed to the Saints in heauen I answer that the Saints in Limbo did not take care of our affaires as the Saints doe in heauen neither were they then set ouer the Church as now they are Appealer GAgg pag. 278 Though they were not in heauen in regard of place yet were they in happinesse in regard of state Ib. 281. Let them not haue been in heauen before our Sauiour I deny it necessarie they were therefore in Hell that region I call Abrahams bosome which though it bee not Heauen yet is it higher then hell Church of England HOmily concerning Prayer pag. 122. The scripture doth acknowledge but two places after this life the one proper to the elect and blessed of God the other proper to the reprobate and damned soules Ibid. pag. 122. S. Augustine doth acknowledge onely two places after this life to wit heauen and hell In this point though the Appealer dissent from the Romanists in a circumstance on the bye about the situation of Limbus Patrum for they place it nearer the confines of hell the Appealer nearer heauen yet he agreeth with thē in these 2 main conclusions 1 That there is or at least was a place for soules after this life distinct from heauen and hell 2 That the soules of the Fathers before Christs ascension were not in heauen but in that third place Of Traditions Harmony Church of Rome COuc of Trent Ses. 4. decret 1. The holy Synod of Trent finding this truth and holy discipline to bee contained partly in Scriptures partly in vnwritten traditions which eyther were taken frō Christs mouth by the Apostles or were deliuered by the Apostles themselves inspired by the holy Ghost and haue passed as it were from hand to hand to vs and following the example of the Orthodoxe Fathers doth with the like religious affection reuerence receiue entertain all the bookes of the old and new Testament as also the traditions thēselues pertaining to faith and manners Appealer ANsw. to Gag pag. 42. That most learned religious and most iudicious writer hee meaneth St. Basil de Spiritu sancto which Treatise Erasmus Bishop Bilson and other iudicious Diuines proue to be counterfeit saith no more then is iustifiable touching traditions For thus saith he The Doctrine of the Church is two wayes deliuered vnto vs First by writing then by tradition from hand to hand bothe are of alike force or value vnto piety Discord Church of Engl. ARticle 6. Holy scriptures containe all things necessary vnto saluation so that what soeuer is not read therein nor may be proued therby is not to be required of any man that it should be beleeued as an article of faith or be thought requisite or necessary to saluation Art 20. Although the Church bee a witnes a keeper of holy writ yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be beleeued for necessity of saluation Art 21. Things ordained by Generall Councels as necessary to saluation haue neither strength nor authority vnlesse it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture In this point touching Traditions the Appealer consenteth with the Church of Rome and differeth from vs in two particulars 1 In that he admitteth of doctrinall Traditions belonging to faith and manners We acknowledge traditions concerning discipline and the rites and ceremonies of the Church but not concerning the doctrine or matter of faith and religion 2 In that he equalizeth vnwritten traditions to holy Scriptures such traditions as we receiue we hold and esteeme farre inferiour A WRIT OF ERROVR SVED AGAINST THE APPEALER HOrtensius that spruce Oratour commenced an action against a Citizen of Rome for rushing hastily vpon him and thereby disordering and pressing down the pleats of his gowne Many such actions haue been heretofore entred and pursued against such as haue rudely or carelessely crushed a pleat in the Spouse gowne or ruffled a set in her ruffe I meane with their pen glanced though vnwittingly at a ceremonie of order or ornament of decency But now when not her rayment of

omnia atque haereses quascunque ab Ecclesiâ damnatas rejectas anathematizatas ego pariter damno rejicio anathematizo Hanc veram Catholicam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest quam in praesenti sponte profiteor veraciter teneo eandem integram inviolatam usque ad extremum vitae spiritum constantissimè Deo juvante retineri confiteri atque à meis subditis vel illis quorum cura ad me in munere meo spectabit retineri doceri praedicari quantum in me erit curabo Whence I thus argue First In this forme of oath the twelue new Articles together with the rest of the definitions of the Councell of Trent are made part of the Catholicke faith which except a man beleeue faithfully he cannot be saued but neither these twelue new articles nor any of them were held as true by the ancient Church much lesse as points fundamentall and de fide therefore the present Church of Rome holdeth not the same intire foundation of faith with the ancient Secondly the ancient Church of Rome held the Scriptures to be the onely perfect infallible rule of faith and foundation of sauing doctrine as is plentifully proued by Iuel Rainolds Bilson Kemnisius Morney D. Francis White and diuers others but the present Church of Rome holdeth otherwise making vnwritten traditions part of the foundation of faith which they say is built partly vpon the written and partly vpon the vnwritten word of God Therefore the present Church of Rome holdeth not the same entire foundation of faith with the ancient Thirdly the articles of the Apostles Creed rightly expounded and taken in the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost were the foundation of the ancient Churches faith But the present Church of Rome holdeth not the articles of the Apostles Creed rightly expounded and taken in the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost therefore the present Church of Rome holdeth not the same foundation with the ancient Church The proposition or major is not denied the assumption may bee euidently proued by instancing in some of the prime Articles The first article I beleeue in God rightly expounded teacheth vs that we ought to repose our confidence in God and him onely not vpon any Creature Saint or Angell and therefore not to call vpon them the consequence is the Apostles Rom. 10. How shall they call on him in whom they haue not beleeued this Article thus expounded the present Church of Rome beleeueth not Secondly Faith in Iesus Christ rightly vnderstood signifieth affiance in Christ for saluation or a relying vpon Christ with an assured perswasion for remission of sinnes through his merits and satisfaction This interpretation of faith in Christ the present Church of Rome is so farre from admitting that it accurseth all those who teach the nature of justifying faith to consist in this affiance or confidence Thirdly the Incarnation of Christ rightly expounded implyeth that Christ was once and but once made of a pure Virgin a true and perfect man like vnto vs in all things sinne onely excepted Heb. 2. 17. 4. 15. And the Councell of Calcedon in the fift Act against Eutiches accurseth all those who deny that Christ retaineth still the properties of his humane nature such as the shape of man proportion dimension circumscription c. This article thus expounded is not assented to by the Church of Rome for the Romanists teach that Christ is made in the Sacrament by the Priest The learneder Iesuits are not content with the adducing or bringing of Christ into the Sacrament where he was not before for that say they were onely a translocation not a transubstantiation a locall motion not a substantiall mutation but in expresse words maintaine a new production of Christs body made of bread Againe they teach that Christs body in the Sacrament is whole in the whole and wholy in euery part of the Host which is impossible if according to the definition of the Councell of Calcedon he retaine the properties of his humane nature to wit extension of parts proportion of limmes distinction of members c. Whence I argue They who teach that Christ hath a body inuisible indiuisible insensible impassible ouerthrow the verity of his humane nature and consequently deny the article of his Incarnation But the Church of Rome teacheth that Christ in the Sacrament to wit hath a body inuisible indiuisible insensible c. Therefore the Church of Rome ouerthroweth the verity of Christ his humane nature and consequently denieth the article of his Incarnation Fourthly the article of Christ his Ascension rightly vnderstood importeth that Christ is so ascended from the earth that hee is not now vpon earth but is contained according to his bodily presence and humane nature in the heauens Act. 3. 21. This article is not thus held by the Church of Rome for the Romanists teach that Christ euen according to his humane nature and bodily presence is vpon earth in euery Church on euery Altar where the sacrifice of the Masse is offered besides priuate houses to which the Sacrament is caried so that by this their Doctrine Christ is more vpon earth since his Ascension then before Before his Ascension he was onely in one Country and at one time according to his bodily presence but in one particular place but since his Ascension according to their beliefe he is truely really and substantially in a million of places viz. euery where in their offertory after the words of Consecration whence I argue They who beleeue and teach that Christ God man according to his bodily presence is vpon earth since his Ascension into heauen deny that he is contained in heauen and consequently ouerthrow the article of his Ascension But the Romanists beleeue and teach that Christ God and man according to his bodily presence is vpon earth since his Ascension into heauen Therefore the Romanists deny that hee is contained in heauen and consequently ouerthrow the article of his Ascension The first proposition or major is grounded vpon the Angels Argument Mat. 28. 6. He is not here for he is risen the testimony of S. Peter Acts 3. 21. whom the heauens must containe S. Austins resolution Christ according to his bodily presence cannot be at the same time in the Sunne and Moone and vpon the Crosse the inference of Vigilius when Christ was in the flesh vpon earth he was not in heauen and now because hee is in heauen he is not therefore vpon earth If Christs body could at the same time bee in more places the Angels argument were of no force for his existence in more places then one at the same time being granted he might be risen and in Ierusalem and yet at the same instant be there where the Angell affirmeth he was not to wit in the graue If Christ may be vpon earth in his body and in heauen at the same time then is not he contained