Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	father_n	holy_a	scripture_n	2,746	5	5.8863	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07805	The encounter against M. Parsons, by a revievv of his last sober reckoning, and his exceptions vrged in the treatise of his mitigation. Wherein moreouer is inserted: 1. A confession of some Romanists, both concerning the particular falsifications of principall Romanists, as namely, Bellarmine, Suarez, and others: as also concerning the generall fraude of that curch, in corrupting of authors. 2. A confutation of slaunders, which Bellarmine vrged against Protestants. 3. A performance of the challenge, which Mr. Parsons made, for the examining of sixtie Fathers, cited by Coccius for proofe of Purgatorie ... 4. A censure of a late pamphlet, intituled, The patterne of a Protestant, by one once termed the moderate answerer. 5. An handling of his question of mentall equiuocation (after his boldnesse with the L. Cooke) vpon occasion of the most memorable, and feyned Yorkeshire case of equiuocating; and of his raging against D. Kings sermon. Published by authoritie	Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659.	1610 (1610)	STC 18183; ESTC S112913	342,598	466

in the Text for my time is not yet fulfilled That is saith Tolet The time when I ought to goe vp And accordingly their Bishop Iansenius The word Not which is in the Latine signifieth plainely Not yet which sence saith he is sufficiently shew'n by the words following vz. because my time namely wherein I must goe to the feast is not yet fulfilled that is not yet come And this he calleth the genuous and naturall sence of the place Which being graunted the sence of Christ euen according to M. Parsons his iudgement is sufficiently expressed and not reserued and consequently here is no footing for his Reseruation In the third place we are to satisfie for the different opinion of some Fathers M. PARSONS his Obiection To shew one point of manhood in this his flight he taketh vpon him to answer one of these six Arguments alleadged against him which is the fourth concerning the ancient Fathers that laboured to secke out Christs reserued meaning You shall see him insinuate two points first is that the ancient Fathers did suppose that whatsoeuer meaning was in these words They the said kinsmen of our Sauiour did vnderstand them as well then to wit before the Gospell was written and before the holy Ghost was giuen as the said Christian Fathers did afterwards by the learning and light which they had by the spirit and tradition of the Church which proposition if he were put to proue in the presence of learned men I doubt not but that he would quickly be in a poore and pitifull plight The Reuiew 34 That which I said was onely concerning the sence of this place of Scripture whereof I affirmed that the Fathers thought their expositions whatsoeuer it was which they iudged to be true to be as well knowne vnto these disciples of Christ as to themselues which M. Parsons maketh to be a generall assertion concerning any other sence of Scripture whatsoeuer If it may be lawfull for him to deale thus iniuriously viz. by peruerting a particular Case into a generall and to cast me into a pit of his owne making none I confesse neede to doubt but my plight must be pittifull but if my Reader shall consider that he hath cut of the Reason which I then produced to proue that the Brethren there mentioned did know that it was the meaning of Christ not to deny absolutely but that he intended to goe vp to the feast viz. Because otherwise they should haue beene scandalized and offended as to thinke that he had contemned the feast which by Gods ordinance were yet aliue and in force as their Iansenius affirmed whereunto their Tolit doth expresly accord then may he easily discerne that M. Parsons was herein more spitefull then I was pittifull But we proceede vnto the chiefe obseruation M. PARSONS his Mitigation The second thing which by this answer he would haue vs vnderstand is that if these brethren or kinsmen of Christ did any way conceiue our Sauiours meaning then was there no reseruation at all for that as he saith our ioyned reseruation is alwaies supposed to be a clause concealed and not vnderstoode But this is a greater foolery then the first for that there may be areseruation in the speakers minde though vnderstoode to some of the hearers As for example in our proposition being demanded whether I be a Priest and say no reseruing to my selfe as often before hath beene declared that I am no such or such Priest as I ought to vtter the same to you though some of the Examiners should guesse at my reseruation or know the same certainely for that otherwise they know I am a Priest this doth not make that this proposition in it selfe and in my meaning is not a reserued or Equiuocall proposition for that they vnderstand it The Reuiew 35 This is the last and chiefest point of all this Controuersie which if he haue wisely and truly satisfied then shall I ingeiously confesse that my whole exception against M. Parsons his Mentall Equiuocation is indeede no better then meere foolery But the truth is that my exception against his Art of Equiuocating is not because the Mentall Reseruation which he teacheth is not vnderstood of some hearers but because it is so couched that it cannot be possibly vnderstood of any hearer for The Clause of Reseruation saith M. Parsons may be what a man list to say to himselfe Now their Priest who listeth not be apprehended will list to frame to himselfe such a crotchetiue conceit which shall goe as inuisible as an Angell of darkenes by whom it is hatched As for example to say I am no Priest meaning That euer worshipped the Idoll Bell or I am no Priest meaning whom you loue or I am no Priest meaning That is willing to be hanged or I am no Priest meaning that can tell fortunes or I am not a Priest meaning whose name is Cutbert or I am not a Priest meaning for ought that you shall know Thus then seeing that the reserued Clause may be according to M. Parsons doctrine whatsoeuer a man list to fancie so that it agree with his minde allthough it be not implyed in the outward words it is as infinitely variable and therefore as certainely vnsearchable as are the fancies and thoughts of men which onely God can see iudge and reuenge 36 Knowing therefore that the Equiuocations which haue beene obiected by M. Parsons out of Scriptures are not properly Mentall but Verball because the meanings which he calleth Reseruations were implied in the words of those sentences and in the circumstances thereof but the reseruation which M. Parsons professeth and we condemne is an onely mentall reseruation which hath no more affinitie in sence with the outward words than this I am no Priest meaning like a Goose that goeth bare-foote so that he that from the hearing of the first part which was the outward speech could haue but coniectured at that referued meaning of a Goose might passe for a Magnus Apollo I shall referre this first point concerning the palpabilitie of Romish reseruation vnto the wisedome iudgement of our Reader to award the note of foolery vnto whether of vs it shall seeme in his discretion more iustly to appertaine The second thing which I promised to shew is the impietie of the same doctrine CHAP. XI A discouery of the impietie of their pretences for Mentall Equiuocation First prouing it to be a lye §. I. IN the former Sections hath beene vnfolded the grosse absurdities of M. Parsons his proofes which he presumed to collect out of Scripture in so copious and perspicuous a maner as that I might feare the imputation of some folly for prosecuting of such fooleries with so great seriousnesse Therefore now my present indeuour must be to shew his defence to be no lesse gracelesse then it is sencelesse the impietie whereof becommeth so much the more notorious and execrable as it durst more boldly seeke refuge at Gods sanctuary

particularly examined discussed and prooued to haue beene so many inexcusable slaunders euen in that Booke of Apologie whereof Master Parsons himselfe hath taken particular notice but more fully and exactly in my lass Catholicke Appeale the fift Booke whereof is spent in the confutation of these and otherslaunders which our Romish Aduersaries haue falsly obiected against Caluine and other Protestants Thus we see that his Ponderous Consideration being put into the ballance is found to weigh no more then doth a vaine and fantasticall conceit CHAP. IX Concerning three other corrupted Allegations of Cardinall Bellarmine SECT I. The charge concerning Saint Cyprian in the poynt of Tradition 1. SAint Cyprian stood vpon written Tradition Bellarmine said that he did it in defending an error Therfore no maruaile saith he though Cyprian erred in so reasonning for the which cause Saint Augustine doth worthily refute him In which place S. Augustine seemeth to bee so farre from confuting him for reasoning so that he saith That which Cyprian warneth vs to runne vnto the fountaine that is vnto the Traditions of the Apostles from thence to deriue a Conduict to our times that is chiefly and doubtlesse to be performed The summe of Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning THis was no good forme of arguing in him but in this necessitie for defending this error for first Saint Augustine doth of purpose refute the same and Saint Cyprian doth elsewhere yeeld and allow the vnwritten Traditions I graunt that S. Cyprian saith as Saint Augustine also doth that when any Tradition or Doctrine can bee clearely shewed out of Scripture Optimum est It is questionlesse the best way of all But when there is no Scripture for proofe of it then saith S Augustine Consuetudo illa c. that is The custom which was opposed against Cyprian must be beleeued to haue proceeded from the Apostles as many things else which the Vniuersall Church doth hold and therefore are well beleeued to haue beene commaunded by the Apostles albeit they are not found written The Reueiwe 2. What Saint Augustines iudgement was concerning the sufficiencie of Scripture as it is defended by the Protestants he hath often vnfolded saying that Amongst all things which are contained plainly in Scripture all those things may be found which concerne faith and manners of life And againe Whensoeuer there is a case of greatest difficultie and we haue no cleere proofes of Scriptures for our conclusions so long must mans presumption keepe silence And euen of this question of not rebaptizing he doth refute it out of Scriptures By as he speaketh certaine proofes and not by coniectures as Bellarmine calleth them before the definition of a Councell And heere also although Bellarmine be in part iustifiable yet looke vnto the sentence of Cyprian and you shall find his reasoning negatiuely from Scripture which is condemned by Bellarmine to bee iustified by Saint Augustine although it be there applied by him affirmatiuely SECT II. The second exception against Bellarmine The charge concerning S. Peters Ordination 3. THe summe of the exception standeth thus Bellarmine defended that Saint Peter onely was ordeined a Bishop by Christ and that the other Apostles were ordeined Bishops by Saint Peter and endeuoured to prooue this out of the testimonies of Anacletus Clemens Alex. Eusebius Cyprian Leo Augustine But these Fahers saith their Victoria do not intend that which the Authors of this opinion doe pretend As for other writings which are attributed vnto Clement and Pope Anacletus which are both many and great they are saith their Cardinall Cusanus Apocrypha wherein they who extoll the Romane Sea which is worthy of allpraise do aboue that which is conuenient or meete either wholly or partly rely We are now to Reckon first for the matter it selfe and then for the maner of deliuerance of it in my Preamble Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning ALl this which Mr. Morton alle adgeth heere if it were graunted as it lieth conteineth nothing but two different opinions between learned men in a disputable question Whether Christ did immediately and by himselfe consecrate all or some of his Apostles Bishops or one onely with authoritie to consecrate the rest Turrecremata and Bellarmine doe hold the one for more probable but Victoria Cusanus and some other do allow rather the other What wilfull falsehood is there in this Or is it not singular folly to call it by that name The Reueiwe 4. If all this were graunted Mr. Parsons Then I can tell you you must either renounce the iudgement of Bellarmine or else recant your owne Reckoning you haue graunted first that Bellarmine did prooue out of Turrecremata that Christ did make onely Saint Peter Bishop with authoritie to consecrate the rest Secondly that Victoria thinketh the contrary opinion to be more probable and aunswereth the argument of Turrecremata saying that the Fathers cited for the same Reuerà non significant id quod Authores huius sententiae volunt That is That in trueth they doe not signifie so much as the authoritie Mr. Parsons should haue said Authors of this opinion would haue them Lastly that Cardinall Cusanus here cited doth to the like effect aunswere the same arguments 5. In all these confessed points consisteth the maine matter of my former exception Notwithstanding this euidence Mr. Parsons saith If it were graunted c. What tricke shall we call this Yet thus much being graunted marke Master Parsons what will follow hereupon viz. that the Church of Rome hath lost her supposed Motherhood For Bellarmine presuming that all auncients held the Church of Rome to bee the Mother-church addeth in these words Quod non videtur c. that is Which seemeth not to be true saith he except in that sense because Peter who was the Bishop of Rome had ordeined all other Apostles Bishops either by himselfe or by others See this and blush at your ignorance Bellarmine reasoneth thus Except Peter did ordaine the rest of the Apostles Bishops your Church of Rome cannot be truely called the Mother-church but that Peter ordained the rest of the Apostles Bishops Mr. Parsons doth hold it to be a matter disputable their Cusanus thinketh it to be improbable their Victoria concludeth pro certo that Certamly Peter did not ordaine them Bishops The conclusion will follow of it owne accord which is this viz. It is therefore but Disputable or Improbable yea an Incredible doctrine to say that the Church of Rome is the Mother-church When Mr. Parsons shall consider this I thinke he will repent him of this Reckoning 6. May I be furthermore so bold with Mr. Parsons as to demand why he did translate Authores eius sent entiae that is The Authors of this opinion into The authoritie of this opinion I say what authoritie had he for these trickes for of his purpose we will make no question For he was loath that the opinion of Bellarmine should be held by