Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	luther_n	scripture_n	ser_n	20	3	15.5393	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A06753	A treatise of the groundes of the old and newe religion Deuided into two parts, whereunto is added an appendix, containing a briefe confutation of William Crashaw his first tome of romish forgeries and falsifications.	Maihew, Edward, 1570-1625.	1608 (1608)	STC 17197.5; ESTC S118525	390,495	428

Wherefore in like manner vse they not to wash one anothers feete Iohn 13. Haue vve not for this an expresse example and commandement of our Sauiour vvherefore finally anoint they not their sicke vvith oile Is not this directly commanded by S. Iames Iam. 5. v 14. verily the text according to their owne translation is euident In these and diuers other points they follow not their owne text of holy Scriptures but rejecting both it and al other groundes doe that which pleaseth best their owne fancies and this neglect of the vvord of God among them is so apparent that they are after a sort inforced to confesse it themselues Martir in 1. Cor. 15. v. 5. see also Field of the Church booke 4. c. 20 §. That the Apostles Among the rest Peter Martir auoucheth that the Canons of the Apostles concerning the election of Ministers prescribed by S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. are not alwaies to be obserued with whome accordeth a Beza in praefat noui test dicati Principi Condensi Beza who telleth vs that al rites vvhatsoeuer vsed by the Apostolike Church either as profitable or as necessary for that time are not at al times to be receiued Yea b Caluin in c. 5. vers 14. Brētius in Apolog cōfess Wittenb cap. de Baptis Caluin and Brentius goe further and affirme that Christians are not bound to followe the example of Christ or the Apostles or to obey their doctrine except it can be proued out of Scripture that they did and commanded vvith an intention to be followed and obeyed this is their doctrine And vvho are to be judges vvhat Canons rites examples and doctrine are to be admitted and bind man to the obseruation of them but euery priuate mans judgement and fancy Besides this they obserue diuers rites not prescribed in the Scripture if vve followe the bare letter For vvhere finde they that there be two Sacraments Surely neither Baptisme nor the Eucharist in the vvord of God are called Sacraments Only Matrimony which commonly they esteeme not to be of such dignity is honoured by S. Paul vvith this title Moreouer Ephes 5 32. vvhere are the forme and ceremonies vvhich they obserue in publike Baptisme Communion Marriage and common Praier ordained and set downe in the Scripture What vvarrant haue they in the vvord of God for baptizing of Infants before they actually beleeue did not our Sauiour say He that beleeueth and is baptized shal be saued Mar. 16 16. and howe doe infants according to their doctrine for they vsually denie al habitual faith beleeue verily that vvhich is affirmed by c Luther lib. cont Cochlaeum Lutherani in Sinod Wittenb anno 1536. Luther and some Lutherans to vvit that infants newly borne vvhiles they are baptized haue the vse of reason actually heare and beleeue the vvord of God c. seemeth altogither incredible But d Luther ser contra Anabaptistas Luther else-where plainely confesseth that the Baptisme of infants cannot be proued by Scripture yet saith he e Luther epist. ad duos Parochos it is to be admitted because it is an Apostolical tradition The like questions I could demand concerning the Creede of the Apostles and diuers other obseruations vvherefore I conclude that they both neglect the obseruation of diuers thinges prescribed in the holy Scripture and also obserue sundry rites and ceremonies for vvhich in them they find no vvarrant and consequently that the ground of their faith and religion is not the word of God contained as they say in their owne Bibles Of which I finally inferre that they build not at al vpon the letter of the holy Scripture for certaine it is that their owne translated Bibles fauour more their doctrine then either the Hebrewe or Greeke text as euery man may gather of that vvhich hath beene said in the Chapter next before vvherefore seing that their faith and religion is not al approued in their said Bibles euery man may wel censure it not to be approued at al by the vvord of God And this may be confirmed because they neither build vpon the Hebrewe Greeke or Latin text but in some places reject them al as I haue partly aboue declared and vvil declare also in the next Chapter Chapter 8. In receiuing translating and expounding the holy Scriptures they only build vpon their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other ground SECTION THE FIRST In which this is proued by their doctrine and dissention concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and their altering of the text of the same HAVING already proued that our aduersaries build not vpon the bare letter of holy Scripture which they seeme to make the only ground and rule of their faith and religion it remaineth that I nowe declare and make manifest vvhat is the ground and rule vvhich in al such matters they followe And this in the title of this Chapter I haue affirmed to be their owne fancy and imagination by which they either by priuate and erroneous deductions out of the letter of holy Scripture or by falsly vnderstanding of the same frame to themselues a particular and false rule of beliefe or else first frame to themselues out of their carnal faithlesse and feeble vnderstanding such a rule and afterwardes by rejection false translation corruption or erroneous exposition ply and vvrest the word of God to their said rule For the proofe of this I could vse diuers arguments notwithstanding these fewe following for breuities sake shal suffice But before I bring forth any one reason I must here diuide al the Professours of the newe religion into three sorts or companies for some of them read and vnderstand the Scriptures in those tongues in vvhich they were first penned by the instinct of the holy Ghost others there be that reade and vnderstand them only translated into other tongues and others that cannot reade at al. The first for distinctions sake I wil here cal the learned the second the vnlearned and the third the ignorant sectaries In the foure first Sections I wil principally discourse of the learned And first I demand of them howe they proue the Bible to be Canonical Scripture verily this as I haue shewed before cannot be proued by Canonical Scripture neither haue they for it as I haue there also declared any other infallible proofe vvherefore I may truly auouch that euery one of them receiueth and rejecteth Scripture according as he is led by his owne fancy But to make this more euident let vs behold their dissention concerning the Canonical bookes and consider that such as some of them receiue into the Canon others reject and contrariwise such as some reject others receiue Luther telleth vs plainly that he doth not beleeue al thinges were so done as is related in the booke of * Luther in sermonib cōuiualibus titul de Patriarchis Prophetis titul de libris veteris nouitestam Iob and further disgraceth the said booke by

vvhich I adjoine another euen of as great force to wit that in diuers points they obserue not the letter of holy Scripture contained in their owne Bibles I vvil exemplifie in some matters in particular And first if the letter of holy Scripture be so strictly to be obserued and al other groundes to be neglected as they imagine howe dare they eate bloud and strangled meates Is not this expresly forbidden in the Acts of the Apostles by the whole Councel of Hierusalem Act. 15. v. 29. in vvhich vvere present S. Peter and S. Iames Apostles vvith diuers others Where and when and by whome was this lawe repealed verily there is no mention of any such repeale in the vvord of God nor in any Ecclesiastical vvriter vvherefore Luther himselfe absolutely confesseth Luther lib. de Concilijs in Act. 15. Exod. 20. Deut. 5. v. 25 Math. 19 17 that either the Apostles them selues erred in this Councel or else that we al sinne in transgressing this lawe Moreouer did not God in the old lawe binde al men to obserue the ten Commandements and did not Christ in the newe lawe bid vs if we wil enter into life obserue the same Howe presume they then to breake the third commandement both in not keeping holy the day prescribed in holy Scripture which without al doubt is the Saturday and also in dressing on that day which they keepe meate and making of fire They cannot denie themselues in these matters to be faulty for they haue no warrant in the vvord of God in place of the Saturday to obserue the Sonday Only in one place of the Apocalipse mention is of the Dominical or our Lordes day Apoc. 1. v. 10 but it is only there said that S. Iohn on that day had a vision which maketh litle for them And therefore Field confesseth Booke 4. cap. 20. §. that the Apostles Exod. 20 9. Exod. 35 3. Num. 15 32. Exod. 12. Leuit. 23. v. 5 Num. 9. v. 11 Deu. 16 5. c Luther lib. de Concilijs Baleus l. 3. c. 25. Centur. 1. de scriptor Britā in Colman Wilfrido Powellus in thesibus de Adiaphoris cap. 3. Math. 26 17 Mar. 14 12. Luc. 22. v. 7. there is no precept found for this in the Scripture and saith the obseruation of it is an Apostolike tradition There is likewise a most expresse commandement in the Scripture that no manner of worke be done on the Sabaoth not so much as fire kindled vvherefore by the commandement of God a man vvas stoned to death for only gathering sticks on that day Further wherefore keepe they not Easter-day on the fourtenth day of the Moone of March as is prescribed in the old lawe and Christ himselfe obserued vvhat warrant haue they in the word of God otherwise to doe Verily in this also euen according to the censure of Luther they stray from the holy Scripture of vvhose opinion if I be not deceiued is likewise our countriman Iohn Bale Powel seemeth to make it a thing indifferent Wherefore also doe some of them binde their followers to haue one only wife at once Had not the Patriarkes and others of the old lawe diuers wiues at the same time And where finde they in the Scripture this liberty abridged among Christians Yea some of our English Sectaries seeme to confesse that in the primatiue Church it selfe some Christians had at once diuers wiues for in the Bible of the yeare 1589. 1592. and 1600. vpon those wordes of the Apostle * 1. Tim. 3 2. Tit. 1. vers 6. Bernard Ochinus lib. 2. Dialogo 21. pag. 200. It behoueth a Bishoppe to be irreprehensible the husband of one wife c. they make this note for in those countries at that time some men had more then one which was a signe of incontinency thus there vve reade Wherefore they seeme to grant that S. Paul only commanded Bishops to haue one only vvife at once not other Christians Yea this is expresly auerred by Bernardinus-Ochinus vvho writeth thus Paul forbiddeth Bishops and Deacons to haue many wiues to others he vertually graunteth it But in very truth the Apostle there ordereth that none be admitted to be Bishops that be Bigami that is to say that haue beene married to two wiues although to the one after the other and the aforesaid glosse is made by these men to helpe their Bishops and Ministers among vvhome some haue had two or three or more one after another contrary to this sentence of the Apostle And I must needes conclude that either they abridge Christian liberty as they tearme it in not suffering al except Bishops to haue diuers wiues at the same time or otherwise that they transgresse the word of God in admitting men twice married into their Clergie or vvhich is worse in suffering their Ministers and Bishops to marry as often as they please Luther in explicat Genes edit an 1525 in c. 16. Ienēs in propositionibus de Bigamia Episcop edit an 1528. propos 62. 65. 66. And of the first opinion seemeth Luther for he absolutely graunteth Poligamy that is to say the hauing of more vviues then one at once to be neither commanded nor forbidden in the Church of God but to be a thing indifferent a Musculus in epist Pauli ad Philip. Colos c. in 1. Tim. 3. p. 396 Musculus also thinketh it was tollerated in the Church in the Apostles daies and consequently in his judgement no Christians except Bishops are to be restrained from it I adde likewise that they commonly translate those wordes of God b Exod. 2. v. 4 Deuter. 5. Bible 1595. Non facies tibi sculptile thou shalt make thee no grauen Image and with c Zwinglius tom 2. in actis disput Tigur fol. 632. Zwinglius affirme them to containe an euerlasting precept and to binde as farre forth as those vvordes Thou shalt not kil Wherefore then allowe they of the pictures of men and other worldly creatures Is there any difference betweene such pictures and the Images of Christ and his Saints vvhich they vvil needes haue here forbidden as grauen Images Certainely there is no reason wherefore those should be allowed and these forbidden and therefore they haue no reason to exclaime against the pictures of Christ and his Saints except they wil vvith the Turkes generally disalowe of al pictures d Luther tom 4. in Michae cap. 1. fol. 69. Act. 19. c. Yea Luther himselfe thought it meete that Images should be placed in Churches and judged it a very barbarous and ignorant part to tollerate the pictures of men and beasts and to cast out of Churches the Images of our Sauiour and his beloued Saints I demaund also of them vvherefore they vse not in al places to giue the holy Ghost after baptisme by imposition of handes they cannot deny but this was practised continually by the Apostles for what almost is more often recorded in the acts of the Apostles

religion to wit Apostolike Traditions page 86. Sect. 1. Of Apostolike Tradition in general page 86. Sect. 2. Of vnwritten Traditions in particular page 91. Chap. 9. Of general Councels which make the third particular ground of Catholike religion page 97. Chap. 10. Of the decrees of the supreame visible Pastour of the Church which make a fourth particular ground of our faith and of other grounds hence proceeding page 108. Sect. 1. Containing a briefe explication or rehearsal of the Catholike doctrine concerning the Popes supreamacy page 108. Sect. 2. The aforesaid doctrine is proued page 113. Sect. 3. That the decrees of the Bishop of Rome when he teacheth the Church as supreame Pastour are of diuine and infallible authority and of some other groundes of faith flowing out of these page 127. Sect. 4. The opinion of some sectaries that the Pope is Antechist is briefly confuted and two objections against the premises are answered p. 133. Chap. 11. Of the consent of the auncient Fathers and the general doctrine of the Catholike Church in al ages page 140. Chap. 12. Containing the conclusion of the first part page 144. THE SECOND PART In which is proued that the newe sectaries build their faith vpon no diuine authority but that the ground of al their beliefe and religion is their owne judgement and consequently that they haue neither true faith nor religion CHAPTER 1. That by their doctrine they deny or at the least weaken the three principal and general groundes of Christian religion set downe in the three first chapters of the first part page 1. Section 1. The number of Atheists among them is great and of the causes by them giuen of this impiety page 1. Sect. 2. Of our aduersaries doctrine concerning the immortality of the soule heauen and hel page 8. Sect. 3. Of our aduersaries impious assertions concerning Christ and Christian religion page 12. Sect. 4. That in like sort they weaken the principal proofes of the said three groundes page 19. Chap. 2. The newe Sectaries debase the true Christian faith and in place of it extol a presumptuous faith by themselues inuented page 26. Chap. 3. That our aduersaries deny the infallible authority of the Church and affirme it to haue erred and perished page 30. Chap. 4. They reject al particular groundes of faith aboue assigned and proued to bee found in the Church of Christ besides the holy Scriptures page 32. Chap. 5. They build not vpon the holy Scripture and first that the bare letter of holy Scripture only is not a sufficient ground of Christian faith and religion page 47. Sect. 1. In which this is proued because by Scripture the Scripture it selfe cannot be proued Canonical It is also argued that according to the sectaries groundes there is no Canonical Scripture and some principal reasons especially inspiration of the spirit which they alleage for the proofe of such Scripture are refelled page 47. Sect. 2. In which the same argument is prosecuted and two things principally are proued First that the newe Testament receiueth smal authority if we beleeue our aduersaries by this that it was written by the Apostles and Disciples because they accuse them of errour Secondly because they confesse the text of Scripture to be corrupted p. 67. Sect. 3. The same is proued because euery Christian is bound to admit and beleeue certaine propositions neither expresly contained nor according to some mens judgements so euidently gathered out of the holy Scripture page 75. Sect. 4. The insufficiency of the bare letter of holy Scripture is proued by other arguments especially by this that the true interpretation cannot be infallibly gathered out of the letter page 78. Chap. 6. The newe Sectaries Bibles containe not the true word of God page 83. Sect. 1. In which this is first proued concerning al their Bibles in general page 83. Sect. 2. That Luther Zwinglius Caluin and Beza in particular haue corruptly translated the Scriptures page 84. Sect. 3. Our English sectaries also haue falsly and corruptly translated the Scriptures page 90. Sect. 4. Containing false translations against the authority of the Church Traditions honour of Images Purgatory and the honour of Saints page 92. Sect. 5. Of their corruptions against inherent Iustice Iustification by good workes Merit of good workes and keeping the Commandements and in defence of their special ●aith vaine Security c. and against Freewil and Merits page 94. Sect. 6. Of their false translations against the Real presence Priest-hood election of Bishops single life of Priests Penance and satisfaction for Sinne the Sacrament of Matrimony and some other points p. 96. Sect. 7. That the Professors of the newe religion in corrupting the Scriptures followe the steps of the auncient Heretikes and what followeth of this discourse page 101. Chap. 7. That they build not vpon the letter of holy Scripture contained as they say in their owne Bibles page 103. Sect. 1. In which this is proued first because the propositions which they tearme of their faith are not in expresse tearmes contained in the Scripture page 103. Sect. 2. The same argument is confirmed by the testimonie of some Protestants concerning the true sense of some wordes of Scripture alleaged for our Catholike doctrine touching justification in the Section before page 106. Sect. 3. The like discourse is made concerning a place of Scripture alleaged for the real presence page 114. Sect. 4. The followers of the newe religion in diuers matters obserue not the letter of their owne Bibles page 130. Chap. 8. In receiuing translating and expounding the holy Scriptures they only build vpon their owne fancies and judgement and that they haue no other ground page 134. Sect. 1. In which this is proued by their doctrine and dissention concerning the bookes of Canonical Scripture and their altering of the text of the same page 134. Sect. 2. The same is confirmed by their translations and expositions of holy Scripture page 141. Sect. 3. Concerning the newe exposition of those wordes This is my body in particular page 146. Sect. 4. That certaine rules prescribed by Field for the true vnderstanding of Scripture of themselues alone without the censure of the Church are insufficient to assure vs that our exposition made is of diuine truth page 149. Sect. 5. Concerning their deductions out of holy Scripture that they likewise are framed by them according to their owne fancies and of their accusations of one another touching these matters page 157. Sect. 6. The vnlearned and ignorant sectaries in receiuing and expounding the holy Scriptures likewise build vpon their owne fancies and judgements and haue no other ground of their faith and religion p. 161. Sect. 7. Of the miserable estate of the vnlearned and ignorant Sectaries page 166. Sect. 8. That the newe sectaries alleage Scriptures to confirme their new doctrine it is no certaine argument that they build their faith and religion vpon the said Scriptures page 172. Chap. 9. In which is proued by the newe Sectaries