Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	prove_v	scripture_n	write_v	2,163	5	5.9259	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A08329	The pseudo-scripturist. Or A treatise wherein is proued, that the wrytten Word of God (though most sacred, reuerend, and diuine) is not the sole iudge of controuersies, in fayth and religion Agaynst the prime sectaries of these tymes, who contend to maintayne the contrary. Written by N.S. Priest, and Doctour of Diuinity. Deuided into two parts. And dedicated to the right honorable, and reuerned iudges of England, and the other graue sages of the law.	S. N. (Sylvester Norris), 1572-1630.	1623 (1623)	STC 18660; ESTC S120360	119,132	166

thence runneth headlong into certaine deuiations by-wayes of most foul● errours 8. This answere salueth not the doubt for once grāting a true Iudge it followeth that this Iudge though depending of God is to haue authority in compounding of Controuersies absolutely infallible And the reason hereof is this for if his authority were not infallible then might it be inferred an absurditity little sorting to the sweet prouidence of God that the whole Church by force of such a delegated authority to it by God himselfe might be led into a generall errour since euen moral Philosophy and the light of reason assure vs that granting a Magistrate who may erre to haue publike authority in his censures and decrees then are the subiectes or inferiour persons who are interressed in the sayd definitions bound to imbrace those errours Which if they were not obliged to doe then should it follow that the Magistrates state were no better in defining then the subiects since they were not bound to stand to the cēsure of their Iudge but only when they did know his sentence to be euidently most true and consequently it might be likewise inferred that the Magistrate hath no power at all in defining and yet all Philosophy instructeth vs that euen in a point doubtfull where it is not euident the opinion of the Iudge to be clearly false the persons acknowledging obedience to the Iudge are in regard of the former reasōs obliged to follow his doubtfull definition though perhaps erroneous 9. To the former reason may be adioyned this following as is also afore touched That euen the light of reason teacheth vs that euery Iudge in any Court of Cōtrouersies ought to be such as all contēding parties without exception may for the appeasing of their debates haue easy accesse vnto him Which accesse is found to be in the Church but not in the Scripture from which it vnauoydably followeth that the Scripture cannot be this iudge whereunto ech mā is to repaire but that the church may be and is the sayd Iudge That euery man at his pleasure may come to the Church for resolutiō of doubts we see it is euident by the practise of all ages 10. But on the contrary part euery man that maintaineth different points of fayth hath not this freedome of comming to the Scripture for decision of his doubts for first there are diuers Christians who cannot as much as read the Scripture much lesse vnderstand it how can such men then expect to haue their Controuersies touching religion to be de●ermined by the wrytten word alone And as touching those others who can read yet is their cause little bettred therby seing many by their reading of the Scripture do strangely detort the true sense therof Yea we may obserue that diuers Nouellistes of different religions who are dayly cōuersant in the Scriptures endeauour euen from the self same passages of it by their false constructions to fortify their repugnant Doctrines And thus though the voyce of the holy Ghost in the wrytten word and the leter there read be but one yet through ech mans selfelike expositions it seemeth to speake as euery man would haue it by this meanes making the Scripture to be like vnto the tongue of S. Peter other the Apostles which being but one was notwithstanding heard in euery mans seuerall language 11. Another argument for the conuincing of this supposed Iudge may be drawne from the Doctrine of Traditions which haue euer bene maintayned by the auncient Fathers and the primitiue Church Which Doctrine if it be true then may we most consequently deduce from thence that the Scripture is not to iudge all questions of Fayth since the Doctrine of vnwrytten Traditions teacheth vs that all the articles and points of Christian Religion haue not their expresse proofe out of the Scriptures but that some of them are belieued only by force of Tradition and of the continued and vn-interrupted practise of Gods Church To enter into any exact proofe of this point of Traditions is improper to this place and would require a reasonable large Treatise alone and therfore I remit the Reader to such Catholike wryters (g) Hofi●e in 4. l. aduers Prolegomena Brentij Peresius initio operis sui do Traditionib Roffensis Canisius Bellarmin besides many others as haue most learnedly handled this subiect Only I wil here set downe and consequently proue the sayd Doctrine à posteriori certayne pointes of Christian Fayth which haue no cleare and conuincing proofes out of Scriptures and yet are belieued no lesse by the Protestāts themselues then by vs Catholikes 12. And first against the Anabaptistes both the Catholikes Lutheranes and Caluinistes do belieue that the baptisme of Infantes is lawfull and that they are not to be rebaptized after they come to ripenes of age which point as D. Field acknowledgeth terming it a Traditiō cā neuer be sufficiently and clearly proued by the Scriptures alone without the testimony of the practise of the church and force of Tradition as appeareth by the testimonies of the auncient Fathers for we find that Origen thus speaketh hereof in c. 6. epist ad Rom. Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit etiam paruulis baptismum dare In like sort Austin l. 10. de Genesi ad literam c. 23. Consuetudo matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis paruulis nequaquam spernenda nec omnino credenda est nisi Apostolica esset Traditio 13. D. Bancroft teacheth that Confirmation is an Apostolicall Tradition as appeareth in his conference before the King All we do belieue that our blessed Lady dyed a Virgin do account Heluidius an Heretike for houlding the contrary and yet no text of Scripture doth cōfirme it to vs but rather through misconstruction may seeme to insinuate the contrary in regard of those words Non cognouit virum donec peperit filium suum 14. D. Whitguift (h) In his defense pag. 539. acknowledgeth that now during the tyme of the new Testament we are to celebrate Easter vpon Sunday contrary to the custome of the Iewes a point of such moment euen in the primitiue Church that the maintainers of the cōtrary were then reputed for Heretikes and styled (i) Epiph. haeres 50. Aug. haeres 29. Tertul. de praescript Quartadecimani And yet for this change of obseruing Easterday we haue no warrant from the holy Scriptures but may say with Tertullian (k) De corona militis quod non prohibetur vltrò permissum est D. Couel in his booke of examination teacheth the word Archbishop to be a Tradition M. Hooker in his Eccles polic sect 7. p. 118. in generall defendeth the Doctrine of Traditions and answereth diuers testimonies out of the Fathers alledged by Carthwright and others 15. Againe both Catholikes and Protestantes doe belieue that there are certaine diuine wrytinges which are the true and vndoubted word of God and first penned by the holy Prophets Apostles and Euangelistes Yet we cannot conuincingly and demonstratiuely proue so

much out of the Scriptures themselues which point since it includeth within it selfe by necessary illation this question of the Scriptures being Iudge it shal be more fully discussed in the Chapter following Now of this poynt as also of the former belieued without the wrytten word warranting them we may say Harum (*) Tertull. de corona ●ilitis discipl●narum Traditio tibi praetenditur auctrix Consuetudo confirmatrix Fides obseruatrix 16. The last argument heere vrged for the refelling of our aduersaries Doctrine herein may be taken from the practise of both the auncient moderne heretickes who euer for the warranting of their heresies heresies I meane euen in the iudgment of our aduersaries haue euer fled to the Scriptures and haue most seriously taught therby to auoyde the authority of the Church that the Scriptures alone ought to Iudge defyne al doubtes of Fayth whatsoeuer And therfore to the end that the reader may see what wicked heresies haue bene proseminated and haue sprung from this so false and hereticall a principle I will exemplify this one point somewhat at large in a Chapter following there shewing how many diuelish heresies haue bene countenanced by their Patrones with the misapplyed testimonies and authorities of the holy Scriptures which abuse of the Scriptures well sheweth that the Doctrine hereof neuer proceeded from God (l) Tertull. de fuga in persecut Quid diuinum non bonum quid bonum non diuinum That it cannot be determined to vs by Scripture that there is any Scripture or Gods word at all CAAP. XI FOR the more particuler handling of this poynt I am to demaund of our aduersaries these three things following which are as it were the three steps wherby we ryse to the graduall difficulties of this question heere intreated of First how they can proue out of Scripture the particuler Ghospell of S. Marke or of any Euangelist to be the same without all corruption which the sayd Marke or the other did wryte considering that it is granted euen by our aduersaries that diuers parcels of the Scriptures haue bene fouly corrupted and mangled by the Additions Translations and other such like deprauations of the auncient heretikes Secondly if it be granted them that any one Ghospell or other part of Scripture is the very same vntoucht and vndefiled as the authour therof did first wryte it yet if we should demand of them how the Scripture can assure and determine this poynt to wit that such a Ghospell as for example that of S. Marke is true and Canonicall Scripture and yet that the obtruded Ghospell of S. Thomas is a false prophane wryting since both these Ghospells haue indifferently in the beginning their seuerall prefixed titles the one but of an Euāgelist yet accepted the other euen of an Apostle but reiected what could they say Thirdly if it were agreed vpō which were the particular books which maks vp the Canō of Scripture yet if any prophan Atheist should arriue to that height of impiety as to deny flatly that ther were any such diuine wrytinges at all as to be counted Gods sacred word or Scripture how could our Aduersaries conuince him herein by the Scripture it selfe It were idle for them to reply that the Scripture telleth him that the bookes of the Prophets and the Apostles are diuine wrytinges since the Atheist would not belieue the Scripture so saying vntill it were proued to him which cannot be out of the Scripture that this Scripture affirming so much is Scripture that is a diuine supernaturall and sacred wryting no more then at this present we Christians belieue that the Iewes Thalmud is diuine Scripture though it be countenāced with the title of Gods vndoubted word 2. This poynt so presseth our Aduersaries that diuers of them such as are of no meane ranke haue bene forced to confesse that it cannot be proued out of Scripture that there is any Scripture at all neyther that this Ghospell is true that forged nor lastly that we now enioy any one or other parcell of Scripture free from all manner of corruption and as the Prophet Euangelist or Apostle guided by the holy Ghost did first pen it Hence it is that Chemnitius (a) Examē Concil Trident. intreating of Tradition Brentius (b) In prolegomenis do teach that this one sole vnwrytten Tradition remayneth in the Church of God to wit that there are certaine diuine wrytings or Scriptures But Hooker (c) In his treatise of Ecclesiasticall policy in treating of this poynt passeth on further and iumpeth with vs in the reason thereof for thus he sayth Of thinges necessary the very chiefest is to know what bookes we are bound to esteeme holy which poynt is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach And then afterwardes he warranteth his Doctrine with this reason For if any bookes of Scripture did giue testimony vnto all yet still that Scripture which giueth credit vnto the rest would require another Scripture to giue credit vnto it neyther could we euer come to any pause wheron to rest our assurance this way so that vnles besides Scripture there were something which might assure vs that we do well we could not thinke we do well no not in being assured that Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of weldoing So farre we see this learned Protestant whose calamity is the more to be deplored in that retayning diuers Catholike grounds he forbare to build a fayth answere able therto was from making the Scripture to be the sole iudge and vmpier of all articles of Fayth since by his Doctrine the Scripture could not determine out of itselfe that there is any Scripture at all which is the Basis or foundation of the rest by our aduersaryes owne assertions 3. Others of our aduersaries who will not acknowledge the truth in this point labour to salue the matter with diuers weake and insufficient answeres And first we find that Caluin (d) l. 1. Instit c. 7. §. 1. 2. sayth That the true and holy Scriptures are discerned from the false and prophane with the same facility that light is discerned from darknes and sweetnes from bitternes Which answere if it were true how came it to passe then that Luther reiecteth the Epistle of S. Iames which Caluin himselfe reuerenceth as Apostolicall both of them being able to discerne the materiall light from darknes the sweet from sower 4. The same Caluin whom our more moderne Sectaries in most points do follow as beasts follow the first of their heard affirmeth also That the maiesty voice of God doth so present it self to vs in the sacred Scriptures as that it secureth vs of the infallible truth therof Against which first I vrge that the Maiesty voyce of God speaking in the Scripture is not distinguished frō the Scripture it self but is the same euē as the Cōmandemēt of a Prince expressed in his law is the same which his law

of Scripture which do precisely touch any poynt of Chrystian religiō are most free from all such escapes This answere faileth seuerall wayes 8. First because we are bound by the Protestantes owne principles to beleeue nothing with is not expressed in the Scriptures But we read not in any place or text of them that God will euer preserue his wrytten word free from all corruptions in essentiall poynts of Christian fayth and yet suffer it to be generally depraued in matters of lesser moment Neyther can it be replyed that God sweet prouidence and care ouer his Church requireth that the Scripture be free from all such mayne corruptions This I say cannot satisfy vs Catholikes who do teach that Gods pouidence and care towards his Church doth not chiefly consist in preseruing his wrytten word since fayth for which end the Scripture was first wrytten may be preserued in the Church only by externall preaching and force of tradition and answerably hereunto we read that the church of God in the time of Nature for the space of 2000. yeares enioyed no Scripture or writtē word at al in like sort Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. wryteth that there were some Christian countries which belieued and liued well only by helpe of Traditions without any wrytten word 9. Secondly it is false that the sayd corruptions doe chance only in such places of indifferency as concerne not doubts of fayth since the contrary is manifest to omit diuers others which might be alledged by the two former produced examples out of S. Matthew (k) cap. 10. and S. Luke (l) cap. 22. where we see that the corruptions wherwith our Aduersaries do charge these two texts do fall iust vpō the touch and point of two chiefest Cōtrouersies of this time to wit the Supremacy of Peter and the Reall Presence 10. Thirdly if by our Aduersaries acknowledgment all the Originalls now extant are corrupted in places not pertaining to matters of fayth how can we be infallibly assured that they are not in like sort corrupted in texts of Controuersies of this tyme or of such doubts as hereafter may ryse Since a certainty of an errour in one place doth imply a possibility of errour in any other place And yet this infallibility we ought to haue for otherwise we build our fayth vpon such passages of Scripture which we doe but thinke only to be the true and vncorrupted word of God and consequently it is not fayth that is builded only vpon a bare morall persuasion of the Scriptures integrity And if this be not so let our Aduersaries shew some priuiledge warrāt which the Scritpture hath to be freed from the corruptions of one kind more then of another If they say that the Analogy of fayth expressed therin doth demonstrate that it is not corrupted in any such fundamentall places this is ridiculous for seing that fayth by our Aduersaries grounds riseth only out of the Scripture and in that respect is quiddā posterius tempore naturâ as the Philosophers say that is later both in tyme and nature then the Scriptures as afore is shewed therefore it followeth that the Analogy of fayth cannot be the square or rule to measure the integrity incorruptiō of the Scriptures therby but it selfe is measured by the Scriptures euen by their owne principles 11. And thus much to discouer the weakenes of their first answere made to our Argument drawne from theyr acknowledged corruptions of the Originalls of both the Testaments Or will they frame a second answere to the sayd argument saying that though the Originalls be corrupted yet there are certaine translations allowed by them which are most pure and agreable to the first Originalls before they were corrupted by these al doubts and Controuersies of fayth and religion are to be determined This shift is more feeble then the former first because it was impossible how the corrupted Originalls should be corrected in their translations there not being in the Protestants iudgments in the vniuersall world any one true copy by the which their translations might be amended since all translations now remaining were lōg after any true Originall was to be found the vulgar Latin and the 70. only excepted Secondly this answere satisfyeth not in that there is no one translation made in Greeke Latin or our vulgar tongue but our Aduersaries do tax it with errours and corruptions Which poynt shall most euidently and particularly be made manifest in the Chapters following 12. Thus we see how forcible and vnanswerable is our reason drawne from their confessed corruptions of their Originalls for the conuincing of this their imaginary iudge of Controuersies One thing only heere is to be remembred that where in the former Chapters not only the Protestants but also the Catholikes do hould th● present Originalls of both the Testaments for corrupted that this assertion though proceeding alike from them both doth mightily preiudice the Protestants but the Catholikes nothing at all Not vs in that we acknowledge the vulgar Latin translation which is altogether reiected by our aduersaries to be most sincere and agreable to the true Originalls afore their corruption And hereby we maintaine that we haue and enioy the true Scriptures But the Protestants are disaduantaged by their former assertion because they refuse not only all Originalls now to be had as impure and contaminated but also all translations and consequently hauinge in their iudgments no true Scripture at all they cannot prostitute the Scripture for their Iudge of Controuersies That the Protestantes reiect the Septuagint Translations as erroneous CHAP. IV. NOw followeth heere to set downe the dislike which our Aduersaries do beare to all the Translations of the holy Scripture And first we are to begin with the famous translation of the Septuagint who being Hebrewes borne translated the old Testament out of Hebrew into Greeke This translation was so generally applauded by the auncient Fathers (a) Irenaeus Euseb Clemēs Alexandrinus Epiphan Chrysost Tertull. Aug. and the rest as that they did ioyntly pronounce the said 70. to be guided particularly by the Holy Ghost in that their translation And yet our Aduersaries do reiect it in many places as false and erroneous and euen there where they cannot pretend the least suspitiō of any corruptiō And intending to shew some few places therof disalowed by them for to particularize all were ouer laboursome I will restraine my selfe only to such texts as do belong to some particular Controuersy of this time wich course I will also hould for the most part in the other translations heere following That therby it may the more clearly appeare how insufficient all translatiōs are for the decyding of Controuersies when their presumed corruptions are found to rest principally in the texts vrged for the confirming or disproofe of the questions cōtrouerted at this present 2. And first concerning that text which toucheth our Sauiours descending into Hell the Septuagint doe trāslate Thou (b) Psal 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉