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
A66243	A plain defence of the Protestant religion, fitted to the meanest capacity being a full confutation of the net for the fishers of men, published by two gentlemen lately gone over to the Church of Rome. Wherein is evidently made appear, that their departure from the Protestant religion was without cause of reason. Written for publick good by L. E. a son of the Church of England, as by law established.	L. Ė.; Wake, William, 1657-1737, attributed name.	1687 (1687)	Wing W251A; ESTC R221936	36,083	64

before there was no chief over the rest Of Oral Tradition PA. 55. Oral and Apostolical Tradition without written Books either was the means of Planting and Conserving the Christian Religion or it was not Pro. It was not Pa. If not how did the Apostles propagate the Faith of Christ without written Books Pro. They did not but in propagating the Faith they always appealed to the Scriptures of the Old Testament they indeed taught the Christian Doctrine by word of Mouth before they committed it to Writing but that was no Tradition handed from Father to Son which is the Tradition you plead for Pa. 56. The number of the Canonical Books are mentioned in Scripture or they are not Pro. They are not Pa. If not how do you know the Canonical Books but by Oral Tradition Pro. By written Tradition the Testimony of all Ages in their Writings Pa. 57. The Christians of the Primitive Age on pain of Damnation held nothing for Faith but what they had received from Christ and his Apostles for such or they did not Pro. They did Pa. Why then do you deny Tradition Pro. We do not deny all Tradition but we affirm that Tradition is not as the Council of Trent affirms of equal Authority with the written Word but the Primitive Christians received their Faith from Christ and his Apostles by means of the Scriptures not by means of unwritten Tradition Pa. 58. Apostolical Tradition is the Rule by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrine Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote or else not Pro. If you can shew us any Apostolical Tradition and prove it to be such we will own it but for unwritten Tradition it is not the Rule Pa. If not how otherwise can we be assured Pro. What Doctrine Christ taught we can be assured by the Scriptures what Books the Apostles wrote we can be assured by Universal written Tradition the greatest Historical Evidence but not by unwritten Of the Eucharist PA. 59. That natural Body and Blood which Christ offered upon the Cross for the remission of Sins it was the same which Christ gave to his Apostles or it was not Pro. If you mean that material Body and Blood it was not Pa. Why do you then deny that Scripture of St. Luke 22. 19. This is my Body which shall be given for you and that Matt. 26. 20. This is the Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many for the Remission of Sins Pro. Why do you falsify the words of St. Luke and St. Matthew their Words are This is my Body which is given for you and This is my Blood which is shed for many not which shall be and we deny not the Words of the Evangelists but we deny the real Presence you assert because Christ spake here of his real figurative Sacramental Body not of his real natural Pa. 60. Christ either gave his Body and Blood to his Apostles at his last Supper or he did not Pro. He did Pa. Why then do you deny the real Presence Pro. We do not deny a real Presence but a natural Corporal Presence we do we affirm Christ to be present really and sacramentally but not naturally in the Body and Blood on which he hung upon the Cross according to that of St. Austin in Psal. 98. You shall not eat that Body which was Crucified nor drink the Blood which was shed upon the Cross. Pa. 61. When Christ said This is my Body did he speak Metaphorically or not Pro. He did Pa. If he did prove the Metaphor out of Scripture Pro. So we do both from the words of the Institution and the parallel places of Scripture 1. From the Words of the Institution This is my Body either those words are to be understood in a Metaphorical Sense or they are not if not then they are to be understood in a litteral if they are then they are a Metaphor If they are to be understood in a litteral Sense then they are either true in that Sense or they are not If they are not then Christ was a Lyar which is Blasphemy if they are true in a litteral Sense then the Bread is Christs Body or it is not if it is not then those words This is my Body are false if it be then an Impossibility is true for your own Authors confess that it is impossible that the Bread should be the Body of Christ litterally Gra. de Consec dist 2. c. 55 But an Impossibility cannot be true therefore the Bread is not Christs real Body If it be not Christs real Body they cannot be taken in a litteral Sense therefore they must be taken in a Metaphorical 2. From the Parallel places of Scripture when Christ says I am a Vine it is a Metaphor when he says I am a Door it is a Metaphor when he says I am a way it is a Metaphor when he says this is the Cup of the New Testament it is a Metaphor These are parallel Places of Scripture all Metaphors therefore This is my Body is a Metaphor too According to Theodoret. Dial. immutab he who called himself a Viae called the Sign his Blood. Pa. 62. The blessed Body of Christ not being contained in the Bread can be eaten or it cannot Pro. That Body which is not contained there viz. His Natural Body cannot be eaten but his Sacramental Body which is Spiritually there may therefore we do not maintain that we eat the Body which is not contained in the Bread but that which is therewith given to the Faithful we do eat Pa. Doth it not imply a great contradiction seeing you hold the Body is eaten in the Eucharist and not eaten in the Eucharist Pro. No. We do not say his Body is not eaten we affirm it is but not Carnally but Spiritually so that it is eaten by the Faithful not eaten by the unworthy receiver to maintain as you do that it is eaten and not eaten at the same time by the same person would be a contradiction but it is none to affirm that it is eaten by the worthy and not eaten by the unworthy receiver Of Liturgy in an unknown Tongue PA. 63. That which the Apostles practised is either lawful for us to practise or it is not Pro. Every thing they practised is not lawful for us to practise for some things they did which their Extraordinary Office warranted which is not Lawful for us to do but every thing they practised as private Christians is lawful for us to practise Pa. If it be why do you deny the Lawfulness of the Liturgy in an unknown Tongue seeing the Apostles had their publick Liturgies in Greek Syriack and Latin. Pro. We do not deny the Lawfulness of Liturgies in any Tongue but we deny the Lawfulness of using them among and imposing them upon a People who understand not the Language they are in And though I deny the Liturgies you speak of to have been extant in the times of the Apostles

true Prophet or he is not Pro. He is Pa. If he be how then can the Gates of Hell prevail against the Church Seeing he prophesied in St. Matt. 16. 18. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her Pro. The Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church nor never shall that is they shall not prevail against the whole Church but against any particular Church as the Church of Rome they may and have prevailed But here as in the rest of your Queries you beg the question supposing the Church of Rome to be the only Church of Christ. Pa. 44. The Holy Ghost suggesteth all truth to the Church or it doth not Pro. It doth Pa. If it doth then it will suggest no Errors Pro. It will not But that doth not hinder but it may permit Satan to suggest Errors to a particular Church this you will allow and therefore to the Church of Rome which is but a particular Church Pa. 45. Christ was a wise Man or he was not Pro. He was Pa. Why then did he build his House upon the Sand and make it subject to the infernal Tempests Pro. He did not build his House upon the Sand nor did he make it subject that is he did not subject it to the infernal Tempests but he made it liable to them yet still he defeats their force and though he suffers them to overthrow some outer parts of it yet the House it self shall never be overthrown Pa. 46. A Congregation of People in dispising Christ are guilty of Apostasie or they are not Pro. If they were People that professed Christ before then they are guilty of Apostasie in despising him but not else if they never Professed Christ they are guilty of horrible Sin but not of Apostasie Pa. If they be how can you clear your selves of Apostasie in despising his Church seeing it is said in Scripture Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you heareth me c. Pro. We do not despise the Church it is you despise her by teaching so many things contrary to her Doctrine as we are ready to prove Pa. 47. Your Church is guilty of Heresie or she is not Pro. She is not Pa. If not how doth the Definition of Heresie agree with you in adhering to so many singular and private Opinions and Errors of Faith contrary to the general approved Doctrine of the Catholick Church Pro. It doth not agree at all to us we teach no such private and singular Opinions the Doctrines we teach are the received Doctrines of the Catholick Church but it agrees very well to you whose Doctrines wherein we dissent from you are such private and singular Opinions and contrary to the received Doctrine of the Catholick Church and this we will at any time prove Pa. 48. Your Church is guilty of Schism or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. How then doth the Definition of Schism agree with you in dividing your selves from the Body of all Faithful Christians and in breaking Communion with the Antient Apostolick Catholick Roman Church Pro. It doth not agree to us we made no such Division we indeed divided our selves from the corrupt Roman Church but we never divided from the Ancient Apostolick Church but you did and this I am ready to make good See here again you beg the question and suppose the Roman Church the only Church of Christ which is the point in Controversie and you can never prove Pa. 49. That Church to which Apostasie Heresy and Schism agree is a false Church or she is not Pro. She is Pa. Then your Church is a false Church seeing they so aptly agree with her Pro. They do not agree with her but rather with you as I have proved Therefore she is no false Church Pa. 50. All that which the Ancient holy Catholick Roman Church holds as Articles of Faith is pious good and lawful Pro. All that the Ancient holy Catholick Church held is pious good and lawful and so is all that the Ancient holy Roman Church held for she held nothing but what the Catholick Church held but all that the present Roman Church holds is not pious good and lawful Pa. I prove it is out of holy Writ and by common Sense and Reason Pro. Both holy Writ and common Sense and Reason are against you but go on Of the Popes Supremacy PA. 51. The Foundation of the Church of God next after Christ was builded upon St. Peter or it was not Pro. It was no more builded on St. Peter than upon the other Apostles Pa. Why then doth the Scripture say Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church Pro. Christ says not there that he will build his Church upon the Person of Peter but upon the Confession that he had before made vers 16. Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God which is the Foundation of the Christian Religion so St. Austin explains it Aug. trac 10. in 1 John What means this saith he vpon this Rock will I build my Church Upon that Faith upon that which is said Thou art the Christ seeing then Christ did not build his Church on Peter more than the other Apostles we with good reason deny his Supremacy Pa. 52. Christ did prefer Peter before the other Apostles or he did not Pro. He did not give Peter any Preference of Order or Power more than to the other Apostles Pa. If he did not why did he say to Peter only John 21. 16 17 18 feed my Lambs feed my Sheep Pro. He did not say it to Peter only St. Austin tells us Aug. de ago Christ. c. 30. when it is said unto Peter Feed my Sheep it is said unto all and St. Amb. Lib. de Sacerd. which Sheep and Flock St. Peter did not receive alone but we all received them with him Seeing then here was no Prerogative given to Peter but what the rest of the Apostles and all Pastors received we have good reason to deny his Supremacy Pa. 53. The Apostles were of equal Authority or they were not Pro. They were Pa. If they were why have you Primates Archbishops Bishops and no equal Authority as they had Pro. The Question is impertinent all Archbishops are of equal Authority in their own Provinces All Bishops are of equal Authority in their respective Dioceses So that we have an equal Authority But as Bishops were under the Apostles and Presbyters under them so we have the same degrees but for the Office of an Apostle that is no longer in the Church Pa. 54. To whom the chief Charge of feeding Christs Sheep was given he was chief of the Apostles or he was not Pro. He was Pa. Why then do you deny Peter's Supremacy to whom the chief charge was committed Pro. The chief Charge was not committed to him therefore we deny his Supremacy And although I acknowledged that if the chief Charge had been given to any he had been Chief yet seeing it was given to none as I proved