Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
doctrine_n apostle_n church_n primitive_a 4,139 5 9.1134 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A62014 The XXXVI questions propounded for resolution of unlearned Protestants in matter of religion to the doctors of the prelaticall pretended reformed-Church of England, retorted for resolution on unlearned papists in matter of religion, to V.H. and V.N. doctors of the pretended Catholick Church of Rome / by T. Svvadlin ... Swadlin, Thomas, 1600-1670. 1659 (1659) Wing S6228; ESTC R38289 40,246 62

There are 4 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

never simpler men for gifts nor worse-disposed men for attempts And now against this Council against us we oppose four Councils for us against you The second of Ephesus the second of Constantinople that of Eliberis and the fourth of Carthage The great Council of Lateran I conceive it alledged for the matter of Transubstantiation and here I note the Antiquity of this Council It was called in the Year 1215. so old is Transubstantiation no older and against this we oppose all Councils and Fathers silence before and before all the institution of Christ himself who sayes The flosh profiteth no thing my words are spirit and the Exposition of this Institution of all Writers until this Council The Council of Constance I conceive it alledged for communion in one kind against which I need not say more than what Gelasius Bishop of Rome it self said Sine grandi Sacrilegio fieri non potest it was high Sacriledge to do it unless you will give me leave to adde Christs own Precept Drink you all of this all Laity as well as Clergy The Council of Florence I conceive it alleadged for Purgatory called Anno 1438. and if I am right in this Contecture I need not say more then what A●phonsus à Castro l. 8. adv Heres verbo Indulgentia hath said the mention of Purgatory in ancient writers is almost none at all and if you will be pleased to name any one Father save Origen untill St. Gregory the Great his time that is direct for Purgatory I shall not much stand upon it since I think it will not much hinder any mans Salvation to believe it or disbelieve it for my part I neither do nor dare nor will believe it The Council of Trent called Anno 1563. I conceive it alleadged for all differences whatsoever betwixt the Romans and Protestants which Council if you can prove was either lawfull generall or free which I yet positively deny in each I shall sit down and in this Council I tell you were not many Holy Patriarchs Metropolitans Archbishops Bishops not one of the Eastern Church and you know the reason of it too For proofes of Learning if the Church of England be not comparable to you in number she hath exceeded you in weight and that this world knowes and you have felt and now you by your policy make the Churchmen of England smart for it For your universall esteem of Sanctity with your Gregory Beda Thomas Bonaventure Antonine Dominick to avoide some stories of some of them The Church of England can produce as great a Cloud of witnesses by the Verdict of all unbyassed men in an Andrewes a Bucheridge a Laud a Montague a Hall a Prideaux and diverse others before them a Jewell a Whitgift a Cranmer a Latimer a Ridley Speak not too much of your zelous passing into barbarous Nations to convert them lest the Indean be brought out of Love with Heaven if the Roman go thither And for our Ministry with their Wives Goods and Families we have little left thanks to you or some as bad as you they can apply themselves to Study and Devotion as well and with less sin then your single Clergy and retired Religions Boast not too much of your unanimous consent untill your Dominicans and Franciscans be at peace about the immaculate Conception of the blessed Virgin untill your Jesuites and Dominicans be at peace about the Aids and Operations of Grace untill Bannes and Lessius be at peace in the sad point of absolute Reprobation untill your Doctors of Sorbon and Lovaine be at peace about the Popes Supremacy untill Venice and Rome be all at peace about the Popes power untill the French and Spanish Papists be at peace about an equality of Subjection to the Pope untill 〈◊〉 ●regory the first and Gregory the seventh be by some 〈◊〉 your selves reconciled about the Title of Vniversalis Episcopus untill all of you be reconciled about the Popes infallibility untill all and every one of you tell the world whether Translation of the Bible by Sextus the first or Clement the eight be the best cum multis aliis quae nunc perscribere longum est For miracles to confirm our Doctrine against yours we need none untill you by a new miracle turne Rome as it is into Rome as it was and then we all meet in an incomparable Authority of one Catholick Church Whether hence be not evidently discovered not onely the insufferable Pride of Luther Quest 31 and the other Originall beginners of any Sect in Protestancy in preferring their sole Authority before that of the Prelates and Doctors of all the visible Churches in Christendom existent when they begun first to preach their Doctrine but the extreme madness of all the ignorant Laity who followed them upon their sole Authority and preferred one single person upon his bare word without any extraordinary signes or manifest proofes from Heaven attesting his Authority before all the Doctors Prelates Councils Churches within the precincts of Christendom both of that present time and for 900. years before And if those were infected with so deep a frensie how can any man be adjudged deservedly discreet and prudent who approves of their proceedings in this particular and sides with them at least in some Article of other in the opposition of the whole Christian world as all Protestants do even to this day Rarely spoken Answ 31 and a fair way to catch birds The insufferable Pride of Luther if he were guilty of it let him answer for it and all other Originall beginners of any Sect in Protestancy Sir it is very well known who said This Sect is every where spoken against yet for all that that very Sect over-spread it self and conquered the whole world and this very Sect of Protestancy hath put a fair beginning to the Conquest of the Roman Doctrine which though now like that Sect under the ten Persecutio● 〈◊〉 somewhat eclipsed hath yet so much light left as to discerne between all the visible Churches in Christendom all Doctors Prelates Councils Churches within the precincts of Christendom and the present Roman and claim none for our beginners but Christ and his Apostles the four Generall Councils and the Primitive Fathers and the Church of Rome it self as it was when it was Catholick and therefore think they are to be judged deservedly discreet and prudent who approve our present Doctrines with the whole Christian world and desert the present Roman Hence I farther demand Quest 32 That seeing on one side the true Christian Religion having the divine Wisdom for its Authority cannot admit of any thing imprudent as properly belonging to it in the choyce of it and on the other side That the Protestant Religion or any Sect whatsoever sprung from it or existent in it cannot be prudently chosen by any unlearned person who is sufficiently informed of the nullity of that Authority which propounds it compared with the Authority propounding the Roman Religion whether I say those
by the first Authors of the Protestant Religion Quest 9 and the second done and still continued by their followers Or if the first Authors of Protestant Religion received those points of their Doctrine from any visible Church in the whole World which existed immediately before their relinquishing the Roman Doctrine let that Church be produced and named Sir Answ 9 this Question desires another Question for answer what do you mean by whether the first was not done by the first Authors of the Protestant Religion If you mean insolent madnesse insufferable height of pride for any Christian whatsoever to call in question much more to censure and condemn as erroneous that which all the visible Churches in the World taught and Practised With your good leave you must name the first Authors and what it was they censured and condemned and so you must explain what followes and the second done and still continued by their followers if you meane manifest foolery to follow any Teachers and to give eare and belief to them who contradict the universall Practise and Doctrine of the whole Christian World You must name that universall Doctrine and Practise of the whole Christian World and how we have contradicted it else you fight with the wind and say nothing For the rest of this ninth Question to produce and name that visible Church from whence we have received those points of Doctrine which existed immediately before we relinquished the Roman Doctrine the Roman Church it self is named and named thus Antiquam Romam non Anglia Roma reliquit Anglia non Romam Britannes Roma repellit Do but return to the old Roman Doctrine in the Primitive and Catholick Constitution of it and we are friends till then Farewell Seeing Protestants affirm Quest 10 that the Roman Church is infected with errors in faith which they pretend to have purged in their Reformation I demand that it be evidenced when any of those pretended errors began to be publickly taught and Practised out of some approved Authors of any Age who affirm that the publick profession of the said errors begun in or about their times for seeing they were publickly Practised through all Christendom if that publick Practise had ever begun in any Age since the Apostles it must have been taken notice of whereby their instances of Consumption of the Lungs of a beard growing white c. are shewed to be nothing to the purpose because they are either wholly secret or insensible and no way publick or notorious as these were and seeing faith by St. Paul Eph. 4. v. 1 3. is said to be one and reckoned up with the Unity of God and Christ and so must be perfectly one how Protestants and those of the Roman Church be properly said to have one Faith when the one believes what the other disbelieves And as opinions contradicting one another cannot be said to be one opinion how can Faiths contradicting one another be said to be one Faith Neither is it enough to say that they are one in that wherein they agree for so they will be one onely in part or partially and not absolutely and entirely and as the least difference destroys the perfect Unity of God and Christ so will it do that of Faith and though my opinion agree with that of another in many things but disagrees in many other from his we can never be said absolutely as it must be in Faith to be of the same and one opinion Dolosus versatur ●i●ca universalibus Answ 10 your arguing by universalls and yet requiring particular answers argues you to be deceiptfull and to seek for Triumph more then Truth yet that people may be undeceived I shall follow your universalls with my particulars and though I could pay you with your own coyne in saying while the good man slept the en●●ous man sowed Tares yet I pay you in more current coyne and say Protestants affirm not that the Roman Church is infected with errors in Faith and yet we say there are manifest and clear errors in the Roman Church which we purged and when some of your Errors not pretended but reall Errors begun thus is evidenced Purgatory was never publickly taught by the whole Christian Church and never decreed by the Roman Church it self untill the Elorentine Council 1439. Transubstantiation was never publickly taught by the whole Christian Church nor allowed or decreed by the Roman Church it self untill the Laterane Council 1215. Worshipping of Images was never publickly taught nor allowed or decreed untill the second Nicene Council 787. Communion in one kind not above 200. yeares Supremacy of the Pope was condemned by St. Gregory himself lib. 1. Ep. 16. Anno 600. for Antichristian For your Consumption in the Lungs and a Beard growing white I think with you they are nothing to the purpose whether yours or ours nor is it to my purpose to be satisfied with the colour of your Beard whether it be blew or yellow To your Text of St. Paul Eph. 4. v. 1 2. I confesse Faith is said to be one and believe you believe that you of the Roman and we of the English Church have both but one Faith whether you take it for the Rule of Faith the Creed If you have a new Creed we leave you or the end of Faith Salvation if you have any other end we leave you or the meanes of that Faith and Salvation Christ If you have any other means we leave you still and for your contradicting opinions I tell you it is a lame similitude to bring in thereby contradicting Faith for though you and I agree but partially in points of opinion yet we agree entirely in point of Faith Whether it be not a great Argument Quest 11 to induce any rationall indifferent man to judge that the Protestant Authors are put to great straits and to desperate acknowledgments which being ashamed of the first refuge of their beginners in dying for the defence of their succession to an invisible Church in alleadging for their Predecessors and continuance of the visibility of their Church Berengarius the Waldenses Albigerses Wicklifsts Hussits and other publickly condemned Hereticks they confesse now that they have no other means to save their visible Succession but by acknowledging that they succeed to the Church of Rome and other Churches adjoyning with her against them in all the points of difference betwixt them and her and all those who are united to her to be true Churches of Christ and consequently to hold no fundamentall Error at all and consequent to this to acknowledge that their first Authors and Churches both in England and other Countries wronged the Church of Rome and those others insufferably first in condemning them of Superstition Idolatry Antichristianisme c. Which are fundamentall Errors in Religion and destructive of Salvation Secondly upon this pretext in destroying burning and alienating to secular uses so many thousands of their Churches Monasteries Townes Cities Castles Villages Thirdly in Massacrating and
a meer Ceremony should not be fundamental Or lastly what reason there is to say that Laying on of hands hath a neerer connexion to the radical and prime mysteries of our Faith then many other points controverted betwixt Protestants and those of the Roman Church Whether by Laying on of hands here is intended Confirmation which to be a Sacrament properly so taken Answ 17 will be hard for you to prove but not hard for me to grant that it is Sacramentale quoddam and yet not Sacramentum for want of visibile signum invisibilis gratiae and yet hard again for you to make it a foundation the use whereof is not disbelieved or rejected by us No the disuse of it is lamented and let them answer it who have caused it Yes and Laying on of hands in the Administration of Holy Orders is used by all those who are ordained Episcopally and yet no Sacrament for all that though we confess it a foundation quoad Ecclesiastices not quoad Ecclesiam Why Annointing with Oyle mentioned by St. James should not be a fundamental point you might have told your self without demand from others because the Epistle of St. James and some other Books were not received into the Canon of the Scripture untill some time after the Foundation was laid Nor is Laying on of hands esteemed by Protestants a Ceremony not Sacramentall nor is it by St. Paul termed the Foundation and substance of the Eucharist We all you and we hold the Eucharist to be a Sacrament and not onely Sacramentall but Fundamentall that is Inadultis Nor do I remember that I ever read that Laying on of hands hath a nearer connexion to the radicall and prime Mysteries of our Faith unless onely in Ecclesiasticis then many other points controverted betwixt Protestants and those of the Roman Church It is yet further demanded Quest 18 seeing Protestants affirm that the whole Catholick visible Church may erre in the definition of points of Faith not fundamentall and seeing that they affirm that the points in difference betwixt us are not fundamentall and so not necessary to Salvation and lastly seeing they affirm also that the Scriptures may be obscure in points not necessary to Salvation by what means can they ever think to convince the Roman Church of Error in these points of difference betwixt them and her Sir Answ 18 with your favour Protestants do not affirm that the whole Catholick Church can erre in Doctrines absolutely fundamentall and necessary to all mens Salvation for so we should destroy an Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church which consists of Triumphant souls as well as Militant men but that this or that visible Church or the whole visible Church and Catholick as limitted to visible may erre in the definition of points not fundamentall yes and fundamentall too Protestants do affirm and the reason is because the whole visible Church consists of men and men when they are at best are subject to Error Nor do Protestants affirm the points in difference betwixt you and them to be not fundamentall or unnecessary to Salvation for some of them are so fundamentall and necessary to Salvation to you and such learned men as you are that unless you leave them you will hardly finde the way to Heaven take one for all and let the Merit of your own works be it and see if your sharing with Christ in earning a part of your Salvation will not lose you the whole and so by this the rest of this Question is answered and the Roman Church convinced of Error in points of difference betwixt them and her Seeing also that every point of Faith is a Divine Truth Quest 19 proceeding from the Revelation of God and to be believed as I suppose for the present with the common consent of Protestants with an infallible assent of Faith if the universall visible Church may erre and the Scripture may be obscure as is generally affirmed by our Adversaries in points of Faith not fundamentall how shall such points as are in Controversie betwixt us and are accounted by Protestants not fundamentall or not necessary to Salvation be discerned to be points of Faith or how agreed this Modern Protestant Doctrine of no difference betwixt us in points necessary to Salvation which that of their beginners and more antient Predecessors who taught that the Scriptures were clear onely in all points necessary to Salvation and upon that pretext both affirmed that our Doctrines against them were clearly convinced of falsehood by the Authority of sole Scripture and allowed all Lay-people promiscuously to read them as being clear to them in all the points controverted betwixt us for this manifestly supposes that they were held by those beginners to be points of Faith necessary to Salvation or fundamentals Or what means is there to believe them as points of Faith seeing they can never be believed infallibly upon the Churches Authority by reason of her pretended fallibility in them nor expresly for the Authority of Scripture by reason of its obscurity in the delivery of them according to the principles of Protestants That every point of Faith as divine Truth Answ 19 proceeding from the Revelation of God if you are not equivocall in that expression is to be believed is granted but whether as you suppose with a common consent of Protestants with an infallible assent of Faith I cannot say for if by infallible assent you mean a full assurance or great confidence I can tell you Protestants are not so bold we confess assurance to be the effect of a strong Faith we affirm it not to be the Essence of all Faith If the universall visible Church may erre and the Scriptures may be obscure as is generally affirmed by out Adversaries in points of Faith not fundamentall how shall such points as are in Controversie betwixt us and are accounted by Protestants not fundamentall or not necessary to Salvation be discerned to be points of Faith How the universall visible Church may erre I told you in the former and how the Scriptures may be obscure and to whom I tell you in this Protestants do not generally affirm them obscure in points not fundamentall though if they did it were nothing to the purpose in points controverted betwixt us That Scriptures are the Rule of Faith which is fundamental is by Protestants affirmed That the Scriptures are easie and plain to all sorts of men learned and unlearned which use the means and are diligent in reading them is likewise affirmed when they are obscure to any they are obscure to them onely who have not eyes enlightned to see into them they who have humble and diligent souls will soon discern which be and which be not points of Faith How our predecessor and modern Protestants agree need no further demonstration then what is already given that the Scriptures are cleer onely in all points necessary to Salvation is for you to prove Pretext we know none your Doctrines against
us are clearly convinced by Authority of Scripture not alone but of expositors also Lay-people allowed by Protestants to read the Scriptures and so they were by the Primitive Fathers and so they would by you if you would follow Primitive and Catholick example we hold them clear in points of Faith necessary to Salvation which though not believed infallibly upon the Churches Authority by reason of her not pretended fallibility yet are believed expresly for and by the Authority of Scripture without any obscurity in the delivery of them not according to the principall of Protestants onely but of the Primitive Fathers also I demand further Quest 20 if the whole visible Church may erre in the definition of any points whatsoever that Error must either proceed from ignorance and want of light or from malice and want of vertue and goodness not the second for then the whole visible Church of Christ should not be sancta Holy as it is believed to be in our Creed and described in the Scriptures but should become a Harlot and abominable deceiver of the world and a seducer of Nations in teaching contrary to the known truth not the first for if she could erre out of ignorance to what purpose do Protestants appear to her Determination in a lawful and general Council in any of the points of difference betwixt them and those of the Roman Church seeing she may through ignorance erre in the determination of them as being not fundamental according to them neither can it be said notwithstanding the whole visible Churches fallibility in points not fundamental nay though it should actually erre and that Error should be evidently discovered yet even those who had thus evidently discovered the said Errors were to conforme themselves to those erroneous definitions of a general Council for if this conformity be understood of an internal conformity in Judgment as it is wholly impossible seeing that were to judge the same thing to be true and not true at the same time and to judge against an evident knowledge and if it be understood of an external conformity and profession onely it were manifestly impious and high Hypocrisie in resisting the known Truth revealed by Almighty God which they evidently know to be a most false Error in Faith Secondly if one were to subscribe and externally to conform himself to the definitions of lawful general Councils which one perswades himself he evidently knows to be erroneous till another be assembled to correct them why did not Protestants afford this external conformity to the definition of the general Councils of Florence of Lateran and to the second Council of Nice to omit others till some other lawful general Council came to correct their pretended Errors they having no other reason to reject the authority of the said Councils then that they define many things against the Protestant Doctrine Thirdly seeing it was never yet seen nor can be ever made manifest that any lawful general Council revoked any definition in matter of Faith of any former lawful general Council what hope is there that they should now begin to do what was never done before them Fourthly if it were supposed that any such revocatory definition should issue from them that party whose Doctrine should be condemned by such revocations would accuse the Council of Error as much as the contrary party accused the former Council of error in defining against them and so the controversie would remain as indetermined as it was before neither would it be possible to determine it fully by a general Council for the party condemned would still expect another Council to revoke that definition which seems to him evidently erroneous and so there would be no end of new determinations and revocations in infinitum Yet farther seeing lawfull Generall Councils do not onely oblige even under pain of Anathema or being accursed and excommunicated all Christians to believe and profess the Doctrine which they teach them not onely to be true and free from Error but to be divine Truth revealed by God himself if they should erre in any such definition they must make God the Father of Error and untruth which quite destroys the veracity of God and consequently overthrowes the main and primary foundation of Christian Faith and therefore must necessarily be held to include a fundamentall Error So impossible and implicatory a thing it is for them to erre in matter of Faith and not to erre fundamentally For either that erring Council must define some positive Error or that which God never revealed to be revealed from God or that some true Revelation from God is an Error Both which con●●ine no lesse malice then this To make God a Lyer How the whole visible Church may erre Answ 20 you have heard now whether from Ignorance or Malice you would know from malice I think not because then it would not be Sancta Holy as you say most rightly but why not from Ignorance For they are but men and men at best know not all things they know but in part and yet we appeale to the determination of her in a lawfull Generall Council because what she knowes in part and what you know in part and what we know in part may amount to more then half the whole and therein we shall acquiesce untill we know perfectly So then the malicious erroneous definition of a Generall Council if lawfully called being declined we shall study conformity both internall in judgement and externall in profession without sinning either against evident knowledge within or by high Hypocrisie without And yet why we conformed not to the definitions of the Generall Councils as you call them of Florence of Lateran and the second of Nice you know if you would express it as well as we not so much for defining many things against our as against the Catholick Doctrine Nor thirdly is all hope taken away from doing what was never done as you say but most untruly because some Generall Councils have revoked what former Generall Councils lawfully called have determined And fourthly upon supposition that any such revocatory definition should issue that either you or our selves either of our Doctrines being condemned should still expect another Council to revoke that definition For certainly the Catholick Christian will be so modest as to stand to the definition of that spirituall power which he acknowledgeth the highest upon Earth though the Catholick Roman would not unless the Bishop of Rome both called and commanded the Council and so the In infinitum would be yours not ours And farther let it be granted that lawfull Generall Councils do oblige under pain of Anathema to believe and profess that Doctrine which they teach to be free from Error and a divine Truth revealed by God himself so it be not a new Revelation against the old we would not believe they make God the Author of Error or a Lyer you may do it if you please or dare Seeing St. Quest 21 Paul Eph. 4.14 affirmes