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	teacher_n	2,224	5	8.9443	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12213	A reply to an ansvvere, made by a popish adversarie, to the two chapters in the first part of that booke, which is intituled a Friendly advertisement to the pretended Catholickes in Ireland Wherein, those two points; concerning his Majejesties [sic] supremacie, and the religion, established by the lawes and statutes of the kingdome, be further justified and defended against the vaine cavils and exceptions of that adversarie: by Christopher Sibthorp, Knight, one of His Majesties iustices of his Court of Chiefe Place within the same realme.	Sibthorp, Christopher, Sir, d. 1632.	1625 (1625)	STC 22524; ESTC S117400	88,953	134

whether our Church were in the Apostles dayes for that cōpriseth not the whole Proposition but is onely a part or piece of it Neyther can that be any more the Question then whether it were in the succeeding and aftertimes and ages But the Question will bee as I have signified before viz. Whether the growth and comming in of Poperie as an infection or corruption to the Church did hinder or was any such obstacle or impediment as that by reason thereof our Church had no being at all in the Apostles dayes nor in the dayes and times succeeding It is true that if I had said that our Church was in the Apostles times and had gone no further it had beene an absolute and direct affirmation of our Church to have beene in those dayes But when I goe further and say that our Church was in the Apostles dayes notwithstanding that the seeds of Popery began then to be sowen in this speech I doe not absolutely and simply affirme that our Church was then but that it was then notwithstanding that the seeds of Poperie began then to be sowen that is the beginning and growth of Poperie was no obstacle impediment or argument against the being of our Church in those dayes As likewise if I say that the conveyance made to Iohn at Stile is good notwithstanding that there was no liverie of seisin made upon it this is no direct affirmation that his conveyance is simply good to all intents and purposes but that it is good notwithstanding this exception that there was no liverie and seisin made that is the not making of liverie of seisin is no obstacle or impediment to hinder the goodnesse of it In like sort if I say that K. Salomon was a saved soule notwithstanding that by the enticement of his wives he became an Idolater this is no absolute or direct affirmatiō that he was a saved soule But that he was a saved soule notwithstanding that reason or allegation that is to say his committing of Idolatrie upon the enticement of his wives is no such obstacle or proofe to the contrarie but that he might be a saved soule that reason or objection notwithstanding As againe if I say that my Adversarie is a good Grecian or a good Hebritian notwithstanding that he hath not shewed it in his Answere this is no direct affirmation that hee is eyther a good Grecian or a good Hebritian but the sence and meaning of that speech is that his not shewing of skill in Greeke or Hebrew in his Answere is no obstacle or argument to the contrarie but that he may be a good Grecian or a good Hebritian that nothwithstanding Wherefore if mine Adversarie would have opposed himselfe against that proposition or assertion of mine before mentioned he should have shewed proved if he had beene able that the comming in and growth of Poperie was such an impediment or obstacle as that by reason thereof our Church could haue no being in the Apostles dayes or in the times or ages that succeeded which because he hath not done he hath spent his breath and talked idly and in vaine and to no purpose And yet hee seemeth to glorie and insult over me that my conclusion assertion being as he saith that our Church was in the Apostles times I brought not so much as one argument there to prove it how much more cause now have I if I were so disposed to glorie and insult over him who by his cutting curtalling and mangling my assertion and not taking it wholy and intirely as of right he should hath utterly mistaken the Question not answered one word to that which was the Question indeede For the question to be deduced out of this entier Proposition not being as he hath strangely mistaken whether our Church was in the Apostles times nor yet whether it were in the succeeding and aftertimes But whether Poperie were such an obstacle or impediment as that it did cause that our Church could not by reason thereof have any being at all eyther in the Apostles times or in the times and ages that succeeded To this it is that I answered and adressed my speech in that second Chapter and to this Question also it is that mine Adversarie should have answered and adressed his speech if he would have spoken materially and to the purpose And yet even this verie assertion that our Church that is men beleeving and professing the same Faith and Religion that we doe was in the Apostles times and by them taught and approved is a thing evidently declared not in one Chapter alone of my former Booke for one Chapter alone would not suffice for so many points and positions as did to such a matter belong but in all the severall Chap●ers and whole Contents of my Booke put together And the truth of it may summarily briefely thus appeare namely by that excellent rule and fundamentall ground Tertul. prescript ●avers haeret which Tertullian giveth For hee saith that even those Churches quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis authorē suū proferāt ut multo posteriores quae denique quotidie instituūtur tamē in eadē fide cōspirātes nō minus Apostolicae d●putātur pro consanguinitate doctrinae which cannot bring any of the Apostles or Apostolicke men for their authors as those that be much later such as are begun every day yet agreeing with thē in the same faith are for this cōsanguinitie or agreemēt in doctrine held to be no lesse Apostolicke then the rest Againe he saith Ipsa doctrina eorum Tertul. traescrip advers haeret cap. 32 cum Apostolica comparata ex diversitate contrarietate sua pronunciabit neque Apostoli alicujus authoris esse neque Apostolici Their verie doctrine it selfe being compared with the Apostolicke by the diversitie and contrarietie that is betweene them will pronounce that it had for the Author neyther any Apostle nor any man that was Apo●tolicall From this rule and fundamentall ground I deduce and make two Arguments the one for our Church the other against the Church of Rome For our Church my Argument is this That Church which holdeth the same Faith doctrine Religion that the Apostles taught in their dayes is Apostolicall But our Church that is the Church of the Protestants holdeth the same Faith doctrine and Religion that the Apostles taught in their Ergo our Church that is the Church of the Protestants is Apostolicall The Maior is verie evident of it selfe and by the testimonie also of Tertullian neyther can it be denied The Minor is also evident by conferring and comparing our Faith doctrine Religion with the Apostolicall writings the rest of the Canonicall Scriptures And it is also manifest by the whole Contents of my former Booke whether I referre you for the proofe of it if any make doubt of it And therefore the conclusion must bee granted On the other side against the Church of Rome from that

ground also I thus frame my argument That Church which holdeth a Religion Faith and doctrine differing or contrarie to that which was taught by the Apostles in their times is not Apostolicall But the Popish Church holdeth a Religion Faith and doctrine differing or contrarie to that which was taught by the Apostles in their times as is apparant if you compare them together examining the severall and particular Positions in these points of Controversie by the writings of the Apostles the rest of the Canonicall Scriptures as is also shewed at large in my former book whether I likewise referre you for the proofe of this Minor Proposition And therefore the Popish Church is not Apostolicall But mine Adversarie taketh here exception to our Church affirming it in three points to be hereticall First in the point of Iustification For he saith it was the heresie of the Symonians and Eunomians to hold Iustification in Gods sight by grace and by faith onely as the Protestants doe And that S. Augustine also affirmeth it to be an error that sprung up even in the Apostles dayes But touching the Symonians they held Ir●n libr. 1. c. 20 as Irenaeus declareth That they were to be saved by the grace of Simon Magus their sect Master whom they make their God and Saviour The Protestants hold no such abominable thing but contrarywise hold that they are to be saved by the grace of CHRIST What Is it all one with Papists to be saved by Simons grace and by the grace of CHRIST As for the Eunomians such was their doctrine of Faith as that they rejected or made no reckoning of good workes at all Aug. hares 54. Yea they held as S. Augustine sheweth Quod nihil homini obesset quorumlibet perpetratio peccatorum That the committing of any sinnes whatsoever did not hurt a man The Protestants teach no such wicked and damnable doctrine but cleane contrarywise doe teach that the Faith that justifieth and saveth a man is not a dead but a lively Faith that is such as is accompanied with good works and with a godly conversation although Ierem. 23.6 Ierem. 33.16 2. Cor. 5.21 Rom. 10 4. Rom. 9.30.31 32 Rom. 3.14 Ioh 3.14 15 16. Iohn 1.12 in the act of our justification in Gods sight and censure it is Faith alone and not the workes that is the hand or instrument whereby wee apprehend or receave CHRIST IESVS who is indeede our righteousnesse As the eye in respect of the rest of the members wherewith it is accompanied is not alone yet in respect of the power and facultie of seeing it is sole and alone And as in fire likewise there is both heare and light and the heate is not alone but accompanied with the light and yet it is the heate onely and not the light that warmeth the bodie So in a man justified there is Faith and good workes accompanying it and in respect of the good workes wherewith it is accompanied it is not sole and alone but yet in the Act and point of Iustification in Gods sight as it apprehendeth Christ our righteousnesse it is sole and alone good works having no part with it in that action As for that which is alledged out of S. Augustine I answered it in my former Booke and now I answere it once againe Aug. de fide oper cap. 14. or rather S. Augustine himselfe answereth it whilst he sheweth That the error which sprung up in the Apostles dayes was of such as held Faith onely to be sufficient to salvation although they did no good works at all but lived wickedly dissolutely lewdly which is indeede an error and a grosse error Galat. 5.6 Iam. 2 14. 1. Pet● 29.11 12 2 Pet 1 10. 1. Iohn 3.10 and which the Protestants with S. Augustine with S. Paul with S. Iames with S. Peter with S. Iohn with all the rest of the sacred Scriptures doe likewise utterly condemne The second point wherein he supposeth heresie in our Church is concerning their Popish Purgatorie It is true that we denie it Neyther are the Papists able to prove the deniall of it to be eyther heresie or error My Adversarie saith That Luther Calvine others did likewise denie it what of that was it therefore heresie Or in what Church was it censured and condemned to be heresie If by any he must say it was by his owne the Popish Church which condemneth indeede not only that but all other doctrines and Positions of the Protestants wherein they differ from them be they never so true But it is proved in my former Booke Col●s 2.19 That Papal Rome is the whore of Babylon and that the Popish Church hath not Christ but Antichrist to be the head and to rule and raigne over it Neyther is it mine opinion alone that the Pope of Rome the head and ruler thereof is the grand Antichrist and consequently his Church the false Antichristian Church but it is the opinion and position of all sound Protestants likewise as their many and sundrie learned Works written in defence of that Protestant Position against the Papists doe plentifully and at large declare Now then is it any mervaile or any matter that the false adulterate and Antichristian Church condemneth the right beleeving Orthodoxe and true Christian Church and her Positions Yea in this point against their Purgatorie did the Apostolicke Primitive and most ancient Church beleeve as wee doe For S. Paul saith 2. Cor. 5.6 8. Thil. 1.23 of all Gods people That whilst they are in the bodie they are absent from the Lord and that when they goe out of the bodie they are present with the Lord. And so holdeth S. Cyprian Cyprian de mortalitat sect 2 ●d●t 159● That the servants of God then have peace and then enjoy free and quiet rest And that being drawen out from the stormes of this world they arrive at the haven of their everlasting habitation and securitie Againe he saith Ad refrigerium justi vocantur ad supplicium rapiuntur injusti The righteous are called to a refreshing Ibidem sect 11. the unrighteous are haled to torment Ibidem sect 14. In somuch that hee saith further concerning godly persons when they die that Nec accipiendas esse hic atras vestes quando 〈◊〉 ibi indumenta alba iam sumpseriut For them blacke mourning garments are not to be worne here because they have there alreadie put on white rayment Iustin respons ad Orthodox quaest 75. Iustine Martyr likewise saith That after the departure of the soule out of the bodie there is presently made a difference betwixt the just and the unjust For the soules of the just goe to Paradise where they have the comerce and sight of Angels and Archangels c The soules of the unjust to the places in Hell Hilar. in Psal 2. S. Hillarie also observeth out of that which is mentioned in the Gospell concerning the Rich-man Lazarus that as

to Christian Emperors Kings and Princes which is allowed to farre inferior and meaner persons Yea these chiefly and principally in regard of their high places and callings are to be allowed this right Whereas therefore my Adversarie saith that Bishops and Cleargie men should be Iudges for determining of Dogmaticall questions and Controversies of Faith and Religion and that Christian Emperors Kings and Princes are to be guided directed taught and instructed by them all this is granted Yet withall let Christian Kings and Princes have also herein their dues and that right which to them belongeth Which is to search the Scriptures thereby to trie examine whether the doctrine of their Teachers be true or false For Act 17.12 Basil 〈◊〉 d●f 77. pag. 432. it behoueth the Hearers saith S. Basill that be instructed in the Scriptures to trie those things which are spoken by their Teachers and receiving that which agreeth with the Scriptures to reject the contrarie And so S. Augustine likewise Aug in Iohan. tract 46. Sua vero si velint docere nolite audire nolite facere That if they will teach their owne devises you must neyther heare them nor doe as they teach you Although then Bishops Pastors Ministers Ecclesiasticall are first of all to be consulted with to ●udge of matters of Faith controversies in Religion y●● are they not absolute and infallible Iudges nor absolute and infallible Teachers or directors but are themselves limited and to be directed in all their Iudgements Doctrines and Decrees by that onely absolute and infallible rule of trueth the sacred and Canonicall Scriptures So that if they shall judge direct decree or teach any thing not according to the Divine Scriptures but contrarie thereunto as the Arrian Bishops in time past did and as the Popish Bishops and Teachers in these dayes doe all that is ●ustly worthy to be refused by all Christian Emperors Kings and Princes as is verie evident both by all good reason and by that which is before delivered Now then although these two points be granted to my Adversarie viz. That the Regall and Priestly offices be things distinct and that those that beare Regall Authoritie be also subordinate and subject to that Authoritie message and Ministerie which God hath cōmitted to Bishops Pastors and Ministers Ecclesiasticall yet when there is further a third point appearing which he must acknowledge namely that Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers be also subordinate and subject to the sword and Authoritie of Christian Kings and Princes and that in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion aswell as in matters Civill and Temporall as is before at large declared What benefite or advantage doth he get thereby Yea is not his cause thereby for ever overthrowen Thus farre then you see that the plea which hee hath put in for a demurrer or stay of mens judgements is altogether insufficient for that purpose and therefore for any matter yet shewed by him or appearing to the contrarie all mens judgements may and ought to proceede and to be given against him and his cause unlesse in that which followeth he can shew better matter then as yet he hath shewed Let us therefore now see whether hee hath any better matter in that then he hath found in those his two points before mentioned For those his two former points appeare not worth a poynt nor of any value or validitie at all against the Kings SUPREMACIE 4 First it is true that I alledged that Text of 1. Pet. 2.13 To prove the KINGS SUPREMACIE over all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his owne Dominions And what can my Adversary say against it Doth not S. Peter expressely require of all Christians that live within the Dominion of any King 1. Pet. 2.13 That they should submit themselves unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the Chiefe or Supreme person over them Hee cavilleth at my argument because it is thus propounded interrogatively and not affirmatively A verie childish exception if it be not more then childish For is he so sillie and ignorant that he knoweth not that an interrogative speech doth sometime carrie the force of the greater more Emphaticall affirmation And yet if hee had but read and remembred the verie next words following that interrogative he might have found a redditive and a direct affirmative answere thereunto For the words next and immediately following bee these It is evident say I that he calleth the King Chiefe or Supreme not onely in respect of Dukes Earles or other Temporall governors as the Rhemists would have it but in respect of all the rest likewise were they Bishops Pastors Cleargie men or whosoever For he writeth that his Epistle not to Heathens but to Christians and amongst them not to the Lay people onely but to such also as were Presbiters and did 〈…〉 1. Pet 112.34 5. 〈…〉 5 1.2 doe the office of Bishops amongst them requiring even them aswell as the rest to yeelde their subjection submission unto him Now then seeing this direct affirmative in my Booke pag. 1. of that Chapter and that the words of S. Peter in the Text it selfe be also direct affirmative 1. Pet. 2.13 for these be his words Be yee therefore subject c. What doth he or can he answere thereunto He sti●l cavilleth at the words of the Text playing with them ad libitum and maketh the reason of it to be because he is a Lawyer as though it were lawfull or allowable for a man of that profession to be a wrangling Lawyer or as though because he is a Lawyer it were as free for him to cavill and sport himselfe with Divine Texts and evidences as with humane or as though he had never heard nor learned That Non est bonum ludere cum Sanctis Seeing I am a Lawyer saith he let me article and make my argument or plea upon the Text And then hee goeth on and saith That these wordes in the Text Be subject doe no more specifie the Christians then the Heathens nor any more the Subjects then the Princes Be not these strange asseverations For when S. Peter writeth that his Epistle not to Heathens 1. Pet. 1.2 3.4 c. but to Christians dispersed through Pontus Galatia Capadocia Asia and Bithinia and saith thus unto them Subjecti estote Be yee subject Can these words thus directly and purposely spoken to Christians no more specifie or intend Christians then Heathens Where were the mans wits I mervaile when he wrot thus absurdly Yea himselfe afterward confuteth himselfe For mentioning both this Text of S. Peter and that also of S. Paul in Rom. 13.1 c. He saith that in these two cited places both these Apostles Exhort to obedience and the reason saith he why the King is mentioned Is because in those dayes Christians were by the malice of their Adversaries accused of sedition and rebellion against Princes Doth hee not by these wordes make it verie evident that S.