Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	authority_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	2,708	5	9.1860	5	false

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

an Evidence of the Churches Sanctity but is indeed a meer invention of Men but our Sanctity we will prove by the Word of God because we teach the same Doctrine which that contains Pa. 32. Luther and Calvin and the rest of your Reformers confirmed their Doctrine with Miracles or they did not Pro. What if they did not Pa. If they did not they were not true Apostles Pro. The Doctrine they Preached was not theirs but that which Christ and his Apostles taught and confirm'd by Miracles so that it needed no more Confirmation except we had received it upon their Authority which we did not We acknowledge they were not Apostles as the twelve were and therefore no need of their working Miracles Pa. 33. The Signs which Christ said in Scripture followed your pretended Reformers or they did not Pro. All the Signs which Christ said should always accompany the true Preachers of the Gospel did follow them Pa. If they did shew one Man they dispossessed or one sick that they restored to Health for if these Signs did not follow them they are not true Believers Pro. That doth not follow for Christ never made that a Sign of True Believers nay you must confess that many never worked any of these Miracles who are yet true Believers If indeed they had Preached any new Doctrine you might call for Miracles but seeing they Preached none new but the Doctrine that was taught by Christ his Apostles and the Ancient Fathers there is no need to confirm that by Miracles seeing all the Miracles Christ and his Apostles wrought were for that end However we can shew many certain instances of Mens being dispossessed by the Prayers of the Faithful in our Church and many among us who have had their Health restored them in answer to their own and the Churches Prayers but for all that we have better grounds for our Faith which we rest upon Pa. 34. Your Reformers were either famous for their virtuous Lives or they were not Pro. They were Pa. If they were why did they break their Vows made to God and teach Men so to do Pro. The Vows which they broke were unlawful Vows and your own Canons expresly say that an unlawful Vow ought to be broken C. 22. qu. 4. c. in malis by breaking then their Vow of single Life that is by repenting of it and not observing it they did no more than what they were in duty bound to do and therefore were holy Men for all that Pa. 35. The Catholick Roman Church and no other stands firm and infallible against all the Tempests of Apostasie Heresy and Schism Pro. The Roman Church is not firm nor infallible but as to the visible part of it is fallen both by Apostasie Heresy and Schism Pa. 36. The Romans had once the true Church or they had not Pro. The question is Ambiguous if you mean by it that the Roman Church was the true Church as the Mother of all other I deny it if you mean that the Roman Church was a true Church and had the true Faith I answer that she had the true Faith. Pa. If the Romans had the true Faith they retain the same still infallibly or do not Pro. They do not Pa. 37. If they do not then they must have their fall either by Apostasie Heresie or Schism Pro. She hath fallen by them all Pa. The Ancient Apostolick Catholick Roman Church fell by Apostasie or it did not Pro. The Ancient Apostolick Catholick Church fell not at all Nay the Ancient Roman Church fell not but the present Roman Church is fallen Pa. If she is fallen by Apostasie what prudent man will say that she ever renounced the sweet Name of Jesus which she ever hath in so great Veneration Pro. She may have fallen by Apostasie and yet not have renounced the Name of Jesus so that her having it in so great Veneration is no Argument that she is not fallen by Apostasie Pa. 38. The Roman Church fell by Heresie or she did not Pro. She did Pa. If she did by what General Council was she ever Condemn'd which of the Fathers ever wrote against her Or by what Authority was she otherwise reprov'd Pro. If nothing be an Heresy but what a General Council condemns then those Heresies which sprang up in the first three hundred years were wrongfully esteemed such in those times seeing there was then no General Council If a Doctrine may be Heretical which was never Condemned by a general Council then the Dostrines of the Church of Rome may be Heretical though never Condemned by a General Council so that question doth not vindicate her from being guilty of Heresie Pa. But which of the Fathers ever wrote against her Pro. All the Ancient Fathers disclaim those Doctrines which the Roman Church now holds but they could not write purposely against her because she did not then profess those Doctrines But if it be a good Argument the Church of Rome fell not into Heresy because no Father wrote purposely against her then the same Argument will vindicate us seeing no Father hath writ against us but if no Father had writ against the Church of Rome she might be Heretical for all that so that this question and the former are both impertinent Pa. But by what Authority was she reproved Pro. By the Authority of the Scriptures by the Authority of the Testimony of the Antient Church and the Authority of right Reason Pa. 39. The Ancient Roman Church fell by Schism and by dividing herself from some other Church or she did not Pro. She did Pa. If she did whose company did she leave from what Body did she go forth Where was the true Church she forsook Pro. She forsook the Primitive Church the Eastern Church and all those Christians who always maintained their Freedom from the Roman Yoke Pa. 40. The true Holy Apostolick Catholick Church is fallible and can err or it cannot Pro. Remember by the Church I mean the Faithful throughout the World and of these I say they all cannot err in any point of Faith. Pa. Why do you then falsly condemn her Pro. We do not condemn her we are part of her but for the Roman Church we condemn her Pa. 41. The Church of God is infallible in all her Proposals and Definitions of Faith or she is not Pro. All Definitions made by the whole Church of Christ are infallibly true Pa. If she be why do you deny infallibility Pro. The Infallibility we deny is that of a Pope or Council and this we deny because they are not the whole Church and therefore though the Church of Christ be infallible yet they are not Pa. 42. Christ being the Head of the Church and the Holy Ghost the Soul of the Church guiding and directing the Church in all Truth she can err or she cannot Pro. She cannot Pa. Then she is not fallible Pro. The Church of Christ is not fallible but the Roman Church is 43. Christ is either a