Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	catholic_a	church_n	communion_n	2,111	5	9.0012	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15733	An ansvvere to a popish pamphlet, of late newly forbished, and the second time printed, entituled: Certaine articles, or forcible reasons discouering the palpable absurdities, and most notorious errors of the Protestants religion. By Anthony Wotton	Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626.; Wright, Thomas, d. 1624. Certaine articles or forcible reasons.	1605 (1605)	STC 26002; ESTC S120304	112,048	194

the church What is this but to trifle I must beleeue that the scripture is scripture because the church tels me so I must beleeue that the report of the church is true because the scripture saith so But for your better satisfactiō in this point I referre you to my answer in the 2. 5. articles of this former part I cannot well conceaue to what purpose this last clause is added if to proue the Article That the Protestants knowe not what they beleeue it is insufficient They that know not what they are bound to beleeue expresly distinctly explicitly know not what they beleeue For no more is proued by this reason But that they know not euery particular which they are bound to beleeue And if this be a disgrace to Protestants and their profession how shall Papists popery escape without reproach when as there is no rule among thē to teach what they ought to beleeue expresly distinctly c. And as all Protestants cannot beleeue all the Scripture distinctly explicitely no more can all Papists so beleeue what the Church deliuereth to be beleeued and therefore was their fides implicita deuised Neither is it proued that the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith what is not because they know not expresly distinctly explicitely what they are bound to beleeue For a man may haue a rule though he know not how to vse it as it also falls out ordinarily with vnlearned Papists in the rule that they follow to this same purpose If the Creed say you be not the limit of beleefe the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith I thinke the Protestant is yet vnborne that makes the D. Creede the rule of his beleefe further then to acknowledge that whatsoeuer is conteined in the Creed is of necessitie to be beleeued which I trow no Papist will denie But if it were granted that all Protestants do so yet it were not proued that the Protestants haue no rule whereby to know what is matter of faith but that they haue an vnperfect rule To be short who knowes not that the Protestants make the whole Scriptures the rule of their beleefe holding themselues bound in conscience to acknowledge all things conteyned therein to be the most true word of God and that out of the Scriptures there is nothing necessarily to be beleeued for saluation Whereas the Papists disable the written word of God to establish the fancies of mortall men ioyning the vnwritten traditions of I know not whom in equall authoritie with the written word of the Almighty God But the Creed say you is not the limit of faith That the Creed is no perfect rule of our beleefe we are so farre from denying that we make this reason one of the grounds wherevpon we build our perswasion that because of the vnperfectnesse thereof it was not penned by the Apostles whereas if it had bene it would haue bene perfect and Canonicall Scripture such as yet it neuer was acknowledged to be Howsoeuer we willingly graunt that there is nothing in it but sound and agreeable to the word of God in the Scripture So much the more wrong hath this slanderer done vs to charge any of vs with the deniall of any one Article thereof especially since no hereticks were euer charged with the deniall of Scripture because they ●isinterpreted it And yet by this Authors iudgement the Creed is not so bare as here he would faine make it For in the second part of this Article he teacheth vs that by beleeuing the communion of Saints we beleeue first That there are seauen Sacraments Secondly that Christ is bodily present in the Eucharist Thirdly that we must pray to the Saints Fourthly that we must pray for the soules in Purgatory In the fourth he tels vs that by beleeuing the Article of remission of sinnes we beleeue that Baptisme takes away the being of sinne They that deny some Articles of their Creed say you haue E. no rule to know what is matter of faith They that deny all the Articles of their Creed haue indeed no rule supposing that there is no other rule but the Creed but so much of the Creed as they deny not they haue still for a rule to know what is matter of faith But the Protestants say you deny three Articles of their Creed and the Puritants fiue He that makes difference betweene the Protestants and Looke in my answer to the next Article Puritans in matters of faith doth it either ignorantly or maliciously But to the seuerall points They that beleeue say you that to be the Catholicke F. Church which was interrupted 1400. yeeres and is conteyned within the narrow bounds of England deny the Catholicke Church The Article I beleeue the holy Catholick Church doth not teach vs how to know which is the true Church but enioynes vs to beleeue that there is a Catholick church which we gladly acknowledge viz. that there alwayes hath bene is and shall be a holy church of Christ which since his breaking downe of the partition wall is no longer tyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 place Hierusalem Rome c. but is spred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the face of the whole earth Neither can you 〈◊〉 thinke that the catholicknesse of the Church requir●● continuall being in all places at once for then there 〈◊〉 as any catholick church in the world nor I suppose 〈◊〉 At the least haue you forgotten that according 〈◊〉 our owne doctrine the church shal be hidden in the 〈◊〉 all the time of Antichrists tyranny Then this wil be 〈◊〉 ●incible argument against the church It is not vniuersall 〈◊〉 ●lace therefore it is not the Holy Catholick Church 〈◊〉 the force of your reason is very feeble in the first 〈◊〉 it wherein the strength of it consists But admit we 〈◊〉 deceaued in taking that church to be vniuersall for time and place which is not vniuersal yet as long as we confe● 〈◊〉 there is such a Church we cannot be iustly charged to 〈◊〉 that article of our Creed But the Protestant 〈◊〉 you beleeue that to be the Catholick Church which was 〈◊〉 1400. yeares Therefore they deny the article of bele●●● 〈◊〉 Catholick Church But they do not 〈◊〉 ●peares by the aunswere to the first Article besides ●●● Protestants do not hold that the church in England is 〈◊〉 ●atholick church but only that it is a part of the 〈◊〉 church which reaches to all times and places And 〈◊〉 word as I said in the first article we deny not to the 〈◊〉 the necessity of catholicknes but of visiblenes 〈◊〉 our church is not so narrow as you would beare the 〈◊〉 in hand as the Harmony of Confessions will proue to 〈◊〉 man that will but vouchsafe to read it For howsoeuer 〈◊〉 some churches of Germany and vs there be some 〈◊〉 in matters of importance yet neither are they such 〈◊〉 ●rectly ouerthrow the foundation And both the French 〈◊〉 Flemish churches agree with

●s in all substantiall points 〈◊〉 doctrine They that beleeue not 〈◊〉 that Christ hath instituted G. seauen sacraments do some 〈◊〉 the communion of saints When it is proued that there were 〈◊〉 instituted by Christ I will grant this propo● 〈◊〉 then any man may make as good a reason of 〈◊〉 700. or 7000. By true and reall presence which no Protestant euer denyed you meane the bodily and carnall presence which besides the Papists no man euer confest Therefore to this Argument the former answere sufficeth and so to both the other But for the further confirmation of this bodily presence because it is the Papists darling there is some shew of proofe added Being many we are one bread and body all that participate 1. Cor. ●● 17. of one body as themselues in the Rhemish Testament translate the text by which he would perswade the simple that they that beleeue not the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament deny that the faithfull are one body But first it is to be obserued that the Apostle doth not say They are made one body by participating but That they which participate are one body Secondly we must vnderstand that the faithfull are not one body Cârnally but Spiritually To the which it is sufficient that Christ be Spiritually receaued and therefore the Apostle calles it Bread Thirdly who knowes not that all that can receaue any benefit by the Sacrament of our Sauiour Christs body and bloud are before members of his mysticall body Els all they that dye before they receaue that Sacrament are out of Christs body and so vncapable of saluation And if this be an effect of that Sacrament since it is of it selfe alwaies alike effectuall it must needes be that euery time we receaue it we are made one body with Christ yea although we haue not committed any deadly sinne since the last receauing of it But this is absurd that he that is the member of Christ already should now by receauing become the member of Christ Indeed he may be cōfirmed strengthned for his better continuance in Christs body which grace al that worthily receiue the sacrament obtaine of God euery one in their measure but it is vnpossible that he should euery time of receauing be made a member of Christs spiritual body being already one when he comes to receaue They say you that deny the Church militant and triumphant H. by exclaiming against inuocation of Saints and praiers for the soules in purgatory deny the article of beleeuing the communion of saints But the Protestants deny the Communion of the Church militant and triumphant by exclaiming against inuocation of saints and prayers for the soules in purgatory Ergo they deny the communion of saints If the communion of saints beleeued in the Creed belong to the catholicke Church in the same Creed How can it implie any fellowship with those that are departed whether they be in heauen or in purgatory For by the catholicke Church our papists vnderstand not the church triumphant but militant only for they hold that the catholick church mentioned in the Creed must alwaies be visible and famous And what an vnworthy wrong is it to Christ and his saints in Heauen for any man to imagine that the Reprobate in earth of whom there is no small store in the outward congregations do communicate with the elect departed in the priuiledges which Christ hath purchased by his precious bloud for his owne members But the best is malice it selfe dare not charge vs with simple denying all communion betwixt the Saints in Heauen and them in earth but only with the deniall of it in some few points One whereof viz. Inuocation of saints this papist would proue by scripture The Gen. 48. 16. Apoc. 1. 4. Aagell that deliuered me from all euills blesse these children Grace and peace from him that is was and that is to come and from the seauen spirits which are in the sight of his throne Iacob and Iohn pray that we may be protected blessed of God by the ministery of the Angells therefore the communion of Saints signifieth that the Saints in Heauen pray for vs and we must pray to them Need I to write one word in answere to this reason but I am desirous that all men should see the weakenesse of this proofe First it is doubted by very good writers ancient and latter whether Iacob meane Christ or some speciall Angell whether the seauen spirits signifie the holy Ghost or the armies of Angells Secondly no Papist that euer I read confounds Angells with Saints or interprets the communion of saints by the ministery of Angells Thirdly these consequences are feeble first The Angells are ministring spirits Therefore the saints departed pray for vs. secondly The Angells protect vs and are ministers of Grace and peace from God to vs therefore by mediation they obtaine our requests Thirdly what strēgth is there in this conclusiō The Angells pray for vs Therfore we are bound to glorifie thē by praying to them that is to dis●onour God by honouring them For I demaund whether we may at any time pray to God without their mediation or noe If we may not then the Lords prayer is taught vs in vaine because that cannot belong to any Angel or saint If we may I aske why not at one time as wel as at another Why not in one matter as wel as in an other Vrge not your carnall comparison betwixt God and earthly Princes for both it is as forcible for one time and matter as another and thereby you rob God of the glory and thankes he should receaue of vs for the granting of our requests and vs of the comfort we might haue by the feeling perswasion of Gods loue in hearing our praiers and satisfiing our desires If the Prince receaue my petition at my owne hands and yeeld vnto it I haue reason to perswade my selfe of his loue to mee and to giue all thankes to him for his princely bounty If any besides my selfe commend my suite to him and it be obtained I am perhaps neuer a whit beholding to him because it may be he knows not me nor cares what I am but only doth some fauorite of his owne that kindnesse Now let any reasonable man iudge whether all the poore recompence I can make all the thankfulnesse I can shew be not due to the partie by whose graciousnesse with the Prince I attayned to that I sought for so that if I content him in some measure though I neuer honour nor loue the Prince one iot the more yet I do as much as iustly can be required of me Yea if I would enforce my selfe to be thankfull to the Prince both he might disdayne my presumption and he that preferred my suite be offended with my vnthankfulnesse that would not giue him all the thanks that procured all the fauour They say you that deny the communion of the church militant and the soules in purgatory deny