Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	father_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	2,440	5	8.9807	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20679	An aduertisement to the English seminaries, amd [sic] Iesuites shewing their loose kind of writing, and negligent handling the cause of religion, in the whole course of their workes. By Iohn Doue Doctor in Diuinity.	Dove, John, 1560 or 61-1618.; Walsingham, Francis, 1577-1647.	1610 (1610)	STC 7077; ESTC S115461	57,105	88

before one another in order but not in time because they are eternall the other three though in Gods booke they be also eternall in respect of his determination yet in respect of the men that are called iustified and glorified as they are acts proceeding from his decrees to execute and accomplish that in them which God hath decreed not only in order but also in time they follow after as they are not in eternity but in time These things being duly considered let vs come to the state of the question Our doctrine is that God by eternall decree hath ordeined some to saluation others to damnation the cause which moued him so to do being not in them but only in himselfe and that is onely his will and pleasure The subiects therefore of this disputation are two sorts of men Paucitas saluendorum the paucity or small remnant of them which are saued And concerning them Bellarmine his defence is all one with ours that they are saued no cause being in themselues but onely in God without any foresight of any thing in them He saith it is a doctrine consonant to Scriptures to the tradition of the Church to reason grounded vpon Scriptures and Fathers The difference betweene him and vs is only concerning them which are comprehended in the second ranke which is numerositas damnatorū the great multitude of them which are damned Of them he saith Caluiniani contendunt homines ante praeuisionem paccati ad mortem destinatos quod cum Dei iustitiâ pugnat It cānot stand with the iustice of God to ordeine men to destruction without foresight of some cause to be in themselues Our answer is God ordeined them to destruction of his owne will not for their sinnes and yet not being without sinne but bringing with them into the world from their natiuity and conception sufficient matter of condemnation before his decree should be put in execution as the Hebrues when they were in Aegypt did both build for Pharaoh and also finde straw their selues to make morter for the building We distinguish inter vasa ipsa vniuersam massam betweene the vessels in particular which are made to condemnation and the whole lumpe out of which they are fashioned and framed Though they were ordeined to damnation for no iniquity which was particularly in themselues yet that there might be no iniustice with God he had a generall respect to the mould of iniquity whereof they were made He hated Esau in his owne person not for any thing that was in Esau but there was matter enough in the whole lumpe out of which he was created wherefore he should hate him Saint Augustine saith Merito iniustum videretur quod fiunt vasa ad perditionem nisi esset in Adam vniuersa massa damnata It might seeme iniustice that any should be vessels ordeined to destruction had it not bene so that the whole lumpe out of which those vessels were formed had bene damned before in Adam So he maketh the foundation of this decree to be the fall of Adam and yet so that the fault and guilt of condemnation should rest in themselues and yet this fall of Adam not to be an antecedent or cause of this decree but a consequent or sequele of that decree But concerning the vessels in particular which are comprehended in this lumpe the Apostle saith God hated Esau that his purpose might remaine according to election not by workes but by him that calleth where he plainly deliuereth this doctrine That God in this reprobation of Esau respected nothing in his person but the cause which moued him to this hatred was onely in himselfe If the aduersay alledge as vsually he doth that albeit God did no hate him ex operibus for his euill workes which were in in him because then he was vnborne yet he did hate him ex praeuisis operibus because he foresaw those euill workes which afterward when he should be borne he would commit I answer That obiection is preuented and fully satisfied by the words themselues in that which followeth after Concerning the words themselues Saint Augustine saith Si futura opera quae Deus vtique praesciebat vellet intelligi nequaqum diceret non ex operibus sed ex futuris operibus eoque modo istam solueret quaestionem immò nullam omnino quam solui opus esset faceret quaestionem If the Apostle had vnderstood foresight of workes to be any cause he had not said as he did NOT OF WORKES but he would rather haue said God hated him because of the workes which he foresaw in him and so he would not onely haue resolued this question but also haue made it so plaine that it should haue bene without question But in the words which follow Saint Paul expresseth his owne meaning to be as I haue deliuered first by making answer to this obiection Is there iniquity with God God forbid For flesh would obiect that it were iniustice condemnare hominem non natum to condemne the child vnborne To which obiection he answereth It is no iniquity which answer in defence of Gods iustice had bene needlesse and the obiection as fruitlesse if it were so that God did in his decree condemne him out of a foresight of sinne which he knew he would commit forasmuch as God in his foresight could not be deceiued and his decree was not to be executed vntill the sinne were committed and that were in mans iudgement no iniquity or iniustice Secondly he cleareth the matter by inlarging that point to make it more apparant to mans capacity where he saith He will haue mercy vpon whom he will haue mercy and where he will he hardeneth And againe it is not in him that willeth meaning mans indeuours nor in him that runneth meaning the workes of man but in God that sheweth mercy There he reacheth that the onely law of iustice and rule whereby God in his predestination and reprobation is directed and the highest cause which moueth him thereunto is onely his will Non potest iniuste agere cuius volunt as est iusticiae regula He cannot do iniustice which is tyed to no other rule of iustice but his will Whatsoeuer is the will of God the same with him is iustice Hauing thus layed open the state of the question and shewed briefly what is our defence let vs examine what may be said against vs. Our aduersaries which we are to conclude withall are Bellarmine and Becanus two famous Iesuites Bellarmine seemeth in words somewhat to discent from vs by wilfull mistaking both of vs and of Saint Augustine from whom he would deriue the grounds of his disputation as a man that will not see that which plainly he seeth He goeth about the bush by sleights and subtilties that he might at the least beare the world in hand he standeth in opposition against vs but when he commeth to the point he discenteth not from vs. As for Becanus which hath written after

I haue abused both the Councell of Trent and Bellarmine That I haue not abused the Councell witnesse the Councell it selfe that I haue not abused Bellarmine witnesse Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 11. Thirdly they agree with vs concerning the sufficiency of the Scriptures that in them are deliuered all things necessary to saluation contrary to the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome So Bellarmine De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 10. He is not ashamed to say In reading the place hee hath discouered a notable fraude Whether I haue dealt fraudulently or sincerely let the reader iudge But wherein lyeth the fraude He saith that Bellarmine speaketh these words onely by way of answer to an obiection I conclude therefore it is no fraude If I had taken that for positiue doctrine which was spoken by way of obiection it had bene fraude in me but seeing it is an answer to an obiection it is no fraude but sincere dealing Fourthly they hold with vs that Purgatory is a tradition and not to be found in the holy Scriptures witnesse Bellarmine de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 4. He thinketh to auoid vs by saying that Bellarmine speaketh onely antagonistically by way of obiection out of Luther and not dogmatically out of his owne iudgement which is but Petitio principij a begging of the question For it was questioned by me whether Bellarmine spake out of his owne iudgement or not and the affirmatiue was by me proued concluded He bringeth no proofe for the negatiue part but onely maketh that for his allegation which is the question it selfe Fifthly they discent not from vs about the authority of the Scriptures that it is aboue the authority of the Church witnesse Bellarmine de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 10. He repeateth the words but maketh no answer to them He chargeth me with Papistry because I confessed that our Church was condemned as hereticall by the Councell of Trent which is but Petitio principij for I denyed our Church to be euer the more hereticall for the censure of that Councell whose authoriry I disinabled by sufficient reasons to which he maketh no answer and therefore in that place I haue not played the Papist Whereas I exhorted the Recusants diligently to reade as well our writers as their owne our answers as well as their obiections and then to examine their owne iudgements before they passe their sentence against vs to condemne vs of heresie He maketh two answers first that they haue already done so to which I reply they haue done it partially Secondly that vnlearned men and women are not able to do so and therefore they must relye vpon the iudgement of the Catholicke Church To which I reply that if they be not able the fault is in the the Catholicke Church of Rome which holdeth the people still in ignorance whereas S. Iohn teacheth that they ought to be of such knowledge as to try and examine the Spirits and the Citizens of Berea are commended by the holy Ghost because they were able to examine Saint Pauls doctrine And I say with the Apostle That if the Gospell bee hidden it is hidden to them which are lost I alledged that few things are in our booke of Common praiers which are not taken out of the Bible or out of that which was good in the Masse booke so that if they allow of the Bible their Masse booke they cānot disallow of our Seruice book He answereth in these words If all the Seruice booke were taken out of the Bible it selfe as most of all heretical Seruice hath bene in euery age pretended to be yet might the collection and combination be such as might make it vnlawfull and pestiferous as when the Arrians did sing Gloria patri cum filio per filium and the Catholickes filio The difference in sound of words was small but in substance and malice execrable To which I reply that forasmuch as he maketh such a supposition but sheweth no such collection or combination in our Seruice booke neither any thing in it like to that of the Arrians he speaketh idlely and to no purpose neither is any thing thereby derogated from the credit of our Seruice booke To the Recusants which obiect that there are dissentions among vs I answered that so there were among them I named Eckius Pighius Thomas Scotus nay there were dissentions among the Apostles themselues so that dissention is no argument to disinable vs from being the true Church for in religion we agree M. Walsingham chargeth me with three absurdities the first of ignorance or folly for that Eckius Pighius Thomas Scotus dissented onely in matters disputable and not determined by the Church for points of faith In which words he maketh the Church of Rome to be so negligent in their determination of matters of religion as if they held the doctrine of iustification wherein Eckius and Pighius disagreed and of merit wherein the Thomists and Scotist disagreed not to appertaine vnto faith and to be matters so indifferent as if they afforded onely cause of disputation but needed not to be discided The second absurditie he saith is impiety for that the Apostles contentions were not about matters of different doctrine I say no more are ours The third he saith is ridiculous audacity to deny so absolutely disagreement in matters of religion among vs whereof the whole world can be witnesse out of our owne books and inuectiues one against another To which I answer that albeit some particular factious spirits among vs write seditious pamphlets one against another this imputation cannot iustly be layd vpon our Church which by all manner of good meanes suppresseth dissention but maintaineth peace and vnitie Thus much I thought fit to deliuer not for answer to his disgracefull speeches vttered against me which I passe ouer with silence as not touching the cause of religion but in defence onely of the truth which I tooke in hand that our aduersariēs may vnderstand how we haue not suffered those things so loosely to passe our hands which they so loosely haue published against vs to the view of the world And so leauing them to the mercy of the Lord my prayer is Vincat Christus cadat haeresis that falshood may still be detected and truth may get the vpper hand Amen FINIS Ecclesi 12. 12. 1. Tim. 3. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sixtus Senensis Biblioth sanctae lib. 4. Rom. 1. 14. 2. Cor. 4. 2. The History of Bell and the Dragon Mat. 3. 10. Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 10. Mat. 16. 18. Caesar Bar. in apparat 13. Exod. 8. 19. De Rom. Pontifice l. 1. c. 10. De verbo Dei l. 2. c. 4. De verbo Dei lib. 2. cap. 7. Concil Trid. Sess 3. De Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10. Luk. 16. 29. Eph. 2. 20. Chryss hons 55. in Mat. Lib. 6. de Trinit Lib. 4. de Trini●… 1 Pet. 2. 5. 1. Cor. 3. 11.

soule he may likewise say that definition agreeth not with a painted man or the picture of a man As speaking of religion I define not false religion but the true Christian religion and speaking of a man I define not an equiuocall or analogicall but an vniuocall man So I define not a darke and erroneous but a sound and true vnderstanding conscience As for the heathens they haue yet left some reliques of the image of God which are reason vnderstanding Therefore the Apostle saith The Gentiles which haue not the law do by nature the things contained in the law hauing not the law they are a law to themselues which shew the effects of the law written in their hearts their consciences also bearing witnesse and their thoughts accusing one another or excusing that is the Gentiles haue not the law absolutely and in such perfect manner as the Iewes to whom God deliuered euery precept of the law expressely by writing yet they haue will they nill they written in their hearts some feeling of religion and are able to put a difference betweene vertue and vice which sufficeth onely to their damnation They do by nature ea quae legis sunt the things contained in the law that is they command things which are honest forbid the things which are vniust set downe punishments for theft adultery and such like offences But by the way Aliud est facere quod lex iubet aliud facere quod lex facit aut ea quae legis sunt facere It is one thing to doe what the law commandeth for that they do not that were to keepe the law another thing to do the things contained in the law or to do as the law doth that is onely to command the things which the law commandeth and to forbid what the law forbiddeth which onely the Gentiles do Neither do they that fully but onely in some part concerning outward things but are farre from the knowledge of true piety to saue their soules So then the conscience of the Gentiles being sufficiently instructed without Gods word by the light of nature onely to their condemnation what doth that concerne my purpose which define a conscience rightly informed and sufficiently grounded to saluation He goeth about to disproue my definition of heresie which I defined to be an errour stiffely and obstinately maintained and defended not by a consequent but directly impugning some article of faith Which definition he saith is also defectiue because it is not so large as the thing which is defined His words are these For if we looke into all the heresies recorded by Ireneus Tertullian Epiphanius Saint Augustine c. we shall not find the lest part directly and expressely against any article of the Apostles Creed which M. D. Doue a little after doth say he meaneth as of the Pelagians which holdeth that a man may do good workes by the power of his owne free will without grace the Aetians that faith was sufficient without good workes to life euerlasting and that Christ had reuealed more to them then to the Apostles the Aerians that denied prayer and sacrifices for the dead and set fasts of the Church Neither can D. Doue proue that his owne example of the Arian heresie by him alleaged did directly impugne any article of the Creed but by a consequent For Arius denied the equality of the Sonne with the Father and by a consequent his Godhead and so by a consequent the second article of the Creed Iesus Christ his onely Sonne our Lord. First I answer he hath not dealt ingenuously with me For I did not in my definition of heresie restraine Faith only to the Creed of the Apostles as the place it selfe will plainely shew for I did mention not onely that Creed but also the Creed of Nice of Ephesus of Constantinople which I sayd we hold and also the text of the Bible to free vs from heresie Secondly the Pelagian holding that a man could do good workes by the power of his owne free will without grace directly impugneth faith euen the text of the Bible where it is written We are not sufficient of our selues to thinke any thing as of our selues but our sufficiency is of God O Lord I know that the way of man is not in himselfe neither is it in man to walke and direct his steppes All the imaginations of the thoughts of mans heart are onely euill continually The naturall man perceaueth not the things that are of God We are dead in sinnes No man can say that Iesus is the Lord but by the Spirit of God The Aëtian saying Faith without good workes is sufficient to eternall life directly denieth the doctrine of the Bible What auaileth it my brethren though a man say he hath faith when he hath no workes can the faith saue him If faith haue no workes it is dead Whereas the Aetian holdeth that Christ hath reuealed more to him then to the Apostles it is expressely and directly against the Scriptures where S. Paul saith I haue kept nothing backe but haue shewed you all the counsell of God That the Arians denied the Godhead of Christ not by a consequent onely but directly witnes S. Augustine and Epiphanius For S. Augustine saith that they held Filium esse creaturam That the Sonne of God was a creature And Epiphanius Non veritus est ipse ac discipuli eius creaturam vocare eum qui omnia creauit verbum ex patre sine tempore sine principio genitum Both he and his disciples feared not to call him a creature which created all things euen the word which was begotten of his Father without time and without beginning As for Aerius he could not be an hereticke for denying prayer and sacrifice for the dead and set fasts of the Church For as much as prayer and sacrifice for the dead are contrary to sound doctrine and fasts are a matter of indifferency and not of faith That he was condemned for an hereticke it was not so much for these opinions as for that first being a Schismaticke because he could not obtaine a Bishopricke he became an Arian as it appeareth by S. Augustine his words are these Doluisse fertur quod Episcopus non potuit ordinari in Arianorum haeresim lapsus propria quoque dogmata addidisse dicens orare pro mortuis vel oblationem offerre non oportere c. He was discontented because he could not obteine a Bishopricke and thereupon he fell into the heresie of the Arians to which he added some opinions of his owne saying it was not lawfull to pray or offer sacrifice for the dead c. These positions of his S. Augustine doth not call heresies but onely opinions Likewise Epiphanius Therefore adhuc saluares est my definition of heresie remaineth sound and not to be by him gainesayd But by the way that I may giue good satisfaction to the reader concerning this poynt We find in the