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
A64363	Mr. Pulton consider'd in his sincerity, reasonings, authorities, or, A just answer to what he hath hitherto published in his True account, his True and full account of a conference, &c. by the said Tho. Tenison.	Tenison, Thomas, 1636-1715.	1687 (1687)	Wing T703; ESTC R241	65,495	114

Boniface and other Bishops in order to the confirming of this Canon that they had received these Books to be read in the Church and then they give leave also that the Passions of Martyrs may be there read too upon their Anniversaries 2 ly It is true that St. Austin his next best Authority was a Consenter in general to the Council of Carthage and by that which he teaches about the Additional Books we shall understand them not to have been esteemed of equal Authority with the former Canon so that Mr. P. by producing St. Austin has brought us a Key to the Council of Carthage for the shutting out of himself Let us hear St. Austin in the very place cited by Mr. P. and afterwards in other places in which his mind is not ambiguously delivered The place cited by Mr. P. is in St. Austin's Book De Doctrina Christiana in which Book that Father asserts a Mystical sense in the Sixth Chapter of St. Iohn and in the very next Chapter to that cited by Mr. P. the Sufficiency and Perspicuity of the Scriptures If his Authority be valid for the Canon Why is it not for these latter Points But how very wide is Mr. P. of St. Austin's sense in this very place about the Canonical Books St. Austin affirms they are not all of equal Authority and Mr. P. affirms they are St. Austin before the Enumeration of them lays down these Rules of Caution A man must hold this measure in the Canonical Books he is to prefer those Scriptures which are received of all Catholick Churches where note he speaks of more Catholick Churches than one that is by Catholick he means Apostolick and Orthodox before those which some do not receive and in those which are not received of all let him prefer those which the greater number and the more considerable Churches receive before those which the Churches which are fewer and of lesser Authority receive But if he shall find some to be received by the greater number of Churches and others by the more considerable tho' this will scarce be found yet my opinion is that such are to be esteem'd of equal Authority There are many other places in S. Austin which make his mind very plain to those who are not so blind that they will not see Two places may at present suffice The first is In his Book of the City of God There he speaks of other Books which are not Canonical and amongst them reckons those of the Macchabees which were not in the Canon of the Israelites received as canonical by the Church by reason of the Suffering certain Martyrs by which passage it appears that the Church read them not as a primary Canon of Faith but a secondary Canon of Manners The next place is in his second Book against the Epistle of Gaudentius in which he asserteth that the Writings of the Macchabees were not received by the Iews as they received the Law the Prophets the Psalms for which our Lord bears Testimony as his Witnesses but that it is received by the Church and not unprofitably if it be soberly read or heard especially by reason of the Macchabean Martyrs As to the rest of his Authorities they are a further Testimony of the choice he made in his great Collection For his Epistle of Innnocent it was shuffled at last into the Roman Code which was very long without it Nor was the Decree of Gelasius known to the World till some Hundreds of years after his death and then it came forth out of the Dark Ware-house of Isidore Mercator Nor does it speak of the Order of the Canonical Books but of the Books of the Old Testament and it makes mention but of one Book of the Macchabees Further to what purpose is it after so great a gap in time as is betwixt these Authorities to mention the Council of Florence not held till the Year 1438. in which there was no Decree at all about the Apocryphal Books tho' he asserts the contrary from the no Authority of those who deceived the modern Epitomizer Caranza What Pope Eugenius might do is in this Cause insignificant As to that whole Council the Greeks at their return and when they were at Liberty undid that which out of fear and hope of Succour they seem'd to agree to whilst they were in the Territories of the Papacy 2. Touching his particular Points seeing he only mentions them and asks Questions about them without further Discourse upon them I will return him here a very brief answer reserving the further consideration of them for the forementioned Tract First For the Lords-day seeing a time is to be set apart for the Worship of God and that the Israelites by God's appointment kept one Day in Seven Sacred and that tho' the Law written in Tables of Stone so far as it was Typical and Mosaic was done away and that Christ came to perfect and not destroy the Law and that Christ rose on that day and that on that day at Pentecost his Church properly began and that this day was generally observed by Christians not meerly by Romans there is so strong a Scriptural Reason for the observation of it that no Church-Authority can omit or alter it without doing that which is irrational and unbecoming a Christian Society And if the Roman should make this Attempt it ought not to be obey'd 2. Concerning the Feast of Easter and the time of its observation I do not know who they are among Christians who make it one of the Necessaries to Salvation There is reason for making a solemn Memorial of Christ's Resurrection but that the Apostles setled the time is contrary to the express words in the Epistle not of Philippus as the Editor mistakes but Theophilus in the Council of Caesarea Which Epistle tho it is not so very ancient yet it is set out as such by the Jesuit Bucherius 3. Concerning Baptism Mr. P's third Point he says 't is necessary to Salvation If he had said generally necessary our Catechism had thus far agreed with him And St. Austin fetches his proofs for Infant-Baptism out of the Scripture against the Pelagians as our Church-Office does And they who consider that Infants are capable of ent'ring into Covenant with God and that Christ hath mentioned no other Gate of admittance into his Church but Baptism will fear the omission of Baptizing Infants And he who has regard to the Analogy of both Covenants will as readily construe our Saviour as requiring the Baptizing of Infants in that command Go and bring into the Christian School All Nations as a Iew would have construed Moses as requiring the Circumcising of Infants if he had said Go and Circumcise all Nations 4. For the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity the Arians opposed it by Tradition and the Fathers prov'd it by Scripture And the place in St. Iohn's Epistle There are three that bear Record in Heaven was by the Arians believed to be of such

Terrors from the Anathema's of the Bold and Uncharitable by being call'd to by several at the same time with great and restless Importunity saying This is the Way the right Hand is the Way the left Hand is the Way I say if such a Man by such Disturbance by repeated dinns of Clamour and by such other Mechanick Influences has the Frame of his Head so open'd as to let in a Scruple which cannot be remov'd or an Error which cannot be resisted let not Man judg such a one his Case must be reserv'd to God. This is the safety of Men and the true Bottom on which they may be easy in all Times of Controversy and in all Places and Circumstances viz. That they doing their present best with a good Heart both for Judgment and Manners and repenting sincerely of the Omission or Abuse of former Means God will accept of them according to what they have and not according to what they have not And this anticipates Mr. Pulton's Object 4. That Men of his Communion using all possible means for Truth are not therefore to be punished with Draconic or Sanguinary Laws because when all is done they are to be left to their Conscience For this is yielded to Men of all Communions upon supposition that the Government is satisfy'd 't is not Humour Interest or Faction but final Conscience and not present Perswasion which needs only consideration for the altering of it and may be put upon consideration by Discipline Provided also that Publick Peace be secured which Peace if Men disturb out of final or present Conscience as Saul did that of the Assemblies of Christians a careful Governour uses Civil Power against them for Example to looser Men and to them by way of Restraint rather than Punishment And in such Cases their Confinement is a Bethlem Object 5. The Primitive Christians made a True Church To a True Church the Rule of a Church is Essential This Church subsisted many Years without a compiled Canon for several Years past without any written Gospels or Epistles either divulg'd or compil'd into a Canon Wherefore the written Word of God can't be the only true Rule of Faith. Answer Part of this Objection is false History and part of it is fallacious Reasoning Part of this Argument is false History For First The first Christians were not without the Old Testament which is the same Rule with the New though the New is clearer And that Rule was illuminated by the very coming of Christ. Secondly St. Matthew's Gospel was written and divulged and accepted within very few Years after Christ's Ascension and so was St. Paul's first Epistle to the Thessalonians and the whole of the New Testament was written during part of the Life of a Man for St. Iohn a Disciple of Christ was the last Writer Part of this Argument is fallacious Reasoning For first The New Testament was a Rule to the Christians before it was compiled into a Canon for by compil'd he means compil'd into a Codex or Volume of Canons by a Council for Canons Laws and Statutes are Rules before they are collected into a Body and we see the Sacred Scripture cited as the Rule by St. Ignatius Clement Irenaeus Tertullian and other Ancient Christians before any Council met to compile them And the Jews had the Law for their Rule before Esdras as they say put the Holy Writers together 2. Writing or not writing does not alter the Christian Rule which is the same spoken or written But a Rule which may be preserved without writing for a few Years and whilst the Apostles were alive and to be consulted and Evangelists commission'd by them who wrought amongst them real Miracles whilst they taught the Christian Doctrine and expounded the Old Testament and after the manner of Christ opened the Understanding of the People that they might understand the mystical Sense of the Old Covenant was not likely to be preserved so entirely and so usefully without writing to the end of the World Nor was the Law trusted without writing When therefore we say that the Scriptures are our Rule what else do we mean but that the Doctrine of the Messiah first taught by him and afterwards written down by Evangelists and Apostles for the sake of Posterity to whom nothing could have been accurately transmitted for so long a time from Mouth to Mouth that this Doctrine first preached and then written is the Rule of his Disciples It is a Fallacy then to say that a Rule once not written and afterwards written is not the same because one is not written and the other is And it is so weak a one that no Man of Judgment will be insnar'd by it For he knows in his own little Affairs that an Account made first by word of Mouth and afterward written down for the avoiding of Mistakes and for the Preservation of that which frail Memory would lose is but the same Account So our Rule which was first dictated and then written is but one Rule When our Saviour said it and St. Paul repeated it and St. Luke wrote it down that it was more blessed to give than to receive the Rule was not altered but preserved And our Saviour said many other things which because they were not written down are not known Object 6. Neither the universal Church nor any part of it deliver'd the Protestants the Bible as they have it The other Books being brought under examination in the Year 397. were found to be of equal Authority with those which were formerly received So that the Protestants not receiving the Books they call Apochryphal want ten parts of the Rule For the making good of this Reasoning he mentions the Authorities of the Councils of Carthage Constantinople and Florence and of the Fathers S. Austin Pope Innocent the first Pope Gelasius and Pope Eugenius Answer His Reasoning shall be first consider'd and then his Authorities 1. His Reasoning is not right upon two Accounts First The Rule of the Scripture is not like a Mechanick Rule of which just so much serves for measuring For the Scripture is both a sufficient and an abundant Rule And strictly speaking our Rule of Faith is rather in the Scripture than the entire Volume For the necessary Doctrines are few and they are often repeated and the same things are said more than once by Moses by the Prophets Evangelists and Apostles There is good use to be made of all the Books extant but if some of them had been wanting the Rule of Faith might still have been contained in the rest If therefore we lay aside some Books he calls Canonical it does not thence follow that the Rule of Faith is shortned because the Code of the Canon is less All things in Scripture are useful but all things are not Doctrines absolutely necessary to Salvation Secondly Whilst he argues for a Rule larger than the Primitive Church received and adheres to a later Canon he argues against Tradition For he

force against them that they removed it out of many Copies Instances are infinite I will produce but one out of St. Hilary which shews the way of the Fathers in proving the Divinity of Christ out of the Scriptures St. Hilary compares the places in Isa. 6. St. Ioh. 12. and Rom. 10. and then draws this Conclusion The Prophet speaks the Gospel witnesseth the Apostle interpreteth the Church confesseth him who was seen to be the true God whilst no man owneth that God the Father was seen CHAP. V. Mr. P. consider'd with Relation to what he hath said about the Lateran Council MR. Poulton had mistaken some hundreds of Years in time about the great Lateran Council and he was tax'd for it in particular manner before Mr. M. and neither of them then deni'd it and now he turns it off by an Evasion which Katherine heard that he appealed to a General Council and troubled not himself with a private Man meaning the Monk Paschasius Radbertus If this had been his Answer what occasion could there have been for this Question put aloud to Mr. Merideth Why do you bring a Man for Mr. M. is a manager in Conference who has not common skill in History But notwithstanding He certifies for himself that he has profound skill for he had read all the Ecclesiastical History especially the Acts of Innocent the third and had Volumes of Notes relating thereunto Volumes better worth 10000 l. than the Books which I am wont to boast of before Catharine in the Cloudes and other such Witnesses For this Lateran Council let us weigh a little for a little ' weighing will suffice for a Feather these Reasonings and Authorities about the Lateran Council He proves it to be a General Council because Binius Labbe and Carranza give such an Account of it and because I oppose it by Father Walsh the Franciscan who it seems weak man is nothing in the hands of three such Defenders of the August Assembly That it may appear the more August he Notes that it was held against the Heresies of the Albigenses Now he should either have left out the Persecution of the Albigenses on his side or his Epithets of Sanguinary Bloody Penal on ours for as long as the Saint of the Lateran Council St. Dominic is remembred Blood and Penalties will not be forgotten This by the by and he will chide me for Rambling I return to Father Walsh and Binius And 1. I did not prove this Council by the mere Authority of Father Walsh but only noted how Father Pulton and Father Walsh agreed about their Rule of Faith in the great Article of Transubstantiation and how Mr. P. had own'd a Deposing Canon and denied it's Deposing Doctrine but this was with nimble art to be so clearly skipt over as not to be touched 2. I do in one point at least value Father Walsh above his very famous Binius and Labbe for they were friends of the Deposing Doctrine and he has been an open Enemy to it and for that Reason drawn no small hatred upon him Binius has words to this effect in his Collection of Councils Bonifacius VIII Justly Excommunicated Philip the IV. of France sirnamed the Fair for his Violation of the Law of Nations Labbe repeats them in the August Edition of the Louvre without any Note in the Margent against them but this giving Offence in the next Edition a Note is added which is rather an Evasion than a Reproof of that Doctrine He Notes that Binius err'd he does not say in the Doctrine of Excommunicating the King but in the History because Philip was not in one Jesuits Opinion tho he was in another's Excommunicated at all Moreover in the second Apparatus of Labbe and Cossart Jesuits to their Collection of Councils they have publish'd without Reflection this dangerous Doctrine That the Pope alone has power to depose an Emperor Kings and any other kinds of Power After this is it possible for any man to guess why this Franciscan is not this Iesuits Pope You will be wide of the Mark if you say it is because Father Walsh is an open Remonstrant and against deposing Whether the Acts of this Council were genuine or not I now dispute not But 't is certain 't was no truly General Council and yet that the major Part of Romish Writers have said it was And seeing Mr. P. is become one of that number let him with more Art than others have done attempt the evading the genuine Sense of its Decree for the Extirpation of Heresie owned afterwards by the Bull of Martin the V. It was then thus decreed That if a temporal Lord being requir'd and warn'd by the Church should neglect to purge his Dominions of Heresie he should first be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and the other Bishops of his Province whereof if within a years time he gave no satisfaction the Pope was to be warned who might absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance and expose his Dominions to be seiz'd on by Catholicks who having destroyed the Hereticks might thenceforward possess it without any contradiction and preserve it in the purity of the Faith saving the Right of the Principal Lord on CONDITION that he put no hindrance And it is expresly added that the same Course is to be observ'd towards them who have no Principal Lords CHAP. VI. Mr. P. considered in relation to what he has said touching the antiquity of Popery in England THREE things on this subject Mr. Pulton asserts yet there is not one of them which he can maintain 1. He asserts that Popery flourished in this Kingdom near a Thousand years he might as well have added my number of Ten thousand before Protestancy was ever heard of and that we our selves confess it Whereas we say that the British Bishops protested against the Popes Jurisdiction above a Thousand years ago that we had Witnesses against Romish Errors before Luther rose That our Faith is the Faith in the Ancient Creeds and that if our Protestations against Romish Errors are new it is because they were new and that we could not sweep out the Dirt till they had brought it in and that we are the same Church as from the beginning the Corruptions only being remov'd 2. He avers that the Corruptions I mention are but supposed and that I shall never be able to shew that St. Gregories Faith was not that which Rome now teaches I had said already that Gregory the Great had not sent into the Land the same Canon the Romanists now go by for he would not allow the Books of Macchabees to be Canonical Now according to Mr. Pulton's Art of Logic if old Popery has a shorter and new Popery has a longer Rule the Popery is not the same But then was then and now is now 3. He asserts concerning the Doctrines of the Two famous Synods the Second of Nice and that of