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
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A68554 A brief censure vppon two bookes written in answere to M. Edmonde Campions offer of disputation; Briefe censure uppon two bookes written in answere to M. Edmonde Campions offer of disputation. Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610. 1581 (1581) STC 19393; ESTC S106078 31,137 90

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

in ep 1. ad cor Isodorus Li. diu offic cap. 18. Damascenus Li. de ortho fid cap. 14. with others Nether importeth it anie thinge though the woorde facere dothe not signifie to consecrate of his owne nature for the facte of Christe going before draweth it to that signification as if a man should singe and afterwarde say to the standers by Hoc facite Doe the same héere facere should signifie to singe though not of his owne nature 12. You reporte the Iesuites to say Traditions are of equal authority with the woorde of God we must beleue thē though they be manifestlye against the Scripture Cens. fol. 230. You drawe towards an end M. Chark therfore you wil make a soūd lie for a parting blow You haue here added of your owne We must beleue them thoughe they be manifestlye against the Scripture The Iesuites say no such woord but they affirme the former parte of your wordes although not soe generally confusedly as you report For they say not that all traditions are of equal authoritye with the woord of God but only such as are certaynlye descended from Christ his Apostles and were deliuered by thē to be obserued as parte of the woorde of God For there are two kinds of traditions or doctrines receaued onlye by woord of mouthe the one called Ecclesiastical because they were begone and left vs only by the Church and thes ar of no greater authoritie then the writinges and other decrées of the Churche are The other are called Apostolicall or deuine left vnto vs by Christ the Apostles and thes are of no lesse authority then if they had ben writen by thē or then are the other things which they wrot For if a maister should leaue vnto his seruantes one thing in writing and an other thing by woord of mouthe they are of equal authoritie as all men wil graūt Thes traditions therfor if they be certainly knowen to come frō Christ his Apostles the Iesuites say they are of equal authority with y e written word not al traditiōs as you malitiously reporte And now that Christ his Apostles left vnto the Church diuers doctrines by word of mouth only not writen it is proued by inuincible argumētes as by the testimonies of the Councels Fathers stories of the Primatiue church by many places of scripture as namly by that S. Paule saithe to the Thessalonians Brethern stande fast and hould the traditions which you haue lerned ether by word of mouth or by our epistle Also it is proued by doctrines which we haue and hould the Church hath so done frō the beginning which doctrines notwithstanding are not writen but receaued by worde of mouth from Christ and the Apostles as baptisme of infantes celebration of the sondaye the nomber of the bookes of Scripture the fast of lent and the like wherof I haue geuen more examples before in your fourth reporte Now this being soe how vainly doe you bring in M. Charke against this the sayng of Christ touching the superstitious scribes and Pharases In vaine doe they worshipe me teaching doctrines that are but the traditions of men In your owne conscience I aske you is this anything pertaining to our purpose or contrarie to the Catholiques doctrine which I haue set doūe if it be not why doe you soe shamlesly deceaue the people with such impertinēt stuffe But this is your onlye refuge and herein lyethe the whole mayntenance of your cause to reporte vs still amisse and to refute vs with that whiche nothing pertayneth to the matter As in this place whiche you haue héere brought in let the reader marke how manye differences there be betwixt it and our purpose First Christ in this place reprehendeth the teaching of doctrins that are but of men and we talke of doctrines deliuered vs by Christ and his Apostles Secondly Christe reprehendeth not al obseruation of traditiōs of men but the noughtie obseruation of them by estéeming them more then the worde of God and by breaking the worde of God for the obseruinge of them which we also doe condemne Thirdlye those traditions of the Pharases which Christ reprehendeth were certayne idle and foolishe external ceremonies as the washing of cuppes and the lyke and dyuers of them were directe contrarye to the worde of God as certaine corrupt expositiōs of the law as Christ noteth there And these were of thrée kindes The one left by Rabbi Akiuam the other by Rabbi Iuda the thyrde by the sonnes of Asomoneus which interpretations all were called Deuteroseis that is secondarye expositions after Moyses of which peruerse expositions came al their errours of the Talmud But now what is this to the holye Traditions of Christ and his Apostles or of the Primatiue Church 13. Lastly you report the Iesuites to say We must worshippe the image of Christ with lyke honour that we doe the holy bookes of the Ghospel fol. 66. Agaynst which you bring in S. Paul askinge What agreemente is there betweene the temple of God and Idoles I answere much more agréement then there is betwéene the matter we talke of and this place of S. Paule For he talketh of drawinge the yoke with infidels and our question is whether the worshippe done to the image of Christ and to the Byble be al one or no But you by callinge the image of our Sauiour an Idole shew your selfe impious and you are accursed for it by the seuēth general Councel And by putting such great difference betwéene the worship of Christes Image and his books of the Ghospel you proue your vnderstanding to be very litle For if you graunt any kinde of worshippe to the one how can you deny the same to the other séeinge that both are creatures and as the Image was made by the Karuer so the letter of the Byble by the Printer and the hononr done to the one and the other is not to them selues but onely to God whose Image and word they are But if you denye al kinde of honour to them both in that they are creatures for we assigne no diuyne honour vnto them Thē first your place of S. Paul of difference is nothing to the purpose Secondlye what wil you saye to the worshipppe done vnto the Arke vnto the Cherubins vnto the serpent of brasse Why doth Dauid say Doe you adore the stoole of his feete Why are we commaunded to bowe our knée at the sounde of the name of Iesus which is but a creature representing Christ to the eare as his image doth to the eye S. Austen geueth this reason for it Because the honour done to these thinges doth redounde vnto him who is signified by them But you are so wilful M. Chark as you wil not vnderstād y e difference betwéene an image and an idole nor betwéene the honours done vnto a creature and to the creator but malitiously you wil stil confound the same in our names
the virgins which were rauished by vyolence in the Primatiue Church did it were no sinne Lastly he should haue added done wittingly for although Iacob laye with Lya which was not his wife yet because he knew it not but thought her to be Rachel his wyfe he sinned not Soe that the perfect definition of sinne is not that which Monhemius did put down and the Protestantes folow but rather that which Iesuites together with S. Austen and other learned Fathers haue set doune to wit Sinne is a humane acte voluntarilye and wittingly commited against the law of God And this is to be vnderstood of actual sinne properly But now how doth M. Charke ouerthrow this doctrine forsooth thus Contrarye to this saythe he is the woord of God 1. Iohn 3. the transgression of the lawe is sinne You séeme to haue made a vowe M. Charke not to deale playnlye in anye one thing Can you not aledge one litle sentence without falsifyinge The woords of S. Iohn are these Euerie one that sinneth committeth iniquitie and sinne is iniquitie Or as you will perhapps séeme to enforce it out of the gréeke woorde Anomia Sinne is transgression of the law But why haue you fraudulently turned it backward you knew well the force of transposition out of Sophistrie that it changeth all the meaning of the sentence For if I saye Euerie man is a liuing creature it is true but if I turne it backward and saye Euerie lyuinge crature is a man it is false Soe these woordes as S. Iohn vttereth them are most true Euerie sinne is iniquitie or transgression of the law but as you vtter them they are false to wit That euerie iniquitie or transgression of the lawe be it neuer soe little or donne without ether consent or knowledge or by a madd mā or brute beast should be properlye a mortal sinne Soe that this firste blasphemye of the Iesuites commeth not to be soe haynous as you would make it but rather to confound your ignorance which vnderstand not soe cléere doctrine but huddle vp matters as M. Campion telleth you alsoe to note your vntruthe in misreporting their woordes and the Scriptures against them And of this first depend the other two that folow 2. You report the Iesuites to saye Concupiscence remayning in the regenerate although it be against the law of God yet is it not sinne properlye in it selfe or of his owne nature Cens. fol. 38. You wil néedes helpe the Iesuites out with that which maketh for your purpose Wher finde you in them the wordes Although it be against the lawe of God They saye that albeit this Concupiscence doe sturre or moue a man some times to doe things whiche are repugnant to the lawe of God yet if no consent of harte be yelded vnto it it reacheth not to the nature of a mortal sinne woorthye of eternal damnation And albeit S. Paul doe some times cal it sinne yet meaneth he not properlye but by a figure wherby the name of the cause is often tymes atributed to the effect as the latine spéeche is called the latine Tongue because spéeche is the effect of the tongue Soe Concupiscence being the effect of original sinne is called some times sinne but not properly but only figuratiuely as also S. Paul calleth Christ him selfe Sinne because he was the sacrifice for sinne And all this is S. Austen his note whose playne woords in the same place are Concupiscence is not sinne in the regenerate if consēt be not yelded vnto her for the accomplishing of vnlawfull woorkes The same teacheth not only S. Augustine in dyuers other places but also all other Fathers of the Primatiue Church as Nazianzenus orat de S. Lana Pacianus orat de bap Clemens Alexandrinus Li. 1. Pedago cap. 6. Cyprian ser. de lot pedū et Li. 2. ep 2. Ambro. Li. 1. de vocat gentiū capit 5. Soe that al these good Fathers are partakers with the Iesuites of this blasphemie which you enforce vppon them But how doe you proue it to be blasphemie marie because Christ saythe Whosoeuer shall see a woman to luste after her he hath alredye committed adulterie with her in his harte But are you soe ignorant M. Charke doe you not sée that Christ by adding the woords in his harte meaneth onlye of him which geueth consent of harte to his luste and concupiscence and would put it in execution if he had tyme and place and abilitie but this is your common alleaging of Scripture 3. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the first motions of lust are without hurt of sinne Cens. 54. 89. It is most true and playne as they deliuer it but you by clipping their woords make euerie thing to séeme a paradoxe They saye the first motions of luste if they come of natural instinct only without anye cause geuen by vs are no sinnes so longe as we geue no consent of hart vnto them And the reason is because it lyeth not in vs they being natural to prohibit them to come no more then it dothe to prohibit our pulse from beating And therfore séeing no sinne can be cōmitted without our will and consent of hart as I haue shewed before these first motions can be no more sinnes in vs then they are in beastes for the like reason Nether is the ten the commaundement alleaged by you for the contrarie doctrine to wit Thou shalt not couet anye waye repugnant to this For this commaundement forbiddeth consent to these motions and not the verie motions which are not in oure power as the Scripture it selfe signifieth when it saythe This commaundement which I doe geue the this daye is not aboue thee And as S. Austen learnedlye prouethe out of an other place of scripture wher this commaundement is expounded to wit Goe not after thy concupiscence That is consente not to them or followe them not 4. You reporte the Iesuites to say The holye Scripture is a doctrine vnperfecte maymed lame not contayning all thinges necessarie to fayth and saluation Cen. fo 220. You are tooe shameles M. Charke in setting for the these for the Iesuites woordes Lett anye man read the place and he shall finde noe such thing but rather in contrarie manner the holy Scripture with reuerente woordes most highlye commended Notwithstanding they reprehend in that place Monhemius for sayinge that nothing is to be receaued or beleued but that whiche is expreslye founde in the Scripture For reproofe of which heresie they geue examples of manie thinges which bothe we and our aduersaries also doe beleue which neuerthelese are not set downe expres●ye in the Scripturs although perhaps ●educed therof As the perpetuall virginitye of our Ladye after her childe-birth two natures and two willes in Christe the procéedinge of the holye Ghost equally from the Father and the Sonne with out generation the vnion of the worde vnto the nature of mā and not vnto the personne That