Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostolical_a	church_n	tradition_n	4,989	5	9.5918	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09400	A discourse of conscience wherein is set downe the nature, properties, and differences thereof: as also the way to get and keepe good conscience.	Perkins, William, 1558-1602.	1596 (1596)	STC 19696; ESTC S110415	85,171	182

obstinate that Lent fast was not commaunded in the Primitiue Church but was freely kept at mens pleasures in seuerall Churches diuersly both in regard of space of time as also in respect of diversity of meats Ireneus in his epistle to Victor ●…ed by Eusebius saith Some have thought that they must fast o●… day some two daies some more some 40. houres day and night which diversitie of fasting commendeth the vnitie of faith Spiridion a good man did eate flesh in Lent and caused his guest to doe the same and this he did upon iudgemēt because he was perswaded out of Gods worde that to the clean all things were cleane And Eusebius recordes that Montanus the hereuke was the first that prescribed solemne and set lawes of fasting And whereas this fast is called an Apostolicall tradition it is no great matter for it was the manner of the ancient Church in former times to tearme rites and orders Ecclesiasticall not set downe in scriptures Apostolicall orders that by this meanes they might commend them to the people as Ierome testifieth Every province saith he may thinke the constitutions of the ancestours to be Apostolicall lawes And whereas it is said to be a sinne not to fast in Lent as Augustine speaketh it is not by reason of any commandement binding conscience for Augustine saith plainly that neither Christ nor his Apostles appointed any set time of fasting Chrysostome that Christ neuer commanded vs to follow his fast but the true reason hereof is borrowed from the ende For the Primitiue Church vsed not the popish fast which is to eat whitmeate alone but an abstinence from all meates vsed specially to morufie the flesh and to prepare men before-hand to a worthy receiuing of the Eucharist And in regarde of this good ende was the offence And whereas it is said that auncient fathers taught a necessitie of keeping this fast euen Hierome whome they alledge to this purpose saith the contrary For confuting the errour of Montanus who had his set times of fast to be kept of necessity hee saith We fast in Lent according to the Apostles tradition as in a time meete for vs and wee doe it not as though it were not lawfull for vs to fast in the rest of the yeere except Penticost but it is one thing to doe a thing of necessitie and anothing to offer a gift of free-vvill Lastly excommunication was for the open contempt of this order taken vp in the Church which was that men should fast before Faster for their further humiliation preparation to the sacrament So the 29. canō of the councill of 〈◊〉 must be understood As for the Canons of the Apostles so falsely called and the 8. councill of Toledo I much respect not what they say in this case Arg. 14. Gods authority binds conscience magistrates authority is Gods authority therefore magistrates authority binds conscience properly Ans. Gods authority may be takē two waies first for that soueraigne and absolute power which he useth ouer all his creatures secondly for that finite limited power which he hath 〈◊〉 that men shall exercise ouer men If the minor 〈◊〉 that Magistrates authority is Gods authority be taken in the first sense it is false for the soueraigne power of god is mooue●…ic able If it be taken in the second sense the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 false For there be sundry authorities ordained of God as the authority of the father oner the childe of the master over the servant the authority of the master ouer his scholler which doe not properly and 〈◊〉 bind in conscience as the authority of gods lawes doth By these arguments which I haue now answered by many other being but lightly 〈◊〉 it will appeare that necessary obedience is to be performed both to ciuil ecciesiasticall iurisdiction but that they haue a constraining power to bind conscience as properly as gods laws do it is not yet prooued neither can it be as I will make manifest by other arguments Arg. 1. He that makes a law binding consciēce to mortal sinne hath power if not to saue yet to destroy because by sin which follows upon the transgressiō of his law comes death dānation But God is the only lawgiuer that hath this priuiledge which is after he hath giuē his law vpō the breaking or keeping thereof to save or destroy Iam 4. 12. There is one lawgiuer that can saue or destroy Therfore God alone makes laws ●inding cōscience properly no creature cā do the like Answer is made that S. Iames speaks of the principall law-giuer that by his own proper authority makes lawes doth in such manner saue destroy that he need not feare to be destroied of any that he speaks not of secondary lawgiuers that are deputies of god make laws in his name I say again that this answer stāds not with the text For S. Iames speakes simply without distinctiō limitatiō or exceptiō the effect of his reason is this No mā at all must slander his brother because no man must be iudge of the law no man can be iudge of the law because no man can be a law-giuer to saue and destroy Now then where be those persons that shall make lawes to the soules of men binde them unto punishment of mortall sinne considering God alone is the sauing destroying lawgiuer Arg. 2. He that can make laws as truly binding conscience as gods lawes can also prescribe rules of Gods worship because to bind the consciēce is nothing els but to cause it to excuse for things that are well done and therefore truely please God to accuse for sinne wherby god is dishonoured but no man can prescribe rules of gods worship humane lawes as they are humane laws appoint not the seruice of God Esai 29. 13. ●●●ir fear towards me was taught by the precept of 〈◊〉 Mat. 15. 9. they worship me in vain teach●●● doctrines which are the commandements of 〈◊〉 Papists here make answer that by lawes of men we must understand such lawes as be unlawfull or unprofitable being made without the authority of God or instinct of his spirit It is true indeed that these commandements of men were unlawfull but the cause must be considered they were unlawfull not because they commanded that which was unlawful against the will of God but because things in themselues lawfull were commanded as parts of gods worship To wash the outward part of the cup or platter to wash hands before meat are things in respect of civill use very lawfull yet are these blamed by Christ no other reason cā be rendred but this that they were prescribed not as things indifferent or ciuill but as matters pertaining to Gods worship It is not against Gods worde in some politike regards to make distinctions of meats drinks times yet Paul calls these things doctrines of deuils because they were commāded as things