Selected quad for the lemma: woman_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A15691
|
A godly and learned answer, to a lewd and vnlearned pamphlet intituled, A few, plaine and forcible reasons for the Catholike faith, against the religion of the Protestants. By Richard Woodcoke Batchellor of Diuinitie.
|
Woodcoke, Richard.
|
1608
(1608)
|
STC 25965; ESTC S104839
|
92,243
|
124
|
in the spirit to vvhom hee vvould vvarning them by visions as he would in the spirit doubtlesse by the which spirit hee was also quickened wherein his passion he was mortified in the flesh For what meanes if that he was quickened by the spirit but that the same flesh wherein alone Christ was mortified rose againe by the quickâ—ning spirit This exposition of Peters words saith Augustine if any man mislike or thinke not sufficient let him seeke how he may vnderstand them of bell and if he can solue the doubts which haue before mentioned to wit against the point of hell let him shew it me which if be doe these words may be vnderstoode both waies but sure this exposition cannot be conuinced of anie falshood I haue beene the larger in dilating the learned and holy iudgement of Augustine in this behalfe that all men euen the vnlearned may see how when the Fathers make against you you will not see it nay rather as your Rhemistes doe you will inforce things spoken by them as Annot. 1. in 1. Pet. 3. 19. by Augustine in this Epistle but not approoued by them as if they were deliuered out of their best iudgement Fourthly to come to your quarelling obiections the two first corruptions wherewith you charge vs to wit that wee translate By the spirit for in the spirit and againe By the which for In the which you may as well charge Augustine withall as vs who hath gone before vs in so vnderstanding translating and expounding For by the word Spirit vnderstanding the Diuinitie of our Sauiour Christ it cannot be saide that his Diuinitie was quickened or hee quickened in the Diuinitie but by the Diuinitie his dead body was quickened And so Dionysius Carthusianus a man not misliked by your selues vnderstandeth expoundeth the latter words By which also Vult itaque saith he princeps Apostolorum asserere quod Christus qui nostris temporibus carne indutus veniens pradicauit hominibus â—ter salutis ipse etiam ante diluuium eis qui tum increduls erant spiritu veniens praedicauit Ipse namque per spiritum sanctum erat in Noe sicque beatissimus Petrus in verbis istis apertâ—ssimè innuit Christi diuâ—nitatem vtriusque naturâ— vnam esse personam in ipso The Prince of the Apostles saith Dionysius meaneth to affirme that Christ who in our time came cloathed with the flesh and preached vnto men the way of saluâ—tion himselfe also before the floud comming in spirit preached to them vvho then vvere vnbeleeuing For he himselfe by his Spirit vvas in Noe c. And so S. Peter in those vvords doth manifestlie implie the diuinitie of Christ and that in him there is one person of two natures He meÌ„tioneth indeed that other opinioÌ„ of Lambus but makes small reckoning of it as to belong any thing to this place And heere by occasion of that which Dionysius hath well obserued I will not let it passe vnpointed at how you damme vp so notable a streame of the Scriptures seruing to prooue the Diuinitie and the vnion of two natures in the one person of Christ as this place affoordeth onely to haue some blinde pretence for your imagination of Limbus But besides for answere to your accusations if you please to compare that which S. Paul saith 1. Tim. 3. 16. Manifested in the flesh iustified in the spirit you may finde the opposition alike in both betweene flesh and spirit that is humanitie and Deitie The words In spirit in the first place Haymo interpreteth PerplenitudineÌ„ Diuinitatis Dionysius Carthusianus per operationeÌ„ Spiritus sancti As Christ was iustified that is declared mightilie to be the sonne of God as Rom. 1. 4. by the spirit that is by his diuinity So was he quickened or raised againe from the dead as Augustine before expounded by the spirit that is his diuinity The third corruption wherewith you charge our translation is Are in prison for were in prison If you vnderstand Prison as Augustine doth though you reade Were in prison what get you by it if by prison the place of vnbeleeuers and disobedient persons after this life be meant as the noting of their sinne and of their punishment so coupled together doe import what is that but hell wherein they were not when Christ in Spirit or By his Spirit preached vnto them but now are and therefore vnderstanding Christ to haue preached to them in Noes time as Augustine doth you cannot say they were then in prison when Christ preached but rather are now for their disobedience Lastly it might be heer noted how you are faine to fetch about to fit this place to your Limbus For whereas Peter speaketh of those that were in Noes time disobedient and saieth of them that they are in prison you to draw it to Limbus which is a hard matter to match them with faithfull Abraham that are noted by the name of disobedient and the world of vngodly are faine to deuise that some of them repented in the very drowning and so after some paines felt in purgatorie were translated to Limbus for so Dionysius Annot. 2. in 1 Pet 3. 20. sets downe the opinion of some and your Rhemistes closely insinuate as much such turning of deuises and coyning of conceites you are put to before you can hansomly make any thing of this place to serue your turne But when all comes to all though you teach that the Fathers were deliuered out of Limbus by Christes descension yet Peter teacheth no such matter as before hath beene made plaine vnto you PAPIST Lastly to prooue that Priests may marrie they translate Saint Paul thus Haue we not power to lead about a vvife being a sister 1. Cor. 9. 4. putting in the word wife for woman most falslie as their elder translation telleth them And if vvee may beleeue S. Paul himselfe he was vnmarried For so he saith plainly in the same Epistle 1. Cor. 7. 8. and therefore what is this but plaine corruption PROTESTANT First what neede we straine any Scripture to prooue this point when the Apostle in plaine words saith that a Bishop 1. Tim. 3. 2. must be the husband of one wife Secondly your translation rather straineth and misplaceth the words putting that first which is second For in the Apostles words Sister is in the first place in your translation you haue put it in the second place to make as if it were a limitation of the generall word Woman onely to Sisters that is beleeuing women Whereas indeede the Apostle hauing first saide a sister neede not add a Woman which is necessarily implied in the name Sister and therefore addeth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for distinction to put a difference of the Sister hee meant from all other Sisters Hee therefore meant a Sister being a wife the fittest companion of their iourneies Thirdly it agreeth neither with the Apostles words nor his purpose to interpret his words as you vse to doe of
take vpon him to define of what nature the sins are which by the praiers of the liuing are remitted to the dead what those sins are saith he which so hinder coÌ„ming to the kingdom of heauen that yet through the merits of their holy frends they obtaine pardon after death it is most hard to find most dangerous to define I surely euen vntill this time although I haue taken paines enough about it yet could neuer De ciui Dei lib. 21. cap. 27. attaine to search it out Secondly Augustine so praieth for his mother Monica that yet he doubreth not that she in her life time obtayned remission of all her sins by the bloud of Christ dispeÌ„sed to her waiting dailie at his Altar he therefore praieth only that it may be vnto her according to her faith that she may be preserued froÌ„ the powers of darknes receiue the 1 Pet. 1. 9. end of her faith the saluation of her soule that is he praieth for her consuÌ„mation in the kingdome of God of Christ For Augustine himselfe confesseth Therefore no new merits are purchased for the deade when their friends do anie good for them but these things are recompensed to their former merits De verb. Apost Ser. 32 What is this to Popish praier for the gaole deliuery of souls that are in the pains of Purgatory of whoÌ„ you fain that many are the sooner deliuered by your lip-labors a deuise of late times to improue the Popes reuenues and to enrich Cloysters and idle bellies Lastly Augustine himselfe being so vnsetled in the matter of Prayer for the dead that he is faine to bring strange interpretations of the vse of Prayer and other charities for the dead For these being generally done for all the dead he saith that For those that are very good they are thankesgiuings for those that are very euill although they be no helpe to them yet are they comforts to the liuing and yet after that he saith they auaile to make their paines lighter and their damnation more tolerable which if it be so is some helpe for the middle sort they are propitiations that is supplicatorie praiers for pardon of their sinnes which yet speaking of his mother Monica he saith she had in her life time And to salue the Confes lib. 9. cap. 13. 2. Cor. 5. 10. Scripture which saith that euery one shall receiue according to that he hath done in his life he is faine to say that these in their life time deserued to haue benefit by the Churches prayers which what it is else but remission of sinnes Augustine I say being thus inwrapped in vncertainties maruaile you that Caluine said it was anile votum c. an old womans desire which her sonne did not examine by the rule of Scripture but of a naturall affection was desirous to approue vnto others Where resolution wanted in the matter there could be no sufficient warrant whatsoeuer you say to the contrary PAPIST About particular and auricular confession of sinnes we haue also the authoritie of antiquity as the same Caluine informeth Inst lib. 3. cap. 4. sec 7. Auricular confession ancient vs. I maruaile quoth he with what face they dare contend that the confession whereof they speake was ordained by Gods law the vse whereof I confesse was passing auncient but easily can I proue that in old time it was free Nay then with what face dare he deny that to be ordained by Gods law For what man of reason can thinke that antiquitie would haue vsed it had it not descended from Christ and his Apostles or what power could haue brought it into the Church it being so contrarie to our proude nature had not the Sonne of God himselfe planted that doctrine But it was free in old time saith he What then For do we not know that the Communion was so likewise in olde time If then the Church of England may make a law to bind men once in the yeare to the Communion may not the Catholike Church do the like for confession Still Caluine giueth vs the ancient Fathers but reserueth the Scriptures for himselfe we take what be granteth but deny what he requireth PROTESTANT Confession of some particular sinnes specially such as lay heauie vpon the conscience but not of euery particular sinne with euery circumstance and that to euery parish priest in secret which is your popish eare-shrift such confession I say to a Priest by speciall order of the Churches appointed thereunto Caluine doth confesse and well may to be very ancient and yet maintaine popish eare-thrift to be very yong as receiuing his first authoritie from the Laterane councell vnder Innocentius 3. in the yeare of our Lord 1215. as Caluine in the same place telleth you But you aske with what face be dare that it was ordained by Gods law For you say what man of reason can thinke that antiquitie would haue vsed it had it not descended from Christ and his Apostles Tertullian whom you will not deny to be a man of reason though he shew the antiquitie of offerings for the De Coron milit dead yet confesseth there is no Scripture for it Therefore your forcible reason hath neither force nor grace when you thus conclude Antiquitie vsed confession of particular sinnes to a Priest Therefore it was ordained by Gods law Besides doth not M. Caluine proue vnto you that antiquitie held it not to be of diuine institution for otherwise Nectarias Bishop of Constantinople would not haue abrogated it for the abuse of it neither would Chrysostome after him haue giuen so much liberty from such confession as he doth as he is alleaged by M. Caluine in the next section to that you mention See Inft. lib. 3. cap. 4. Sec. 8. therefore with what face you chalenge him in that wherein he bringeth so sufficient proofe The proofe by him there alleaged I set not downe at large because if you will you may as easily finde them set downe by him as you could find this peece by you alleaged But whether your corner-shrift be of that Antiquity that you pretend if Caluins proofes perswade you not see what Beatus Rhenanus writeth Moreouer for no other cause haue we here vsed the testimonies of manie then to this end that no man Argâ—â— in Tertul lib. de pâ—nitent should maruaile that Tertullian hath spoken nothing of this corner or secret confession of sinnes committed which at that time was vtterly vnknowen And in another place in his book De poenitentia Admonit de Tertul dogmat he mentioneth onlie publike confession And againe Not onlie in Tertullian but euen in those which liued manie ages after there is onelie mention of publike pennance and confession If it had descended from Christ and his Apostles it could not haue beene so earely and so long out of vse Such is the antiquity of your Eareshriâ—t Your next reason to deriue it froÌ„ Christ and his Apostles is because it being a