Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	faith_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	8,010	5	9.4856	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66243	A plain defence of the Protestant religion, fitted to the meanest capacity being a full confutation of the net for the fishers of men, published by two gentlemen lately gone over to the Church of Rome. Wherein is evidently made appear, that their departure from the Protestant religion was without cause of reason. Written for publick good by L. E. a son of the Church of England, as by law established.	L. Ė.; Wake, William, 1657-1737, attributed name.	1687 (1687)	Wing W251A; ESTC R221936	36,083	64

before there was no chief over the rest Of Oral Tradition PA. 55. Oral and Apostolical Tradition without written Books either was the means of Planting and Conserving the Christian Religion or it was not Pro. It was not Pa. If not how did the Apostles propagate the Faith of Christ without written Books Pro. They did not but in propagating the Faith they always appealed to the Scriptures of the Old Testament they indeed taught the Christian Doctrine by word of Mouth before they committed it to Writing but that was no Tradition handed from Father to Son which is the Tradition you plead for Pa. 56. The number of the Canonical Books are mentioned in Scripture or they are not Pro. They are not Pa. If not how do you know the Canonical Books but by Oral Tradition Pro. By written Tradition the Testimony of all Ages in their Writings Pa. 57. The Christians of the Primitive Age on pain of Damnation held nothing for Faith but what they had received from Christ and his Apostles for such or they did not Pro. They did Pa. Why then do you deny Tradition Pro. We do not deny all Tradition but we affirm that Tradition is not as the Council of Trent affirms of equal Authority with the written Word but the Primitive Christians received their Faith from Christ and his Apostles by means of the Scriptures not by means of unwritten Tradition Pa. 58. Apostolical Tradition is the Rule by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrine Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote or else not Pro. If you can shew us any Apostolical Tradition and prove it to be such we will own it but for unwritten Tradition it is not the Rule Pa. If not how otherwise can we be assured Pro. What Doctrine Christ taught we can be assured by the Scriptures what Books the Apostles wrote we can be assured by Universal written Tradition the greatest Historical Evidence but not by unwritten Of the Eucharist PA. 59. That natural Body and Blood which Christ offered upon the Cross for the remission of Sins it was the same which Christ gave to his Apostles or it was not Pro. If you mean that material Body and Blood it was not Pa. Why do you then deny that Scripture of St. Luke 22. 19. This is my Body which shall be given for you and that Matt. 26. 20. This is the Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many for the Remission of Sins Pro. Why do you falsify the words of St. Luke and St. Matthew their Words are This is my Body which is given for you and This is my Blood which is shed for many not which shall be and we deny not the Words of the Evangelists but we deny the real Presence you assert because Christ spake here of his real figurative Sacramental Body not of his real natural Pa. 60. Christ either gave his Body and Blood to his Apostles at his last Supper or he did not Pro. He did Pa. Why then do you deny the real Presence Pro. We do not deny a real Presence but a natural Corporal Presence we do we affirm Christ to be present really and sacramentally but not naturally in the Body and Blood on which he hung upon the Cross according to that of St. Austin in Psal. 98. You shall not eat that Body which was Crucified nor drink the Blood which was shed upon the Cross. Pa. 61. When Christ said This is my Body did he speak Metaphorically or not Pro. He did Pa. If he did prove the Metaphor out of Scripture Pro. So we do both from the words of the Institution and the parallel places of Scripture 1. From the Words of the Institution This is my Body either those words are to be understood in a Metaphorical Sense or they are not if not then they are to be understood in a litteral if they are then they are a Metaphor If they are to be understood in a litteral Sense then they are either true in that Sense or they are not If they are not then Christ was a Lyar which is Blasphemy if they are true in a litteral Sense then the Bread is Christs Body or it is not if it is not then those words This is my Body are false if it be then an Impossibility is true for your own Authors confess that it is impossible that the Bread should be the Body of Christ litterally Gra. de Consec dist 2. c. 55 But an Impossibility cannot be true therefore the Bread is not Christs real Body If it be not Christs real Body they cannot be taken in a litteral Sense therefore they must be taken in a Metaphorical 2. From the Parallel places of Scripture when Christ says I am a Vine it is a Metaphor when he says I am a Door it is a Metaphor when he says I am a way it is a Metaphor when he says this is the Cup of the New Testament it is a Metaphor These are parallel Places of Scripture all Metaphors therefore This is my Body is a Metaphor too According to Theodoret. Dial. immutab he who called himself a Viae called the Sign his Blood. Pa. 62. The blessed Body of Christ not being contained in the Bread can be eaten or it cannot Pro. That Body which is not contained there viz. His Natural Body cannot be eaten but his Sacramental Body which is Spiritually there may therefore we do not maintain that we eat the Body which is not contained in the Bread but that which is therewith given to the Faithful we do eat Pa. Doth it not imply a great contradiction seeing you hold the Body is eaten in the Eucharist and not eaten in the Eucharist Pro. No. We do not say his Body is not eaten we affirm it is but not Carnally but Spiritually so that it is eaten by the Faithful not eaten by the unworthy receiver to maintain as you do that it is eaten and not eaten at the same time by the same person would be a contradiction but it is none to affirm that it is eaten by the worthy and not eaten by the unworthy receiver Of Liturgy in an unknown Tongue PA. 63. That which the Apostles practised is either lawful for us to practise or it is not Pro. Every thing they practised is not lawful for us to practise for some things they did which their Extraordinary Office warranted which is not Lawful for us to do but every thing they practised as private Christians is lawful for us to practise Pa. If it be why do you deny the Lawfulness of the Liturgy in an unknown Tongue seeing the Apostles had their publick Liturgies in Greek Syriack and Latin. Pro. We do not deny the Lawfulness of Liturgies in any Tongue but we deny the Lawfulness of using them among and imposing them upon a People who understand not the Language they are in And though I deny the Liturgies you speak of to have been extant in the times of the Apostles

sufficient that it was Christs Pleasure to have it as it was and that he tells us it was by Faith she was Cured Matt. 9. 22. Daughter saith our Saviour be of good Comfort thy Faith hath made thee whole Pa. 89. The virtue of casting out Devils and curing the Diseases consisted in the Napkins and Handkerchiefs that had but touched the Body of St. Paul or it did not Pro. I cannot say that it consisted in them but it was conveighed by them Pa. If it was why do you deny the veneration of Reliques Pro. If I should allow that the virtue of doing those Miracles did really consist in those Napkins and Handkerchiefs yet cannot an Argument be deduc'd from hence that we must worship Reliques for those Napkins and Handkerchiefs were never Worshipped Pa. 90. The Bodies of dead Saints have either restored Men to Life or they have not Pro. The Bodies have not but God by the Bodies hath Pa. If so then the Reliques of Saints are worthy to be Venerated Pro. I deny that by Moses's Rod by Elizeus's Mantle and his Bones Miracles were wrought yet those Reliques were never worshipped Of Free Will. PA. 91. God either left Man to his own Free Wil●… or he did not Pro. If you speak of the state of Man before the Fal●… I answer God did leave him to his own Freewill but since the Fall I affirm God hath left Man to his own Fre●… Will as to moral Actions but as to Spiritual he hath no●… So that we do not deny all Free Will but only in Spiritu●… things Pa. Why do you falsify that Scripture Eccl. 15. 14. G●… from the Beginning made Man and left him in the hand ●● his own Counsel Prot. That Passage is in Ecclesiasticus not in the Canonical Scripture and therefore of no Authority in this Case but if it were it speaks nothing of Free Will to Spiritual actions in Men since the Fall but of the Power which Adam had in the Beginning Pa 92. The choice of Good and Evil is either left in Mans Free Will or it is not Pro. The whole choice of Moral goed and evil is but the right acceptable choice of Spiritual good is not Pa. Why then do you deny that of Josh. 24. Choose you this Day whom you will serve Pro. We do not deny it but we say that it is nothing to your purpose Seeing to chuse Spiritual good or evil is in Man's Power but to chuse it aright is not that is to chuse it from a right Principle and to a right End. Pa. Why do you deny that Joh. 1. 12. As many as received Christ to them he gave Power to become the Sons of God. Pro. We do not deny it but we say that a right choice of Spiritual good is not in Mans Power and this is clear from this very Text for receiving Christ follows choosing of him but till he gave them more Power than they had before they could not chuse him so as to become the Sons of God therefore they had no Power Naturally to chuse him aright So that this Text overthows your selves Pa. 93. Man hath Power either to keep his Virgin or he hath not Pro. If you mean by that Expression what the Apostle intends 1 Cor. 7. 37. I answer he hath Pa. Why then do you deny Free Will Pro. We do not deny Free Will in moral actions such as this is where the Apostle is only treating of the Power of Guaraians or Parents over the Virgins under their Care but that which we deny it in is Spiritual Actions of which this is no Instance Pa. 94. All that God commands is either in Man's free Power or it is not Pro. All that God commands Man to do by his own Power is but all that he commands such as that Precept Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart is not Pa. Then you condemn God of Tyranny in commanding that which is not in Mans Free Power to do Pro. That doth not follow as long as God will enable him to do that for which his own free Power is not sufficient as in the Text you cited just now Joh. 1. 12. To those whose own Power was not sufficient he gave Power to become the Sons of God. Pa. But is not this as if I should threaten my Servant with horrible Death for not bringing me the Man in the Moon Pro. No for if you did so you would be unjust and Tyrannical seeing your Servant could not do it neither could you enable him but God requires nothing but what either Man can do or God will enable him to perform Of Faith without Works PA. 95. Faith working by Charity either justifies or it doth not Pro. Faith properly speaking doth not justify but by such a Faith we are justified Pa. If so then your justifying Faith flies without Wings Pro. I deny that for there is no such a thing as a Justifying Faith without Works we affirm that no Faith is true but that which worketh by Love. Pa. 96. A Man only saying Lord Lord either may be Saved or he may not Pro. He may not Pa. If not then where is your justifying Faith Pro. In the word of God and the Heart of every true Believer who shews his Faith by his Works Pa. 97. You either hope to be saved by believing in God only without Works or you do not Pro. We do hope to be justified and consequently Saved by Faith in Christ only Pa. Then the damned Spirits may expect Salvation seeing they believe and tremble Pro. That doth not follow that Faith which the Damned have is but an Historical Faith but the Faith by which we are justifyed is a Faith which purifies the Soul and is productive of good Works which the Damned cannot have We do not then hope to be saved by Faith without Works but by Faith and not by Works Of the Merit of Works PA. 98. Every Man will be rewarded at the last Day according to his Works or he will not Pro. He will Pa. If he will then good Works will be meritorious and receive a good Reward Pro. They will receive a Reward which they never deserved but which by the Grace of Christ is purchased for and given to them but not for any Merit in them but by Virtue of his Promise and free Love not by way of Debt due to the Works Pa. 99. Christ either encouraged his Apostles to suffer Afflictions patiently in expectation of a Reward or he did not Pro. He did Pa. Why then were not their Persecutions meritorious and consequently our good Works Pro. Because the reward is not given to the desert of their Works which bear Proportion with the greatness of the Reward but it comes only from the pure Mercy and Grace of God and if our good Works give us any Title to that Reward it is not from themselves but the Promise Pa. 100. That Crown of Justice which St. Paul said was laid up for himself