Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	church_n	divine_a	faith_n	7,996	5	6.0272	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13642	Keepe your text. Or a short discourse, wherein is sett downe a method to instruct, how a Catholike (though but competently learned) may defend his fayth against the most learned protestant, that is, if so the protestant will tye himselfe to his owne principle and doctrine, in keeping himselfe to the text of the scripture. Composed by a Catholike priest	Véron, François, 1575-1649. Adrian Hucher ministre d'Amyens, mis à l'inquisition des passages de la Bible de Genève. aut	1619 (1619)	STC 23924; ESTC S107525	31,396	48

would say c. or this is the meaning of such a Text c. but it sufficeth for vs to presse only the most obuious familiar and literall sense of the said Texts Now to that second part of the former Obiection where it is vrged that the Catholike insisting in Proofes drawne from Philosophie or from humane authorities of the Pope Fathers Councels and the like stands obnoxious to the same inconueniences whereunto the Protestant by vrgeing proofes of like nature is iudged in this discourse to runne I answere to this first that seeing the Catholike notwithstanding all due reuerence and honour to the Scripture acknowledgeth not the Scripture to be the sole rule or square of Faith that therefore hee may seeke to proue his articles from other testimonies then only Scripture Secondly I say that the Catholike beleeueth not any point as an article of faith because it receiueth it proofe from humane authorities since they are holden as morall inducements only of faith the Church of God being the Propounder of such diuine Mysteries and the reuelation of them made by God the true Formall and last Cause of our beliefe of them Lastly I answere that the supreme Bishop or generall Councell from whom the Catholike drawes his authoritie are not simply humane authorities but withall diuine and supernaturall Since the one is the head of the Church the other the mysticall body of Christ to both which himselfe hath (q) Mat. 16. 1. Tim. 3. giuen infallible assistance in points touching Mans saluation and hath (r) Mat. 18. threatned that they who finally shall denie this assistance shall neuer enter into the spirituall Canaan And thus much touching the solution of the former obiection Hitherto wee haue discoursed of the Method which is to be obserued by an vnexperienced Catholike with a ready and prepared Protestant Scripturist where if we deeply weigh what can be the last hope of such a Disputation we shall find that the finall resolution of all would runne to this point to wit to know what credit and affiance is to be giuen to certayne exorbitant constructions of Scripture forged against all true contexture of the passages themselues and crossed by the reuerent Antiquitie of the purest Ages by which course the Protestant stands no lesse chargeable in beleeuing of errours then in not beleeuing the truth So as this must be in all likelihood the issue of all for so long as the Protestant Minister perseuers in alleaging of Scripture so long he expects that we should reuerently entertayne that sense and construction of it which his worthy-selfe vouchsafeth with wonderfull pertinacie of iudgement the very Crisis of all Hereticall disease to impose vpon it thus making himselfe in the end sole Iudge both of the Scripture and of all Controuersies from thence to be proued For to admit our expositions of the Scripture he scornes solemnely affirming that it were openly to patronize superstition to follow the iudgements of the ancient Fathers in their interpreting of it he is no more willing since he is content to charge and insimulate though truly the said Fathers within the defending of our supposed errours And hence it is that diuers of our Aduersaries haue disgorged out of their impure stomachs most Serpentine and venimous speeches against those Lamps of Gods Church And answerably hereto we finde Luther the right hand of Satan thus to belch forth in his Inuectiues against the Fathers of the Primitiue Church saying (Å¿) Tom. 2. Wittenberg An. 1551. l. de serm arbitr p. 434. The Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their life time and vnlesse they were amended before their deaths they were neither Saints nor pertayning to the Church Thus Luther Doctor Whitaker saith (t) Cont. Duraeum l. 6. p. 423. The Popish Religion is a patched Couerlit of the Fathers errours sewed together The pretended Archbishop of Canterbury (u) In his defence to the answere of the Admonit p. 473. How greatly were almost all the Bishops of the Greeke Church and Latine also for the most part spotted with doctrines of Free-will of Merit of Inuocation of Saints and such like Beza (x) Epist Theol. epist 1. p. 5. Itaque dicere nec immerito c. I haue been accustomed to say and I thinke not without iust cause that comparing our times with the ages next to the Apostles we may affirme that they had more conscience and lesse knowledge and we more knowledge and lesse conscience So Beza Melancton (y) In 1. Cor. c. 3. Presently from the beginning of the Church the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the iustice of Faith increased Ceremonies and deuised peculiar Worships Finally (z) L. de notis p. 476. Peter Martyr speaking of our Catholike doctrines thus saith So long as wee doe insist vpon Councels and Fathers wee shall be alwayes conuersant in the same Errours But who is more desirous to see at large how the Fathers of the Primitiue Church are first confessed by Protestants to teach euery particular article of our Catholike and Roman Faith Secondly reiected by the Protestants for teaching such doctrines Thirdly abusiuely alleaged by the Protestants for the more debasing of the said Fathers let him peruse (a) viz. tract 1. and 2. throughout that most exquisite and excellent Worke the very scourge of our moderne Heretikes stiled The Protestants Apologie of the Roman Church from which I acknowledge that I haue discerped these last few testimonies In this manner now you see wee find not only Vertue Learning and Antiquitie to be most shamefully traduced by Vice Ignorance and Innouation but also our selues consequently by reason of our refuge made to the Fathers Commentaries for the exposition of the Scripture to bee mightily wronged by our Aduersaries as if vnder the pretext of Antiquitie wee laboured to introduce Noueltie Now from all this it necessarily followeth that in the rigid censure of these seuen Iudges the ancient Fathers those Champions I meane of the true Israelites against the wicked Philistians whose pennes were peculiarly guided by God to the pursuite and profligations of future Heresies did most foulely contaminate and defile the beautie of the holy Scripture with their erroneous Commentaries since they beleeued nothing but what as they thought was warrantable at least not repugnant to those diuine writings thus distilling by their misconstruction of it to vse our Aduersaries owne phraze our Superstitious and Babylonian Religion But since it importeth much to the picking out of the true sense of Scripture alleaged by the Protestant against vs and consequently to the drift of this small Treatise to shew whether it is more probable that the Fathers whose ioynt interpretation of Scripture is euer coincident and conspires with ours should rather not erre in their exposition of it then our nouelizing Sectaries therefore I will more largely set downe which shall serue as the Catastrophe to close vp

wounding their owne Religion with their owne hands seeing all the reformation as they terme it which they haue made of our Catholike faith consists only in certaine pretended sequences and inferentiall deductions out of the Scripture If the Minister here reply that diuers Catholike Authours for all are not of that opinion doe teach that necessary and ineuitable consequences deduced out of the written Word are to be taken as Articles of faith then may you say first admitting so much yet such consequences are not Scripture and therefore what is proued only by them is prooued by that which is not Scripture Next demand of your Minister if hee grownd himselfe herein vpon the authoritie of some particular Catholike Writers if he doth then followeth it that hee grounds his Articles of faith not vpon the Scripture which by his owne doctrine he should doe but vpon the iudgements of certaine Men and such whom at other times hee absolutely reiecteth with all contempt and scorne And here he is to note that Catholikes as not holding the written Word to bee the sole rule of faith may without contradicting themselues teach the foresaid opinion which the Protestant cannot defend without mainly impugning and crossing his former doctrine of the Scripture being the sole Iudge of faith since as I haue said the Scripture in no place affirmeth that consequences drawne out of it selfe are to bee receiued as Articles of faith If our Minister secondly reply that our Sauiour himselfe in Matthew 22. hath argued from consequence of Scripture and prooueth thereby the Resurrection of the dead you are to answere thereto first that Christ our Lord by drawing any consequences from Scripture doth make the same consequences to become Scripture since whatsoeuer hee said which is recorded by the Euangelists is thereby become Scripture Secondly say that it is an Article of faith to beleeue that our Sauiour concludeth truly whatsoeuer hee deduceth from the Scripture by consequence since the Scripture witnesseth that he enioyed an infallible assistance of God neyther of which priuiledges can our poore Minister assume to himselfe Thirdly say it is true that the Resurrection of the dead is an Article of faith but the Scripture saith not that it is an Article of faith in that it is prooued by consequence from Scripture which is the point only here questioned of 5. In the fift place you may put your Minister in mind that euery true consequence resulteth out of two Propositions put in good forme of a Syllogisme according to the true rules of Logick but the Scripture deliuereth not any rules which are to be obserued in the forme of a Syllogisme or other approoued method of arguing therefore it followeth that when the Minister laboureth to prooue his Articles by consequences of Scripture he proueth not his Articles by only Scripture since Scripture as is said speaketh nothing of the forme of consequences and consequently in his controuersies of faith hee relyeth not vpon Scripture as only Iudge as he promised in the beginning to doe but rather vpon Aristotle who setteth downe the true rules and precepts to be obserued in consequences or at the most hee relyeth vpon the Scripture ioyned with Aristotle and then not vpon Scripture only 6. In the sixt place demand of your Minister who shall iudge of the consequence which he deduceth from Scripture whether it be good or no As for example in the former alleaged illation concerning Christs body in the Eucharist to wit The body of Iesus Christ is in Heanen as we reade in the Acts c. 3. therefore it is not vpon the earth vnder the formes of Bread and Wine The Protestant maintaines this to bee a good consequence wee Catholikes deny it Who must now iudge whether it bee a true or a vitious consequence If the Scripture must be Iudge hereof then cause the Minister to alleage some Text of Scripture which according to our Sectaries is the rule of all truth in faith affirming the Inference to be good If the Protestant Minister himselfe must iudge of the goodnesse of the consequence and yet there is no more reason for him then for the Catholike to iudge thereof who then seeth not that the Protestant vnder the pretext of the holy Scripture maketh himselfe sole and last Iudge of Scripture it selfe of consequences drawne from the Scripture and finally of all Controuersies in Faith and Religion And here you may further adde and demand how it is possible that an ignorant Mechanicall fellow who perhaps cannot write or reade can haue true faith of any point that is deduced by consequence from Scripture since he is not able to iudge whether the Consequence bee good or vitious especially where one of the Propositions is taken from the difficult grounds of Philosophie and then much lesse can he iudge of the requisite formes of syllogismes Hee must not here insist vpon the affiance hee hath of his Ministers learning who deduceth this Consequence seeing by so doing hee forsaketh the former Principle of the Protestants to wit that articles of Faith are to receaue their proofes not from Men but only from the written Word of God Againe seeing in the Protestants censure the whole Church of God may erre as is afore vrged in consequences drawne from Scripture and in articles builded vpon the said consequences much more then may any one Minister be deceaued therein 7. In the last place of all after the Catholike hath thus fully shewed by seuerall wayes that the Minister many times in his proofes hath relinquished the Scripture whereupon afore he pretended to relye hee may descend if so hee finde himselfe furnished with sufficient learning thereto to examine the truth or falshood of the Propositions from which the Ministers consequence ariseth though perhaps it were better iudgement to rest satisfied with the former Victorie as being more easily to be discerned by the ignorant Auditorie then otherwise it could be being gayned by long and difficult disputes Now in the examining of the Propositions of the former Argument for example which was this That body which is in Heauen is not vpon the Earth But the body of Christ is in Heauen as wee reade in the Acts chap. 3. Therefore the body of Christ is not vpon the Earth c. The Catholike I say is here to denie the first Proposition to wit That body which is in Heauen is not vpon the Earth distinguishing for greater satisfaction that one and the same body cannot naturally or by the ordinarie course of Nature be at once both in Heauen and vpon the Earth but supernaturally and by the Power of God it may be as we hold that Christs body is supernaturally and by the omnipotency of God both in Heauen and vnder the formes of Bread and Wine where his body through Gods infinite power hath no reference to any externall coextention of Place If the Minister doe proceede on further against this distinction still drawing one argument after another out of

Temple of Salomon which was the Temple of the Iewes shall be the seate of Antichrist and not Rome from which wee gather that in the fore-said Fathers iudgements this passage of the former Text cannot be applyed to the Pope This done Cause your Minister to disproue your interpretation taken from the authoritie of the Fathers or otherwise from the Scripture alone and vrge him to shew and set downe such passages of Scripture from which hee may make shew to confirme his owne Constructions and the Reasons thereof and to refute your interpretation and the Reasons thereof which hee shall find most impossible to performe And thus farre of this Text which the Protestants are accustomed to produce as immediatly and expresly prouing without any helpe of sequels that the Pope is Antichrist Now if your Minister should vrge that place in the Apocalips ch 17. as the Protestants are woont strangely to insist therein wherein S. Iohn speaking of the Whore of Babilon saith It is that great Citie which is seated vpon seuen Hills and hath the gouernment ouer the Kings of the earth From which Text the Protestants gather by way of inference and sequell that seeing Rome is seated on seuen Hills and that the Pope of Rome vsurpeth as they say domination ouer diuers Kings And seeing that by the Whore of Babilon Antichrist is vnderstood that therefore the Pope is from hence necessarily prooued to bee Antichrist Now here againe you are to recurre to your former Method practized aboue in answering to Texts of Scripture vrged by way of consequence in disproofe of the Reall Presence And first demand of him if for want of expresse and cleere Texts he is forced to fly to obscure places of consequences and illations And if hee pretend any more euident proofes of Scripture in this point wish him omitting all doubtfull illations to insist in them alone But if he will perseuer in alleaging this Text then for greater perspicuitie you may draw it into an argument in this forme Antichrist or the Whore of Babilon is said in the Apocalips ch 17. to sit vpon seuen Hills and to tyrannize ouer the Kings of the Earth But the seate of the Pope to wit Rome is placed on seuen Hills as all men confesse and hee vsurpeth rule ouer Christian Kings and Princes Therefore the Pope is Antichrist or the Whore of Babilon 2. Next desire your Minister to proue from Scripture alone two points in your Maior or first Proposition first that by the Whore of Babilon in the 17. of the Apocalyps Antichrist is meant secondly that by the words seuen Hills we are to vnderstand literally and plainly seuen Hills and not some other thing shaddowed thereby seeing in the Apocalyps most points are deliuered in figuratiue and Metaphoricall words I say will him to proue these constructions by some expresse Texts of Scripture If hee grant he cannot then cause him to acknowledge so much openly And that done will him to prooue so much by some consequence at least of Scripture If he make shew hereof then cause him to set down that other Text from the which he seemeth to proue his fore-said construction by consequence And thus accordingly in his next new argument and all others ensuing you haue the like liberty to deny any one Proposition I mean which to you shal seem more false and to cause him to prooue the denyed Proposition first from expresse Scripture then that failing from Scripture at least by way of consequence in proouing of which you shall doubtlesly find your Minister often to relinquish the Scripture and consequently to abandon his doctrine of the Scriptures sole Iudge 3. In the third place as in the former Texts I admonished tell the Minister that if hee bee subject to errour in these deductions from Scripture to wit that by the Whore of Babylon Antichrist is meant and that the wordes seuen Hills doe here literally signifie seuen Hills then can it bee no Article of faith which is founded vpon such doubtfull proofes if he be not subiect to any such errour then most insolently he assumeth that priuilege to himselfe I meane the gift of not erring which he granteth not to the whole Church of God 4. In the fourth place will your Minister as afore we haue taught to proue which he neuer can doe that the Scripture saith that what is deduced necessarily out of it selfe for heere you may suppose the deductions to bee necessary ought to be taken as an Article of faith though otherwise we should grant that the deductions be true 5. In the fift you may tell him that seeing the Scripture speaketh nothing of the true and approued formes of Syllogismes they being deliuered by the rules of Logicke and Philosophy that therefore admitting for the time your Ministers Texts and Testimonies for probable and truely applyed yet so farre forth as concernes the formes of consequences deduced from those Texts and heere insisted vpon by your Minister the Scripture alone cannot assure vs of the soundnesse of them and consequently it cannot assure vs to rest in the former example that by the Whore of Babilon in the 17. of the Apoc. Antichrist is meant or that by the seuen Hilles in the said Chapter wee are literally to vnderstand seuen materiall Hills and consequently that the Pope is Antichrist 6. In the sixt demand of your Minister who must iudge whether this Exposition giuen by him of the foresaid Text be good or no If he say the Scripture must iudge will him to alleage some Text of expresse Scripture If he saith that the Protestant Church or himselfe must iudge then put him in minde that he abandoneth his former doctrine of the Scriptures sole Iudge of Articles of faith flyeth to the authoritie of Man therein Lastly you may aske him if he would bee content as in reason he ought that the authoritie of the ancient Fathers might bee admitted touching the fore-said exposition of the former Text If he would then followeth it that besides his forsaking hereby the Scripture as Iudge hee would be conuicted of errour therein seeing the Fathers are traduced by the Protestants to be Patrones not only of other Catholike Opinions but also of this particular question to wit that the Pope is not Antichrist 7. In the seuenth and last place if you bee not content with his former ouerthrow you may if your reading and learning shall enable you so farre examine more particularly the passage of the former Scripture and shew from the contexture of the place it selfe first that by the Whore of Babilon Antichrist cannot possibly bee vnderstood seeing in the same Chapter of Apocalyps we reade that the ten hornes of the Beast there described at the comming of Antichrist shall make the Whore of Babilon desolate and consume her with fire for thus we there reade And the ten hornes which thou sawest vpon the Beast are they that shall hate the Whore and shall make her desolate

and shall eate her flesh and burne her with fire Now how can the Whore here signifie Antichrist or his seate if at his comming she is to be ouerthrowne and demolished Next you may shew that the Expositions of the Fathers are different concerning what the Whore of Babilon here signifieth yet not any of them can bee applyed to the Pope for (q) In Psal 26. Austine (r) In hunc locum Aretas (Å¿) Ibidem Haymon and S. Bede doe vnderstand by the Whore which sitteth on seuen Hills and hath domination ouer the Kings of the earth not Rome but the vniuersall Citie of the Deuill which in the Scripture is often called Babilon and is opposed to the Citie of God which is his Church and called Ierusalem And by the seuen Hills these Fathers vnderstand the generall state of all proud Men and chiefly of earthly Kings But (t) L. contra Iudaeos Tertullian and (u) Epist 17. ad Marcell Ierome doe indeed meane by the Whore of Babilon Rome to wit Rome Ethnike as it worshipped Idols and persecuted Christians but not Rome Christian which Exposition doth nothing preiudice the Pope or vs Catholikes Heere now if your Minister will not rest satisfied with these Expositions will him to refute all or any of them from the Scripture alone as hee hath obliged himselfe by his owne doctrine to doe in acknowledging the Scripture for sole Iudge of all Religious Controuersies To conclude you may for the close of all tell your Mi-Minister that rhis and the other Text alleaged are so farre from prouing the Pope to bee Antichrist that diuers learned Protestants as holding the proofes deduced from them to be most in consequent doe maintaine that Antichrist is not yet come Of this Opinion to wit that Antichrist is not yet come and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist is Zanchius (x) In Epist Paul ad Philip Boloss Thess p. 246. and Franciscus (y) In his Booke entituled Antichristus siue Prognostica finis mundi p. 74. Lambertus both markable and learned Protestants And from hence you may tell him it proceedeth that Mr. Doue in his Sermon touching the second comming of Christ thus writeth Some Protestants make a doubt whether Antichrist bee yet reueiled or no. A point so euident that our English Puritanes in their mild defence of the silenced Ministers Supplication to the High Court of Parliament doe charge and censure most seuerely our English Protestants besides for other things disliked by them for teaching that the Pope is not Antichrist And thus farre of this second example and of the Method to be holden herein in disputing with your Minister where you are to aduertize him that seeing in his Disputes hee must relye much vpon conference of Scriptures that this course is holden most vncertaine euen in the iudgements of the Learned Protestants to wit of D. (z) L. de Eccles contra Bellar. contr 2. q. 4. p. 22. Whitakers aboue alleaged of (a) Vbi supra Beza and of Mr. (b) So vrged by Hooker in the Preface of his Eccles Politie p. 28. Hooker And here according to this method of answering I could wish the Catholke to bee well practized in the Question it selfe of the Scripture being sole Iudge when the Protestant seeketh to proue the same only from Scripture seeing this Question containeth implicitly in it selfe all other Questions and Controuersies of faith Now against this former Method of disputing and answering if it should be obiected by any that the learned Catholike when he maintaineth at any time the part of the opponent stands exposed to the same danger and so dum capit capitur to the which the Protestant in this Discourse is said to lye open since the Catholike often insisteth in consequences drawne from Scripture vrgeth Reasons deduced from Naturall or Morall Philosophy warranteth his owne Expositions of Scripture by the testimonie of Men to wit of the Pope and generall Councels and so Meteor-like in regard of Diuine and Humane Authorities hangeth betweene Heauen and Earth To this I answere that learned Catholike is not preiudiced by this my Method And first concerning Consequences drawne from Scripture though the Catholike doth freely embrace them as not holding the expresse Scripture alone to bee the rule of faith yet so farre forth as concernes only Scripture he insisteth not in them alone but he is able to produce expresse plaine and literall passages of Scripture prouing his Articles of faith without any helpe of Scripturall consequences though neuer so necessary Of which kind of proofe the Protestant is wholly depriued and therefore flyeth for refuge only to supposed illations from Scripture or to some obscure passages thereof which in expresse termes speake nothing of the Question for which they are alleaged but only are strangely detorted by his most wilfull mis-application For example of the perspicuous Texts of Scripture in defence of our Catholike faith I will insist in some few of them for some delibation and taste of the rest And first concerning the Reall Presence afore mentioned wee vrge those plaine wordes of Christ To (c) Mat. 26. wit this is my body c. This is my bloud c. In like sort for the Primacie of Peter we vrge that passage Thou (d) Mat. 16. art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it For the not erring of the Vniuersall Church wee insist besides in the former Text in those words of the (e) 1. Tim. 3. Apostle Who calleth the Church the pillar and foundation of truth How then can the Church erre That Priests may truly forgiue sinnes we rest vpon the promise of Christ made to his Apostles who were Priests and in them to his Successours Whose sinnes (f) Iohn 20. you shall forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose sinnes you shall retayne they are retayned What more euident That Baptisme truely remitteth Originall Sinne contrary to the Protestants Doctrine wee prooue from that most perspicuous place (g) Iohn 3. Except a Man be borne againe of Water and the Spirit hee cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heauen Finally to omit infinite other passages of Scripture of the like conuincing euidency for our Catholike Articles and Religion that Workes doe iustifie and not only Faith wee produce Saint Iames saying in expresse words thus (h) Iames 3. Doe you not see that a Man is iustified by Works and not by Faith only How literally and punctually hee proues the Point controuerted In all which places we find the Catholike Conclusion it selfe for which they are vrged literally set downe and our Aduersaries therefore as acknowledging so much are forced to flie to figuratiue constructions of them Neither doe we neede to forge any strange or mysticall construction of them as the Protestant in his allegations of Scripture is accustomed to doe saying only by our owne warrant This the Scripture here