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	infallibility_n	infallible_a	2,837	5	9.9103	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93282	The true church of Christ exposed to the view of all sober Christians, from the Word of God, sound reason, and the ancient fathers / by James Salgado, a Spaniard, a converted priest.	Salgado, James, fl. 1680.	1681 (1681)	Wing S384; ESTC R42935	23,389	69

Some of them as the Sorbonists do place it in the Council others as the Jesuits in the Pope alone and finally others in them both both joyntly Now chuse which of those you please you 'l find your self involv'd into inextricable difficulties and as I said before under a necessity to sacrifice to an unknown God which I shall shortly evince Let us suppose that the Church and her Infallibility consists in the Council alone you shall presently be contradicted by some men of that same Church But to pass this Whence pray doth it appear that this Council is infallible For first it is impossible that of things of one and the same nature there can be made up another thing of a quite contrary nature Therefore all the Members of which this Council consists being fallible how comes the Council it self to be infallible for if this Infallibility came but then to the Council when they met together to constitute one Synodical Body where pray' was it before in what corner of the World did it lurk from whence and in what manner did this good Infallibility come down upon the Fathers of the Council or what shall become of it after the Council is dissolved Where shall it compose its Head to rest that hath been tossed and wearied by so many janglings and Gramatications Moreover how shall you know that all the Members of the Council have been lawfully or at all baptized seeing you cannot be certain of the intention of the Priest or Old Woman that baptized them upon which the Efficacy of the Sacrament depends that they were Canonically ordained and not per saltum that they were not intruded by force or Simony All which are required to the constitution of a Bishop in suo formali And unless you can perswade your self that you believe all these with a Divine and Infallible Faith you cannot imbrace their Decrees for infallible Again if this Infallibility of the Church do consist in the Council there should be always extant such a Council to which disagreeing Parties might have recourse and receive a final determination of their Controversies that so all scruples being removed out of their minds they might live in peace and concord among themselves But where is all this to be found And if there were such a Council always in being which yet is impossible how should you know that this Council is not misguided by partiality that it is not as bad as that of Ariminum and needs not to be corrected by a subsequent Council as many Councils have been if we believe Augustine You 'l say perhaps that Christ promised unto his Disciples and consequently to the Church that the Spirit of truth shall come and guide them into all truth Joh. 16.13 and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Mat. 16.18 For answer I deny not that Christ promised his Discipies the Holy Ghost but extraordinary things are not to be confounded with ordinary for they received both the matter and words of what they wrote from the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost but in after-Ages the Church was tyed to the Scriptures as sufficient for all manner of holy instruction Cal. 1.2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. which if the Fathers of the council do follow it is not to be doubted but God will afford them the assistance of his Spirit But it cannot be said that the Council doth hereby become infallible 2. When Christ saith that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church he doth not understand any particular Churches of their Bishops but the Universal Church which that it cannot erre in Fundamentals we believe and assert 3. How do you know that the Holy Spirit presides in this or that Council seeing the Council of Ariminum may be called a Council as well as the Nicene 4. How can you be sure of any Council that the Members thereof speak from a love to truth and desire of peace or from the Dictates of the Holy Ghost and not rather from partiality that their Decrees are framed more by the weight of Reason and Scriptures than by the multitude of Votes that it is not such as the Council of Trent to which as a Member of that Synod said the Holy Ghost was brought from Rome in the Bags of the Roman Pacquet and stayed longer away when the waters did rise but came quickly thither when they were sallen as being afraid to be wet or drowned 5. It 's ridiculous for a Papist to go about to prove the Infallibility of Councils from Scripture for I ask him this question Whence doth it appear that that Church is Infallible whose office it is both to make a Rule or Canon and to give Authority to the Scriptures for they hold that the Authority of the Scriptures as to us left depends upon the Church Now if the Church give the Scriptures their Authority as to us how can they convince us of the Authority of the Church Thus you see into what difficulties they involve themselves who place the Church with its Infallibility in the Council Nor is it less but rather more absurd to settle it in the Pope alone an Assertion so foolish and ridiculous that the very reciting of it might be a sufficient confutation namely to place the Church in one Man the Church I say which even though representative is formally a Congregation of many Nevertheless we shall proceed in the Method we have begun The Jesuits do generally hold this Opinion and affirm that the Pope alone like the Pythia of Delphos may frame Decrees and impose them upon the people But the forementioned difficulties return For how can you perswade your self that the Pope was Popable that he was rightly if at all baptized that he obtained not the Popedom by force by fraud or by Simony that he was a Man and not a Woman for we have an instance of a Woman Pope namely Pope Jone any of which being supposed renders the Pope no more a Pope Moreover How shall you know that the Pope when he went about the framing of his Decrees neglected not the usual preparations namely Fasting and Prayer for seven days c. that he acts by the advice of his Conclave and not rather from the dictates of his own private judgment or humor Now if these Conditions be wanting the Decrees are not pronounced from the Chair and therefore not infallible nor obligatory to the Conscience Further By what Argument can you be convinced that this Infallibility doth not belong to the Bishop of Paris for example as much as to the Bishop of Rome and that it cannot be removed from the Roman Chair for Gerson hath written a Treatise concerning the possibility of removing it Finally It cannot be conceived that one single man is Infallible in matters of Faith seeing he hath no promise of an Infallible Spirit and there are manifest examples of his having been actually deceived But perhaps you will sly to that Vulgar distinction of the

shunned not to declare the whole Counsel of God professeth that he had said no other things than those which Moses and the Prophets did say should come I quickly concluded that the only mark of the true Church is to be taken from this Fountain That the Church is built upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and the chief Corner-stone is Jesus Christ And I found that Augustine that glorious Light of Antiquity did agree with me writing Contr. Ma. Arian l. 3. Neither will I alledge the Nicene Chuncil to your prejudice nor ought you to alledge the Council of Ariminum to mine Let us not make use of Writings partial to the one or to the other Party but of the holy Scriptures that are impartial Judges of both and compare Cause with Cause Matter with Matter and Reason with Reason And elsewhere writing against Donatus There namely in the Scriptures let us seek for the True Church there let us discuss the point Being now fully confirmed in this general Principle I began to enquire narrowly into the Purity of particular Churches and upon enquiry found that none do so exactly agree with the Scriptures as the Reformed Churches Wherefore I firmly resolved with my self to forsake the Roman Idolatry and associate my self to the Protestants which I accordingly performed in France and having renounced the Romish Superstitions I adjoyned my self to the Reformed Church as being the true Church of Christ which I shall now shortly evince by the following Arguments That is the true Church which 1. Vindicates and maintains the Authority of the Scriptures 2. Teacheth Doctrine agreeable to the Scriptures 3. Because I will not be so Scripturary as to neglect the Testimony of the Fathers and Councils Which agrees also with the Testimony of Ancient Fathers and Councils But the Reformed Church is such Therefore the Reformed is the true Church As for the first the Reformed Church maintains the Authority of the Scriptures against the Papists who affirm That the Scriptures have no Authority as to us at least but from the Church Which distinction was found out by Bellarmine namely that the Authority of the Scripture considered in it self doth not depend upon the Church but only in respect of us But how frivolous is this distinction For all Authority is Relative and therefore it cannot be considered without a relation to us And moreover the Supposition is false that the Scriptures Authority as to us depends upon the Church But before I come to overthrow this Assertion it will not be amiss to observe that the reason which induceth the Papists to defend it is evidently this They know not how to answer the Protestants Arguments from Scripture without wresting the sense and therefore hold that the sense of the Scriptures depends upon the interpretation of the Church which obligeth them to desend that the Authority of the Scriptures depends also upon the Church being that without the Churches Tradition we can have no certainty of the Scriptures themselves nor of their sense In this they imitate exactly the Ancient Hereticks of whom Tertullian says When the Hereticks are confuted from the Scriptures they presently begin to accuse the Scriptures as if they were not of sufficient Authority or were otherwise written than they are cited by the Orthodox and of which there is no certainty without Tradition Where you may see an exact Portraicture of the Modern Papists But to return to our purpose we assert That the Scriptures Authority doth no way depend upon the Authority of the Church but of the Holy Ghost only speaking internally in our hearts and externally in the Scriptures because he is their Author 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 and therefore he alone can give them their Authority And as Christ seeks a Testimony from none besides the Father so neither doth his Word need any other which he hath left upon Earth instead of his own Person And as it were very absurd to affirm that the Authority of the Kings Proclamation depends upon the Cryer or a Rule upon the thing ruled or that the Sun borrows his light from his own Orb or Vortex so it is no less ridiculous to affirm that the Authority of the Scriptures depends upon the Church The Church is the Candlestick the Word of God is the Candle Revel 1.20 Luk. 8.16 Now as a Candlestick contributes nothing to the light of the Candle so neither doth the Church to the Authority of the Scriptures We reject not the Ministerial Testimony of the Church in this affair because thereby we come to the knowledge of the Scriptures as the Samaritans came to the knowledge of Christ by the Samaritan Womans Testimony which nevertheless was not the reason or ground of their Faith but the Instrument only The Papists object that the Church is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth 1 Tim. 3.15 And from hence they conclude that the Authority of the Scriptures as to us depends entirely upon the Church But to pass Camero's observation that these words belong to the sixteenth verse where there is a Copulative Particle which otherwise were useless and that the Apostle first compares the Church to a House and then teacheth us what is the chief Pillar of that House viz. God manifest in the Flesh For a House cannot be called a Pillar but a Pillar is in a House In this place Paul means not an Architectonical Pillar that sustains the Authority of the Scriptures but a Political to which the Fdicts of the Supreme Governour are affixed Nor is Bellarmines Exception against this distinction of any weight that the Church may be as well called a Bibliotheck as a Pillar in this sense For we affirm that the Church doth not only keep these Books but also teach and publish the Contents thereof and expose them to the view of the people So then the Testimony of the Church may be one Motive to induce us to believe the Divine Authority of the Scriptures but cannot beget in our minds a firm and certain perswasion of it which is the work of the Holy Ghost only whom God joyns with his Word Isa 59.21 My Spirit which is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth c. Augustine speaks well to this purpose in his Confessions But how shall I know that these are thy words Moses said so indeed but Moses is gone and if he were present and should speak Hebrew I could not understand him but if he spoke Latin and I understood him how could I be certain that he spoke the truth The Truth it self which is neither Greck Latin Hebrew nor Barbarian without any sound of the tongue or noise of Syllables would say unto me inwardly in the Cabinet of my heart he speaketh truth You see Christian Readers how Augustine was perswaded of the Divinity of the Scriptures not by the Authority of the Church nor of Moses and the Prophets but by the Internal Truth

speaking in his heart which is the Holy Spirit It 's in vain to reply hereunto that every one may pretend the Spirit for pretensions cannot prejudice the Truth the Question between us and the Papists is not Whether the Scriptures are of Divine Authority or not for both of us assert that they are But Whether he that admits this is perswaded of it To which whether they or we give the most satisfactory answer we leave the whole Christian World that are not partial to either Party to judge We conclude therefore that as this Question Whether the Scriptures are the Word of God is unworthy of a Christian So Jesuit Sambays's Assertion de fide Orthodoxa is foolish and ridiculous That the Protestants have not the Scriptures For besides that he defends it for no other end but that he may shun the dint of their Arguments drawn from the Scriptures He useth no other Medium to prove that Assertion but that the Reformed Church wanting the Marks of the true Church is a false Church and therefore cannot have the Scriptures which do both in their matter and form depend upon the Church Which Argument is most false and doth manifestly beg the Question viz. That the Scriptures and their sense depend upon the Authority of the Church which we utterly deny and that not without reason as I shewed above Moreover the Jesuit sheweth his Cause to be desperate by endeavouring to rob us of the Scriptures for none of the Ancient Fathers denied the Scriptures to any Heretick that argued his own Cause from them and Augustine that we quoted above affirms that the Scriptures are not peculiar to any one Party but impartial Judges of all We might with far better reason return this Argument upon the Papists because we have proved that their Representative Church is not only false but no Church at all But I am not so much afraid of their Arguments from Scripture and therefore do not deny them the Bible Having established the Opinion of the Reformed Churches in reference to the Authority of the Scriptures I shall now proceed to the properties of the same First therefore I affirm that the Scriptures are perfect by a perfection of parts as well as degrees and so sufficient to Salvation Psal 19. The Law of God is perfect Their sufficiency appears from the forecited place 2 Tim. 3.16 17. The accession of the New Testament to the Old doth not disprove the perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures For he that revealed the whole Counsel of God to Believers did nevertheless reveal no other than what Moses and the Prophets had written before as we hinted above Hence the Ancient Fathers said very well As the New Testament is hid in the Old so the Old is made plain and clear in the New Nor doth a difference in degree alter the nature or species of a thing neither is the Question betwixt the Papists and us concerning this or that part of the Scriptures but concerning the whole Canon as it was received by the Ancient Church and enumerated by Hierom. So that in this Argument there is evidently the Fallacy of dividing what ought to be joyned together And as we justly cut off the Apocryphal Books from this perfection and sufficiency of the Scriptures because they contradict both themselves and the Canon nor were they ever received in the Jewish Church to which the Oracles of God were committed Rom. 3.2 So we reject the Popish distinction of Protocanonical Deuterocanonical Books with the same facility that they propose it being without proof Hence we do but little esteem unwritten Traditions because what is written doth sufficiently instruct us what we are to believe and do in order to life eternal John 20.31 It 's ridiculous to refer the several Orders of Monks and particularly the shaving of their Crowns to these unwritten Traditions because Christ says I have yet many things to say unto you but you cannot bear them now Joh. 16.12 For if this had been the thing that Christ had further to say unto them he might easily have sent for a Barber and caused their Heads to be shaved Besides that the Monks whose duty was to weep and not to teach saith Hierom were shaven as a sign of their penitence not of any honour or preeminence Secondly The Scriptures are plain and easie to be understood The Commandment enlightning the eyes Psal 19.8 Whatsoever things were written afore-time were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope Rom. 15.4 Those things therefore which are absolutely necessary to Salvation being very few and very easie are clearly and plainly set down in the Scriptures though other things not so absolutely necessary may puzle the most Sagacious understandings Chrysostom says well The holy Scriptures are such that a Lamb may wade in them and yet an Elephant may swim Seeing then that the Scriptures are plain as is evident from Reason and the Testimony of the Fathers the Reformed Churches do with good reason attribute a judgment of discretion in Controversies of Faith to every true Christian So that every Believer by frequent reading and comparing of the Scriptures may easily understand their meaning at least as to things absolutely necessary to Salvation For no Prophesie of Scripture is of a●y private interpretation nor came by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost 2 Pet. 1.20 21. As for the Fathers of the Ancient Church and the four Primitive Councils we willingly imbrace them as Interpreters of the Scriptures yea moreover we affirm that in subordination to the Scriptures they may bind but not force our belief But we utterly deny that the Fathers or these Councils or the Pope are Judges of Controversies about matters of Faith but the only Judge of all such Controversies is the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scriptures or as Augustine saith Christ himself Let Christ judge of this Controversie who although he be absent in his Person yet is present in his Word Hence it doth appear that the Scriptures may rightly be called a Normal Judge deciding the question in manner of a Law though not outwardly proclaiming the sentence The Word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart Heb. 4.12 We have sufficiently proved that the Reformed Churches do vindicate the Authority and Properties of the Scriptures It remains now to be proved that they teach according to the Scriptures I shall pass the Doctrines of God and his Attributes of the Trinity and the like because there is little difference between the Papists and us in there Points except in some Preter-fundamental things which the Jesuits and Dominicans do also dispute among themselves I shall now only take notice of this that the Jesuits do very absurdly define Free-will viz. A Faculty whereby all things requisite to action being present the will may act or not act act this or the contrary For