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	receive_v	tradition_n	2,719	5	9.4211	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09107	A relation of the triall made before the King of France, vpon the yeare 1600 betvveene the Bishop of Eureux, and the L. Plessis Mornay About certayne pointes of corrupting and falsifying authors, wherof the said Plessis was openly conuicted. Newly reuewed, and sett forth againe, with a defence therof, against the impugnations both of the L. Plessis in France, & of O.E. in England. By N.D.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.	1604 (1604)	STC 19413; ESTC S121884	121,818	242

about the premisses I haue not thought amisse to resent in part by this postscript what occurreth vnto me in this behalfe And first of all is the wonderfull prouidence of almighty God in conseruation and continuation of the ould ancient Catholike Apostolike vniuersall faith left at the assension of our Sauiour vnto his followers and visible Church that then was and spread by them miraculously in very short space ouer all the world and continued euer since by tradition and succession of one age to another vntill our tyme vnder the protection and mighty powerable defence of the same Lord and Sauiour and vnder the gouernement of his only espouse the said Catholike Church Against which Church discent of faith therin though many new fantasyes and deuises of particular men which holy scriptures call heresies haue spronge vp in euery age with fresh and glisteringe titles of pure ghospell of new reueyled truth of godly reformation and other like pretenses and that God for more triall and exercise of his said Church for the speedier redresse perhaps of some abuses and corrupt manners crept into some part therof hath permitted the said new inuentions to preuayle grow and ruffle for a tyme as by experiēce of all ages we haue seene yet euer in the end he bringeth the same to confusion and shame accordinge to those words of the Psalme Percussit inimicos suos in posteriora opprobrium sempiternum dedit eis He striketh his enemyes in the hinder parts that is towards the end of their ruffle and confoundeth them with euerlasting shame Which prophesy of the Psalmist is principally to be vnderstood of hereticall enemyes as Tertullian Epiphanius other anciēt Fathers wryting against them do interprete and the experience of like end in all heresies past doth make yt playne And this shame and confusion of heresies heretiks which Gods prouidence doth heere fortell and in tyme also bringeth to passe so manifestly as the whole world may be wittnesse therof consisteth principally in foure points as holy Fathers do note First that euery new sect diuideth it selfe quickly into many others sects and heresies which S. Augustine sheweth largely of the Arrians and Donatists and Staphilus Lyndanus and other wryters of our time do shew the same of Luthers sect diuided into so many sects branches in so few yeares as all the world seeth And Stanislaus Rescius a learned man of Polonia● in his late booke of the Atheisine of haeretiks sheweth out of the wrytings of protestants themselues that in the yeare 1596. when he wrote his booke which was but 4. yeares past that there were now extant in the world 270. different sects all risen out of Luthers from the yeare 1517. wherin Luther began All which he declareth at length the reason of this so great multiplication is giuen by Tertullian in his booke Of prescription against heretikes aboue 1400. yeares past sayinge That for so much as euery scholler of a sectary knoweth that his maister inuented his opinions of his owne head he will inuent also somethinge himselfe therby to shew that his witt is not inferiour to that of his Maisters And heerby they come to such confusion in the end that one destroyeth the other Wherof Luther himselfe is a good witnesse when he wryteth these words Truly God doth not fight by any other meanes with heretiks then by permittinge among them a certayne seditious spiritt of dissention by which their ouerthrow also and perdition doeth ensue So he who is a wittnesse in this cause without exception as yow know The second reproach followinge sectaryes is Contradiction to themselues in their owne wrytings and sayings and shamfull inconstancy in their doctrine The reason wherof is for that the said doctrine consystinge only in the inuention iudgment and memorye of the sectarye himselfe that inuented yt or chose to follow yt though inuented by another for whatsoeuer they alleage of scripture or other antiquity must depend of their owne new inuented interpretation of necessity it must follow that as their talents and witts discourse or memory do alter change or faile in tyme so must the doctrine also therof dependinge be altered And so eyther forgetting what they said in one time or place or matter or hauing altered their iudgment or opiniō vpon some further reason which then they saw not they must needs come to say cōtrary to that they did before In which kind of contradiction some thousands haue byn noted by learned men in Luther himselfe no maruayle seeing he was the first of that sect that inuented new opinion● dayly And the same is obserued in Caluyns wrytings by VVestphalus Hesshusius and other Lutheran Protestants that wrote against him The third confusion that followeth commonly vpon heresie is coldnes doubtfulnesse in Religion and at length also plaine atheisme and contempt and thervpon dissolution of life neglect of conscience and other sutable effects which therfore among heretiks principally do ensue For that heresie callinge into question and shaking the very pillars and strongest meanes wherby men remayned assured before of their faith to witt the number quality and right vnderstandinge of holy scriptures tradition of the Church from whome we receaued them the verity of Ecclesiasticall storyes Christian miracles authority of generall Councells creditt of ancient Fathers and the like and breakinge downe besides the hedges and walles that were wont to be bulwarks to good life as Confession Restitution Satisfaction fastinge vowinge and other helpes of that quality this I say being once done which is the proper worke of heresy a man runneth naturally into doubt contempt of all and consequently leesing by little and little both feare and shame geueth himselfe ouer easily to all licentious liberty and sensuality of life which the Apostle calleth Desperation And thus much of the cause of this third reproach For as for the effect yt selfe to witt that these fruits haue followed in the world since heresies came in much more then euer before I could alleage both Luther himselfe and Erasmus Roterodauius and other authors of most creditt with Protestants testifyinge of their dayes and as for England yt selfe the present knowledge experience of thousands will beare me witnesse Wherfore I meane to prosecute no further these first 3. reproaches followinge heresies and heretiks to witt● diuision among themselues contradiction to themselues and dissolution of life or propension to Atheisme though for the Readers fuller instruction therin yf he vnderstand the Latin tongue I must needs giue him notice of two famous bookes wrytten of late of that argument by two excellent learned men of our tyme taken out of the works themselues of all the Sectaryes of this age The one is of our contreyman Maister VVilliam Reynolds once fellow of new-colledg in Oxford a Protestant Preacher intituled Caluino● turcismus that is of

Plessis did before But how doth he go about thinke yow to proue that Scotus in his resolution touchinge the reall presence did hold the same that in his obiection against yt Yow shall heare his owne words immediatly following in the same matter Nay saith he Scotus seemeth rather to dislike Transubstantiation then otherwise Behold heere the trew dealinge of M. Sutkliffe who giueth vs quid pro quo as Apothecaryes are wonte He should haue proued that Scotus determined in his resolution against the reall presence and now he saith that Scotus seemeth rather to dislike Transubstantiation then otherwise So as for the reall presence heere is thrust in Transubstantiation and for determination and resolution is shuffled in a seeminge to dislike rather then otherwise Was there euer any such good Apothecary that gaue quid pro quo And if heere to help himselfe out he will say that the reall presence and Transubstantiation is all one controuersie he impugneth himselfe in the very next place of Durand as you shall see when we come to it where he affirmeth Durand to hold and yt is true and Scotus holdeth the same also that the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacramēt might haue byn by other meanes then by Transubstantiation yf God would haue had yt so and consequently are distinct things And heereof also I do conuince O. E. of another false tricke of thrustinge in the words by Transubstantiation a little before in recytinge the question of Scotus which is not in S●otus himselfe nor in his words more truly alleaged in this behalfe by Plessis as before yow may see for that Scotus question is whether Christs body be really conteyned vnder the formes of bread and wyne And this fellow proposeth yt thus VVhether Christs body be really by Transubstantiation conteyned c. And this to the end he might deceaue his Reader as heere he doth by leapinge from the one to the other when he is pressed or gauled wheras Scotus doth handle these two controuersies of the reall presence and Transubstantiation as different and distinct things not only in sundry questions but in sundry distinctions also to witt the first in the tenth the second in the eleuenth distinction vpon the Maister of the Sentences So as heere I must represent vnto you the boldnes or ignorance of O. E. to exceed much that of Maister Plessis his Client And thus much of the controuersie about the reall presence But now least yow might thinke he had somewhat more to say to proue Scotus to be against Transubstantiation then against the reall presence for that he so leapeth from the one to the other lett vs heare his arguments though yow must note by the way his nice assertion in saying that Scotus seemeth rather to dislike Transubstantiation then otherwise and his arguments are two obiections of Scotus against Transubstantiation as the other were before against the reall presence The first obiection of Scotus against himselfe is for that bread togeather with his accidents or species do more represent vnto vs the nature of spirituall food without Transubstantiation then the bare accidents by and after Transubstantiation ergo the nature of the Encharist in this respect of nourishmēt might haue byn conserued though God had not appointed Transubstantiation but his body to haue byn togeather vvith the substance of bread Which argument yow see maketh against the alleager O. E. flatly for that yt proueth the Reall presence and Transubstantiation to be distinct things and that the one might haue byn without the other and therfore it was folishly brought by O. E. seing it is not only an obiection and no resolution but also an obiection that impugneth his assertion The second obiection of Scotus against Transubstantiation is● that in misteryes of our faith that interpreta●ion seemeth most to be admitted which requireth least miracles for maintayninge therof but fewest miracles seeme to be required without Transubstantiation then with Transubstantiation ergo we should rather admitt the reality of Christs body togeather with bread without Transubstantiation then the same body with only accidents of bread by Transubstantiation These be two obiections among others made by Scotus against Transubstantiation aboue fifty leaues after his former obiectiōs against the reall presence Which obiections after his resolution sett downe for Transubstantiation he answereth solueth beginning thus Ad argumenta c. Now must we answere the argumēts made to the contrary c. But yet about the first obiection he repeateth againe Dico quod bené fuisset Deo possibile instituisse quod corpus verè esset praesens substantia panis manente c. I say that if God would he had byn well able to haue appointed his body to haue byn present in the Sacrament togeather with the substance of bread without Transubstantiation c. But hauinge appointed otherwise as appeareth by the declaration of the Church we are not to respect more or fewer miracles c. And hence now yow see that O. E. endeauoringe to deliuer Plessis from the shame of cytinge Scotus his obiection for his resolution in the cōtrouersie of the reall presence himselfe bringeth forth tow more obiections for resolutions without seeing the shame therof about the article of Transubstantiation yea further blusheth not to inferre thervpon this conclusion That Scotus plainly misliked that interpretation that without diuers miracles cannot be maintayned c. And that albeit he was content to subscribe to the Popes determination durst not do otherwise yet that he himselse thought otherwise c. O Iesus what shall a man say of these manner of people Let vs heare Scotus his owne words in the same place where he talketh of the Churches determination exposition of scriptures for this point of Transubstantiation Dico saith he quod eo spiritu expositae sunt scripturae quo conditae ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica eo spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides spiritu scilicet veritatis c. I do day that the scriptures are expounded by the same spiritt by which they were wrytten and so we must suppose that the Catholike Church hath expounded them vnto vs to wit the scriptures that concerne this mistery of Transubstantiation with that spiritt wherwith our faith was deliuered vnto vs that is to say by the spiritt of truth c. Lo heere Scotus foundeth the truth of Transubstantiation not vpon the Popes determination or vpon the authority of the Church only as falsely O. E. chargeth him but vpon the truth of scriptures expounded by the Church with the same spiritt of truth wherby they were wrytten and consequently is farre of from plainly mislikinge this interpretation as O. E. affirmeth but for that amonge other arguments Scotus named the determination of the Church the calumniator that could not abide the word charged him presently to be moued only with that reason What would he haue

babled against him yf he had left written as S. Augustine hath done that he would not beleeue the ghospell yf the authority of Church did not mooue him thervnto And do you note further that Scotus in the same place affirmeth that albeit this verity about Transubstantiation was declared first in the Councell of Lateran yet was the substance therof beleeued also from the beginning vnder other words of cōuersion Transmutation Exchange of substances and the like Which he sheweth out of the ancient Fathers yea and that yt was included implicite in all th' old creeds of th' Apostles others Ponitur saith he talkinge of the Councell of Lateran veritas aliquorum credendorum magis explicitè quàm habebatur in Symbolo Apostolorum vel Athanasij vel Niceni In this decree of the Coūcell of Lateran the truth of certayne articles belonging to faith is more cleerly particularly set downe then yt was before in the Creed of the Apostles or of S. Athanasius or of the Nicene Councell So as by this it appeareth that Scotus did not beleeue the truth of T●ransubstantiation as a thinge determyned only by the Councell of Lateran but as conteyned in the scriptures and beleeued in substance from the very beginning and declared or expounded only by the Councell of Lateran directed by the spiritt of God And this is sufficient to conuince O. E. of plaine calumniation and though he say in the end of his defence that Dominicus Soto and Iosephus Angles are at some difference about Scotus his meaning yet are his words whole discourse cleare inough without any commentary of others as yow haue seene And quently this shall suffice for the examen of this first place The second Place out of Durand For that we haue byn longer in the first place to shew therby some portrayture of O. E. his manner of answeringe and defendinge his Clyent so shall we be bree●er in the remnant The charge vpon the second place was yf you remember that Plessis had abused Durand as he had before done Scotus but most of all his Reader by them both in alleaginge an obiection for a resolution which is euident for that Durand beginning to comment vpon the 11. distinction of the fourth booke of the Maister of Sentēces which distinction is about Transubstantiation as the former is about the reall presence he frameth his first question thus Primo quaeritur c. First yt is demaunded whether the body of Christ be in the Sacrament by conuersion of the substance of bread into yt c. Et arguitur quod no● c. And yt is obiected that yt is not but rather the substance of bread remaineth for that sewer difficultyes do follow that way then by putting Transubstantiatiō c. And after this he setteth downe his resolution to the contrary and answereth this obiection as before yow haue heard whervpon after diuers shifts attempted by Plessis for some euasion he found none to the purpose and so had sentence against him And what now doth his aduocate thinke yow bring to releeue him truly nothing at all For first he doth not so much as mention this place of Durand wherof the controuersie was but another where Durand saith as Scotus also did before that God by his omnipotency might haue ordayned that his body should haue byn in the Sacrament without Transubstantiation yf he had would Which no man denyeth But heare his words The second place saith O. E. was taken out of Durand who saith that yt is rashnesse to affirme that the body of Christ may not by the power of God be in the Sacrament by other manner then by the conuersion of bread into his body neither can it be denyed that Durand hath these words and why then is Maister Plessis charged with falsification Fersooth because they say he tooke the opposition for the resolution Thus he Wherto I answere that he is grossely deceaued for that Plessis is not charged for settinge downe the obiection in steed of the resolution out of this place of Durand but in the former place by me alleaged which he hath heere omitted For of this place there was neuer any question or difficulty of the Conference though yt was alleaged to another purpose as before is mentioned Yow will aske me perhaps why then doth O. E. alleage this wronge place of Durand leauinge out the other wherof the controuersie is Surely I must in part excuse him for that he erred also heerin who set forth the particular passages without the Relators knowledge after the relation ended and printed as before hath byn signified and is testified in the preface to the said passages yet was his error much more pardonable then this of O. E. for that he had only a wryttē copy of a particular frend from Paris had not seene the publike Acts printed nor Plessis reply as this other had done writing more then a whole yeare after they were published therfore for him to come now and dissemble the true place in controuersie and deceaue his Reader with a new fraud sayinge that we accused Plessis with falsification for takinge the obiection for the resolution in this place wheras as all men do know yt was in another sheweth as well his condition deuoted to continuall shiftinge as also his weaknesse to defend his clyent in the former charge he being glad to slipp out runne away vnder the shadow of an other mans error And yet to leaue behind him some sente of what he is he would needs vtter two other notorious vntruths at his parting the one where he saith that yt may plainly be gathered by Durands words that the determination only of the Councell of Lateran the Romish Church moued him to hould Transubstantiation Wherof there is no such word in Durand but rather the plaine contrary for so much as he proueth Transubstantiation not only by the Councell of Lateran but also by diuers cleere sentences of ancient Fathers namely S. Ambrose S. Augustine Prosper and Eusebius which were long before the Councell of Lateran The other vntruth is where he saith that not only they but Bellarmine also doth note the same in Durand taxinge him for hard beleefe of Transubstantiation Wheras Bellarmine in the place cited doth expressely say Durand to hold conuerti panem in corpus Christi per consecrationem that the bread is conuerted by the words of consecration into the body of Christ but yet that he hath a certayne particular opinion about the manner therof which is nothinge to our controuersie So as O. E. not hauinge releeued his client any thinge at all in this point hath loaded himselfe with 2. or 3. faults more then he had on his backe before And so he passeth from this place to the other that followeth The third Place out of S. Chrysostome The charge giuen vpon Plessis in this place is as before yow haue seene for that he going about to