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	scripture_n	testimony_n	11,640	5	8.8001	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

of Scripture prouing that there is a double manducation in the Eucharist the one of the signes of Christs body by the corporall mouth the other of Christs reall body by the mouth of faith The same course the Protestant may be forced to take in all such articles in the which besides his denying of our doctrine himselfe affirmeth something 3. The third obseruation That as it is aboue noted the Protestant thus obliging himselfe to proue not only his owne affirmatiue Positions out of the Scripture but also to disproue from Scripture what the Catholikes affirme concerning any articles he is by this meanes compelled to proue Negatiue Propositions as being meere contrarie to the Catholikes affirmations from the Scripture Thus for example where we hold that there is a Purgatorie that we may pray to Saints c. the Protestant is to euict and proue out of the written Word that there is no Purgatorie that we ought not to pray to Saints Where wee are to premonish first that it is not sufficient for the Protestant to say that the former Negatiue Positions of Purgatorie and the like are proued sufficiently by the written Word of God in that the written Word of God which is by his iudgment the rule of Faith maketh no mention that there is a Purgatorie or that we are to pray to Saints This answere auayleth not only because to omit that the Catholikes do not acknowledge the Scripture for the rule of faith it is directly false since from the (f) Praying to Saints proued out of Luke 16. Acts 5. 2. Cor. 1. c. As Purgatorie from Matth. 5. Matth. 12. Mark 3. Luk. 16. c. besides out of the Machabees Scripture we can proue the foresaid articles but also in that the Protestant Minister euer with great venditation of words liberally engageth himselfe positiuely and expressely to refute the Catholikes pretended errours from the written Word it selfe which he doeth not by vsing his former euasion Neither secondly can he say that Negatiue Propositions such as there is no Purgatorie no Reall Presence and the like are not to be proued alleaging herein the authoritie of (g) Metaph. Aristotle who teacheth that that which is not cannot he knowne and consequently cannot be proued This I say forceth nothing for the Protestant hereby discouereth his ignorance in Philosophie seeing Aristotle in the former words vnderstands by that which is not that which is false as the contexture of the precedent and subsequent passages in him do cleerly manifest so much meaning that that which is false is not and consequently cannot be demonstrated as true for otherwise who knoweth not that Aristotle proueth infinite negatiue Propositions as that there is no Vacuum in rerum natura that there are not many Worlds and diuers such like a veritie so generally acknowledged by all Philosophers as that two of the Moodes of arguing in the first figure to wit Celarent and Ferio are inuented only for proofe of Negatiue Propositions Adde hereto for the greater conuincing of this sleight that the Scripture it selfe proueth sundrie Negatiue Positions as for example (h) Rom. 9. Saint Paul proueth most amply that God is not vniust in the predestination and reprobation of Men in like sort the Scripture demonstrateth that there is no variation or change (i) Numb 23 and Malach. c. 3. in God that God cannot sinne that he willeth not (k) Eccles 15 Iob 31. Psalm 5. Man to sinne and the like Thus it appeareth that the Protestant assuming to refute our supposed Errours from the Scripture is there by engaged to proue many Negatiue Propositions from the Scripture and this not from the silence of the Scripture not speaking of such points but from it as it particularly condemneth them And here adde further that though it were true that the Scripture by not speaking of Purgatorie disproueth the being of it yet doth not the Scripture therefore proue as an article of Faith that there is no Purgatorie which is a point here to be insisted vpon euen as the Scripture speaketh nothing in a Propheticall Spirit that Mahomet was a false prophet and yet though the Scripture by not speaking of him should condemne him for such it followeth not neuerthelesse to beleeue from the Scripture as an article of Faith that Mahomet was a false prophet since it is one thing to say that the Scripture by silence and not speaking of it proueth a thing not to be another to affirme that the Scripture proueth the not beliefe of the said point to be an article of Faith 4. The fourth and last obseruation That if the Protestant in his disputes draweth any argument either from Philosophie from the authoritie of Fathers Councels or any other humane testimonie the Catholike may well answer that though at other times he is well content all these seuerall kinds of arguments to haue their due respect and place yet at this present by reason that it is an Axiome obtruded vpon him that the Scripture alone is to determine all points of Faith hee is to reiect all such reasons and morall persuasions Neither can the Protestant iustly insist in vrging of them without renouncing his foresaid Principle We are here further to instruct the Reader that a syllogisme or argument in proofe or disproofe of an article of Faith whereof the one Proposition is taken from the Scripture the other from Philosophie or some other humane authoritie I say that such a syllogisme or argument doth not prooue any thing only from the written Word of God and therefore seeing the Protestants in their disputes are accustomed to frame such syllogismes when their arguments are reduced into Logicall formes the Catholike may and ought to reiect al such arguments as long as the Protestant vndertaketh to proue his faith only by the Scripture as being by his assertion the sole rule of Faith from which rule are excluded all Philosophicall and humane authorities whatsoeuer Here I say the Catholike I euer meane a Catholike not learned in humane literature and therefore not able to discusse the weight and force of Philosophicall points or other humane reasons may well answere that admitting such an argument for good and perfect in forme yet the authoritie wherevpon it lyeth is at this present to be reiected since it is taken partly from Scripture and partly from humane learning and so the Scripture not wholly but in part proueth the question controuerted contrarie to the Axiome of the Protestants who teach that the Scripture is not a partiall but a totall rule of Faith and who glorieth that he is able to iustifie his owne Protestant faith only from the Scripture without the helps of any humane authorities at all We will illustrate what we here meane in this syllogisme following whereby the Protestant laboureth to proue that Christs body cannot really be in the Eucharist That body which is in Heauen is not at the same time vpon the earth But the body of Christ

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

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