Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	catholic_a	church_n	faith_n	1,730	5	5.6193	4	false

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

assertion And because I doe expect at his hands that hee should forbeare all other kindes of Proofes then from Scripture alone to the which by his owne doctrine he hath precisely obliged himselfe I haue therefore accordingly entitled this Treatise Keepe your Text Thereby to put him in remembrance that in his proofes hee doth not flee from the Scripture but punctually keepe himselfe to the same But I am assured that his performance herein will light short of his promise and that such vanting prouocations will in the end resolue to fume in his owne disgrace himselfe thus dangerously running vpon the edge of that sentence (d) Pro. c. 13 Qui inconsideratus est adloquendum sentiet mala Because I well know that the learned Catholike is able out of his owne reading to encounter the Protestant by entring into a large field of disputation from the written Word or otherwise and seeing it is a degree of Victory to limit or giue bounds to the assaults of the Aduersary therefore for the ignorant only I meane the vnlearned Catholike at this time I will take some paines and will vndertake to demonstrate in this discourse how a Catholike though but competently read in the Scriptures meerly ignorant in the Fathers writings and other humane learning may in dispute make good and defend his Catholike faith against the learnest Protestant in Christendome as long as the said Protestant doth punctually and precisely tye himselfe to his own Principle insisted vpon in this Treatise to wit That the written Word of God is the sole rule of our Faith and that nothing is to be beleeued as an Article of Religion which cannot be proued thereby 1. Now for the facilitating and better effecting hereof I will premise some few obseruations among the which the first is That the Catholike is to remember that the Protestant charging our Catholike doctrine with errour and superstition and vanting (e) So Beza said in his Conference at Poysi and Fulke against Stapleton p. 2. the like is affirmed by Luther who thus writes epist ad Argent Christum à nobis primùm vulgatum audemus gloriari as also by Iewell in his Apologie by Perkins in his exposition of the Creede and by diuers others himselfe to sent from God I meane in Luther Caluin and other his Predecessors as the Restorer of the Gospels light the Discouerer of our supposed errours so many Ages heretofore generally beleeued is become by this meanes the Plaintife or Accuser and the Catholike the Defendant and therefore himselfe is obliged to proue and the Catholike as being the Defendant only to answere for who defendeth a Cause is bound only to repell the suggestions and arguments of his Accuser without vrging any affirmatiue or positiue proofs in his owne Apologie The same taske the Protestant vndergoeth euen in reason and equitie it selfe For seeing it is a principle inuented by the Protestant but disclaymed by vs that nothing is to be beleeued as an article of faith but what hath it proofe out of the Scripture therefore it peculiarly belongeth to the Protestant to proue by the Scripture alone what he maintayneth against vs. Hence it followeth that the Catholike as is aboue said is freed at this time from prouing any thing from the Scripture alone as one that is loth to make any building on another mans Land since it is the Protestant and not he who aduanceth this principle that the Scripture is to giue sole proofe for triall of matters of faith Hereupon then we are to premonish that a Catholike I still here speake of one who through want of learning is not able to become the Opponent to his Aduersarie as being through the former reasons disobliged thereof doe neuer vndergoe the part of arguing or opposing precisely still keeping the Defendants part and without much insisting in the authorities or reasons why hee defendeth this or that point though otherwise hee may purposely be much vrged thereto by the Protestant and this to the end that the Protestant by this meanes may subtilly discharge himselfe of prouing euery point or position questioned out of the Scripture alone And according hereto the better to keepe himselfe in the person of the Defendant if the Protestant should thus argue for example Praying to Saints is not to be found in the Scripture therefore you erre in practising of it The vnlearned Catholike may here denie the Consequence and passe ouer the Antecedent because in denying the Antecedent though otherwise it is false and is to be denyed hee maketh himselfe the Actor or Plaintife in seeking to proue it from the Scripture and so obligeth himselfe to prooue whereunto greater measure of learning is required and freeth his Aduersarie from his former vndertaken taske of Prouing or Opposing The Consequence I say he is to denie and so to force the Disputant to proceede on further in prouing of it out of the Scripture alone which he neuer can effect 2. The second obseruation That the Protestant doth vndertake two things First to proue his owne doctrine to be true out of the written Word alone Secondly to confute our pretended errours out of the same Word And here we are to note that the impugning of our Catholike faith in diuers articles and the maintayning what the Protestant holdeth concerning the said articles are two different things in themselues For when the Protestant impugneth our Doctrine hee commonly holdeth the Negatiue part yet besides this his negation hee for the most part affirmeth some other thing cōcerning the same point as for example in the question of the Reall Presence The Protestant denyeth peremptorily our Catholike doctrine herein yet he teacheth and affirmeth withall that the Supper of the Lord is the figure of Christs body in like sort that the body of Christ is really and truly taken by the mouth of faith Here now I say that supposing the Protestant could conuince out of the Scripture our Doctrine herein as false yet he can not conclude that himselfe therefore erreth not for admit for the time that Christs body were not really in the Eucharist yet can it not be inferred hereupon that therefore the Eucharist is a figure of Christs body or that therefore his body is really taken with the mouth of faith for as our Doctrine of a supposall may be false so also may the Protestants doctrine be false I meane what the Protestant positiuely affirmeth herein since this his affirmation is not meerely contradictorie vnto our affirmation concerning the said article Hereupon then wee are to forewarne the Protestant that he is not only to proue from Scripture to insist in the former example that Christs body is not really in the Eucharist vnder the formes of bread and wine as wee Catholikes doe beleeue but he is also to proue from Scripture that the Eucharist is a figure of his body and that Christs body is really and truly taken with the mouth of faith Thus must he alleage some Texts