Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	church_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	15,184	5	9.5685	5	true

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

which is a most absurd imposture for so he might say also that they doubt whether God be God or whether God can create any thing for that they putt this question Vtrum sit possibile Deum aliquid creare whether it be possible for God to create any thing of nothinge and presently yt ensueth by way of obiection Videtur quod non yt seemeth that yt cannot be But after all arguments ended they resolue that yt is so to witt that there is a God and can create things of nothinge and do solue all the arguments alleaged by themselues to the contrary And so doth Scotus in this matter settinge downe his full determination in these words Dic● quod corpus Christi esse ibi verè realiter est simpliciter de substantia fidei I do say that it is simply a substantiall article of our faith to beleeue that Christs body is truly really there vnder these accidents And he proueth the same by two places of scripture to witt Math. 26. where Christ saith This is my body and Iohn 6. where he saith My flesh is truly foode This then is the first imposture which Plessis is proued to haue vsed in alleadginge Scotus against his owne meaninge discourse and resolution The second is for that he saith that Scotus argumēts against the reall presence were the quantity locality and circumscription annexed to a true body wheras these are not argumēts of Scotus but of heretiks refuted by Scotus as appeareth by himselfe in the same places where he addeth also these words If heretiks would expound the forsaid words of Christ This is my body to be vnderstood figuratiuely yt is quite against the intention of our Sauiour These 2. corruptions then being so manifestly laid forth out of this first place of Scotus and shewed that they could not be of ignorance but of willfull malice to deceaue the reader Plessis was sore pressed but yet had diuised a certayne way of some kind of escape yf yt may be called an escape and not rather a greater ●ntanglement which was to say that he affirmed not simply that Scotus doubted of the reall presence but rather of the manner of Christs body being there to witt by Transubstantiation and for that respect he named the Councell of lateran in his speach which Councell first of all had determined the said article of Transubstantiation But the Bishopp shewed this to be a very sleight euasion for that the Councell of Lateran determined as well the article of the reall presence as of Transubstantiation as appeareth in the said Councell and that Scotus was as resolute in the one as in the other And finally that Plessis words before recyted are plaine inough without a comentary that Scotus durst to call into question whether the body of Christ were really in the Sacrament or no vnder the ●ormes of bread wyne yea to dispute that yt was not which words do speake plainly as yow see of the reality Soe as these shifts are but a new abusing of the Reader And as for the places he would seeme to alleage out of Scotus as somwhat soundinge against Transubstantiation yt was told him first that yt was from the purpose for so much as his citation of Scotus was against the reall presence and secondly that these other places made no more for him then the former but wholy against him and so yt was proued by readinge and examininge publikely the said places wherin there was an houre spent And the Bishopp perceauinge that Plessis desired to draw out the tyme vrged the deputyes to giue sentence vpon the falsisication of the places alleaged which they differred to do vntill the next place of Durand was examined for that they vnderstood the case was in a manner all one or much like in both schoolemen And so yt was in deed for that in both of them yow shall heare the sentence giuen afterward that Plessis had taken the obiection for the resolution which was a great a disgrace yf you marke yt as could be to such a man that presumed to vnderstand what he read The second Place examined out of Durandus about Transubstantiation The next place of the 19. chosen by Monsieur Plessis to be examined was out of Durandus Plessis his words as they ly in his booke pag. 870. are rhese Durandus called by our Sorbonists the mostre solute Doctor hath these words in his 4. booke vpon the sentences dist 11. To the contrary saith he supposinge the substances of bread and wyne after the consecration do remayne there ensucth therof but one difficulty and this neyther very great nor indissoluble to witt that two bodyes remayne togeather vnder the same accidents but yf yow put the contrary to witt that there is Transubstantiation there ensue more difficultyes that is to say how those species or accidents without their substance can nourish or be corrupted and how any thinge can be generate therof seing all generation is of matter or substance therfore it seemeth that we ought to sticke rather to the first way to witt against Transubstantiation c. So he Out of this place the B. of Eureux did argue Plessis of the same falsity and deceytfull dealinge as before in Scotus or rather more plaine and euident and consequently more wicked and dishonorable to him for that all these words heere alleaged out of Durandus are not his owne but the words of others that do obiect the same which he dissolueth afterward when he hath put downe his owne sentence in these words Primum est dicendum quod substantia panis vini conuertuntur in substantiam corporis Christi First we must say and hold notwithstandinge the former obiections arguments to the contrary that the substance of bread and wyne are turned into the substance of the body of Christ. This is his resolution quite contrary to that which Plessis would haue him seeme to hold And then hauing set downe this resolution accordinge to the common faith of the Catholike Church he passeth to answere the former obiection sayinge to the former argument to the contrary about difficultyes vve must answere that in those thinges that appertayne vnto faith we must not allvvayes choose that vvhich seemeth to humayne sense to haue lesse difficultyes but we must hould that which is consonant to the sayings of holy Fathers and to the tradition of the Church So Durand Which words being recyted in the hearing of all yow must imagine in what a pittifull plight poore Plessis was to see one man looke vpon another and ether smile or byte their lippes at such manifest grosse trumpery but yet necessity made him take hart to aduenture a new euasion saying that albeit this were but an obiection in Durand yet it seemed to him such an obiection as might hould the place of a resolution yf the authority decision of the Church had not withheld him And for

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

Religion can be visible for our Sauiour Christ saith that true vvorshippers vvorshipp God in spiritt and truth but spirituall vvorshipp and true internall deuotion is not so easily seene vnlesse therfore our aduersary suppose Popish Religion to consist in the Popes myter and in cooles of monks and such like externall matters he shall hardly proue Religion to be visible And is not this matter subtilly shifted of thinke yow or may not this man play his prize in this kind of fensinge in what place soeuer True Religion saith he is not visible What then yet men that professe true Religion are visible and by them may the continuance of true Religion be visibly deduced and this was that which his aduersary meāt when he said that the visible Church or Congregation of Englishmen comming downe visibly from the tyme of S. Gregory vnto oures and professing alwayes one and the selfe same faith Religion did make a visible Church and therby a visible deduction of Catholike Religion for the space of a thousand yeares to geather and that this was not only to be seene or proued by the Popes myter or cooles of monkes as this merry madd minister iesteth but by all English Kings crownes and coronations by all parlament robes and other honourable testimonyes of our nobility both spirituall and temporall and by whatsoeuer other most authenticall proofe this scoffer can diuise And who then will not laugh to see him for ouerthrow of all this demonstration to start out behind a bush and say Lett him shew vs yf he can that true Religion is visible Wherby yow may somewhat see into the man and his witt talent Let vs passe to the second part of his booke The second part of this new edition conteyneth as before hath byn shewed a renewinge of his former chalenge wherof yt shall not be needfull for me to speake any more in this place hauinge declared before the causes and speciall motiue● of this needlesse renouation only I will say that whosoeuer will take the paynes to reade the briefe learned answere of VV. R. against the same and the multitude of errors ignorances lyes and frauds therin conuinced he will blush in Sutcliffes behalfe yf he be his frend or laugh and insult ouer him yf he be his enemy and whensoeuer he shall make his reply for the first edition already answered I do not thinke but that VV. R. yf the thinge it selfe be not to contemptible will vouchsafe to returne his full reioynder both to that and this or at least wise to the most principall points of them both Wherfore we shall leaue this passe to the third part wherin we shal be forced to stay and entertaine our selues somwhat longer for examination of certayne places obiected against Maister Sutcliffe by E. O. and therby see his talent in answe●inge for himselfe whether yt be better then for his client before and albeit I shall not be able to stand vpon the siftinge of many places heere yet will the vew of some two or three of the first giue a good coniecture of all the rest Wherfore the third part of this new edition comprehendeth as before hath byn signified the shew of a certayne answere or defence of Maister Sutcliffe his truth and honest dealing in 26. places or therabout obiected to him by E. O. as fraudulently handled And albeit before he come to the combat he do send forth those excessiue vaunts and bragges which in part you haue heard yet in the conflict yt selfe yow are like to see the poore man not a little daunted and encumbred The difference also of speach betweene him his aduersary will appeare notoriously markeable for so much as himselfe recytinge his aduersaryes words and arguments for besides his owne relation we haue nothinge therof doth scarse euer note hard speach or phrase vsed by him against himselfe wheras the others answere is a perpetuall inuectiue of intemperate scoldinge asse dolt dizard in grayne franticke lunatike estaticall owleglas and like tearmes ate the ordinary and cheefe flowers of his phrases and yet notwithstandinge yf yow stand attent to the matter and marke what passeth in the combatt yow will quickely lay the truth of these reprochefull phrases vpon Sutcliffe himselfe and say that he deserueth them for contemning so lightly so graue modest and learned an aduersary as his seemeth to be And surely yf he be the man in deed whome Sutcliffe aduentureth to name in some partes of his annswere that is to say Maister Ph. VV. I haue knowne him for such many yeares and he may hold Sutcliffe to Schoole as many yeares more in discretion vertue and true skill of diuinity yf a man may iudge of him accordinge to his wrytings but this shall appeare better by the examination of the places which I ●aue promised to discusse And yet heere yow must be aduertised that we shall not be able to make this examē so exactly in all points as otherwayes we would desire for that we haue not the treatise yt selfe of E. O. his accusations for which cause we are forced to alleage things only as Sutcliffe is content to cyte them whome in euery thinge lightly we find both faulty false and faithlesse and therfore yf he be conuinced heere by his owne relation yow must be sure that yt is with more then euident reason The first place then obiected by E. O. against O. E. now discouered to be Mathuw Sutcliffe ys taken out of this chalenge of the first edition cap. 1. pag. 20. num 10. where he auoucheth boldly that the vse of exorcisuis blowinge salt spittle ballowed water annoyntments lights and other such ceremonyes as his words are vvere not practized by the auncient Church c. Against which false assertion E. O. obiecteth first Iohn Caluyn his maister who confesseth these ceremonyes to be very ancient And secondly he alleageth diuers Fathers that make mentiō of the same each one in their tymes Origen Nazianzen Ambrose and others Lett vs see now how this minister will deliuer himselfe of this first charge and do you marke his shifts for neuer mouse in a trapp nor dogge in a cannase did seeke more holes to runne out at th●● this slippery fellow First about Caluyn he seemeth to be most troubled esteeminge more of his authority perhaps then of all the rest alleaged and therfore he saith How leglasse doth affirme for so he teasmeth his aduersary without comparison more learned then himselfe that Caluyn doth confesse yt to witt the antiquity of these ceremonyes but vvhat yf yt be true and vvhat yf Maister Caluyn do not confesse that vvhich I say to be vntruth Marke good reader do you not see heere a sound beginninge of answeringe by contrary interrogations to witt what yf yt be true and what yf yt be not true but yow will aske me what in the end is his resolution about Iohn Caluyn Yow shall heare yt many lines