Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	apostle_n	church_n	creed_n	2,605	5	10.2206	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A01094	Foure sermons, lately preached, by Martin Fotherby Doctor in Diuinity, and chaplain vnto the Kings Maiestie. The first at Cambridge, at the Masters Commencement. Iuly 7. anno 1607. The second at Canterbury, at the Lord Archbishops visitation. Septemb. 14. anno 1607. The third at Paules Crosse, vpon the day of our deliuerance from the gun-powder treason. Nouemb. 5. anno 1607. The fourth at the court, before the Kings Maiestie. Nouemb. 15. anno 1607. Whereunto is added, an answere vnto certaine obiections of one vnresolued, as concerning the vse of the Crosse in baptisme: written by him in anno 1604. and now commanded to be published by authoritie	Fotherby, Martin, 1549 or 50-1620.	1608 (1608)	STC 11206; ESTC S102529	138,851	236

cannot see how the crosse can be said to bee left vnto vs by them vnles you thereby intend that we haue as it were wrung it out of their hands and that so they left that to vs which they could not with-hold from vs. If you take this phrase left vnto vs in a sense so prodigally and prodigiously large that you count all that to bee left vnto vs by those men which haue vsed the same things before vs then may both the sunne and the moone and all the elements bee said to bee left vnto vs by idolaters and consequently to be The monuments of idolatry and so what is there any where which in this so large and so laxe a sense may not be called A monument of idolatry As for this point therefore we truly professe that wee borrow not this ceremonie from the Romish Synagogue though they haue more lately vsed it but from the primitiue Church who first ordained it So that as it cannot truly bee said that the Papists haue left vs either the Lords praier or the Apostles creed or the holy sacraments but that wee take all these by our owne right out of the holy scriptures which are open to vs as well as to them so can it not truely bee sayd that the Papists haue left vnto vs the crosse but that we do borrow it from the primitiue church whose customes the Papists haue no more authority to ingrosse vnto themselues then the Protestants haue but may as freely be vsed by vs as by them for Patet omnibus veritas nondum est occupata But if it were granted that this ceremony of the crosse though left vnto vs by the primitiue church yet were brought vnto vs by the hands of Papists doth that presently make it a monument of idolatry if one should receiue a token by the hand of a Pagan which were sent vnto him from a Christian is it therefore made a monument of idolatry because he that brought it was an idolater Holy orders were giuen vnto the first Protestants by the hands of Papists doth this so defile the orders of our ministery as to make them presently the monuments of idolatry Surely though the Papists haue very foule hands yet do I not take them to bee so vgly foule as the Harpies feete were which defiled all things that they once had touched non mihi persuadeo sayth Peter Martyr papatus impietatem esse tantam vt quicquid attingit contaminatum reddat quò bonis vsui sancto concedi non possit In whose Christian and charitable iudgement I doe willingly sit downe Ob. Now for your third obiection That the change of our end in the vse of the crosse doth not make any change in the nature of the thinge Resp. I wonder you will affirme a thing so contrary vnto the rules of Logike and reason Who knoweth not that of all the causes it is only The end which maketh all actions to be either good or euill especially in things of indifferent nature Tertullian doth giue vs some instances to this purpose et ego mihi gallinaceum macto non minùs quàm Aescul●pio Socrates saith he et si me odor alicuius loci offenderit Arabiae aliquid incendo What is the reason then that his killing of a cocke and his burning of incence beeing all one action with that of the idolaters yet is not idolatry as their action was He answereth it himselfe quia vsus ipsius administratio interest And againe that he did these things nec eodem ritu nec eodem habitu nec eodem apparatus quo agitur apud idola So that it was his difference in the end which made such a difference in the actions For as Saint Augustine to the same purpose obserueth non actibus sed finibus pensantur officia which our Sauiour also declareth by three notable instances in the Pharisies viz fasting almes praying al which good actions were in them corrupted by their euill ends because they did them to be seene of men So that the end as you see not only exempteth an action from sinne but also infecteth an action with sinne Ob. But you say That then by altering of the end wee may bring back againe euen heathen idols too Resp. I answere that the comparison is very vnequall For heathen idols are most euidently forbidden and condemned in the scripture which the crosse is not And yet that there may bee such an alteration in the end that euen heathen idols may haue some vse in Gods seruice I haue shewed you before out of Saint Augustines iudgment A reply to fortifie the tenth obiection Ob. All outward formes and liknesses in Gods worship ordained by man and that to edifie teach sturre vp mens affections towards God they are forbidden in the second commandement This is by the very text necessarily consequent Exod. 20 4. But the signe of the crosse is such a likenesse For Maister Hooker an authentike expositor of our ceremonies condemneth all as vaine that are not significant And your selfe shew that to be your iudgement in your answere Ergo c. That of Saint Paul that all ought to be to edifying I pray to haue it considered whether it bee vnderstood of such spirituall gifts onely as God gaue to his Church and as be there named 1. Cor. 14.26 Answere That all outward formes and likenesses ordained by man in the worship of God to edifie teach or sturre vp our affection towards God should bee forbidden in the second commandement I doe vtterly denie and I wonder that either your selfe or any other Christian should affirme it no word of the commandement making for it and the minde of the commandement making cleane against it The iudgment both of Caluin and Beza and of other Diuines I haue shewed against you pag. 21.45 The place which you cite Exod. 20.4 Thou shalt make thee no grauen image c. if you distract it from his meaning which followeth in the next words Thou shalt not bowe downe to them nor worship them doth make rather against the making of all images which errour I thinke you will not maintaine then against the applying them to so good an end as you in this place seeme to condemne Should any thing whatsoeuer be thought vnlawfull which instructeth our mindes and sturreth vp our affections truly towards GOD Surely if you were able to make good that euen Heathen Idols could truly and properly produce these effects I would not doubt to affirme euen them to bee lawfull So farre am I from thinking that any thing is in this commandement forbidden which either inlightneth our vnderstanding or inflameth our affection towards God I rather hold it for a certaine truth that Idols are here forbidden vpon a contrary supposition namely that they blinde our vnderstanding and auert our affection away from God And therefore your proposition wanteth some better proofe then your bare assertion for as I said I doe simply deny

lesse preach vnto vs because they lacke a voyce whereupon they call the Scripture in a kind of derision but Mutum magistrum that i sa dumbe Teacher we positiuely set downe both the contraries against them First for their position That the Scriptures in themselues are but darke and obscure and such as cannot teach vs we set downe this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against them that The Scripture is as cleere and as bright as a light which shineth in darkenes as the Apostle Peter teacheth vs nay as bright as the sunne beames as Saint Chrysostom auoucheth they being in themselues so facile and euident that they are able to instruct euen the simple and idiot in all doctrine necessarie vnto their saluation Adeo vt diuina scriptura opus non habeat humana sapientia vt intelligatur as he writeth in an other place So that as the Apostle Paul affirmeth If the doctrine of the Gospell be hid vnto any it is but onely vnto such as perish And this truth we proue against the Papists by many great and strong arguments grounded partly vpon the authority of the holy Scriptures partly vpon the concludencie of necessarie reasons and partly vpon the testimonie of the ancient Fathers being twenty sixe in number as I find them collected by a learned Writer and all of them most excellent answering fully all obiections which are vsually brought either by Papists or Schismatikes against those positions Which because they are all of them most worthy your hearing and yet the time will not now allow me their speaking I referre those that be learned vnto our mens disputation against Bellarmines fourth question vpon the Scriptures where they shall euidently see that there is no point of doctrine necessarie to saluation but that it is most plainely and familiarly deliuered in the Scripture euen to the capacitie of euery simple Reader yea euen the simplest of all Etiam Publicanis Piscatoribus Fabris Pastoribus Illiteratis Idi●tir as Saint Chrysostome noteth Vnto which his induction Saint Agustine addeth his generall conclusion Nec in caeteris contrarium est videri though in somewhat other words Vt nemo sit saith he quii●de haurire non possit quod sibisatis sit That for their false position Now for their friuolous reason why the Scriptures cannot teach vs because they lacke a voyce wee set downe this position That the Scriptures haue not onely a liuely voyce in them as birds and beasts haue but also a speaking voyce too as men and Angels haue whereby they doe both teach vs and preach vnto vs. And this wee proue by many sound reasons whereof I will giue you a tast but onely of some one or two because the Arguments be long and the time is short Our first argument is this which because I am now as it were in the Schole and as in a Colonie of both the Vniuersities I will conclude in Scholasticall forme It is in effect thus much If the Scrptures instruct vs with a speaking voyce then doe they likewise preach vnto vs For what other thing is preaching but instructing with the voyce But the Scriptures instruct vs with a speaking voyce Ergo They preach vnto vs. The Assumption we proue by manifold texts of Scripture where the Scripture is expresly affirmed to speake vnto vs. As namely in that place vnto the Romanes Whatsoeuer the law speaketh it speaketh vnto them that are vnder the Law where the Law is said to speake vnto vs. So likewise in another place vnto the Hebrewes Haue yee forgotten the consolation which speaketh vnto you as vnto children where the Prouerbs of Salomon are said to speake vnto vs. For from thence is that testimony fetched So likewise in another place vnto the Romanes What saith the Scripture where the Scripture in generall is said to speake vnto vs. And diuers other such like places there bee alledged by our men against the Papists in discussing the fifth question vpon the Scriptures Wherein we labour to proue it as a ground of our religion against the Papists hereticall doctrine that the Scriptures in themselues doe both speake and preach vnto vs. Our second argument is this That if the Scriptures do expound the Scriptures vnto vs then do they also preach vnto vs. For what other thing is preaching but expounding of the Scriptures But the Scriptures expound the Scriptures vnto vs Ergo They preach vnto vs. The assumption of this argument we proue by many arguments euery one hauing the strength of a firme demonstration and containing sufficient matter to furnish a whole Sermon being all of them deduced either from expresse Scriptures or from necessarie reasons or from the concurring iudgements of the ancient fathers Yea and that you may perceiue how far a learned iudgement doth differ from an ignorant that man of worthy memory M. D. Whitaker whom for his godly labors against the Papists all posterity will reuerence hee deliuereth his iudgement vpon this question in these words which I pray you to marke diligently First he affirmeth that God speaketh vnto vs as plainly in his word as euer hee spake vnto Moses in the cloude when he talked there with him face to face Secondly he affirmeth that the Scriptures doe preach so plainely and so excellently vnto vs that if God should speake vnto vs from heauen in his owne liuely voyce hee neither would deliuer any other matter nor yet dispose it in any other forme then hee hath already deliuered in the Scripture Thirdly hee affirmeth of the contrary opinion that it is falsum impium That is not onely an erroneous but also an impious kinde of doctrine And fourthly he affirmeth of the defenders of it that they be inepti audaces that is not onely an ignorant but also an impudent kinde of persons This is his iudgement of the reprouers of my doctrine So that for the first of my three positions That the Scriptures in themselues doe preach vnto vs you see that it is no such strange and vncouth monster as some men in the deepenes of their ignorance haue imagined it to be preparing thēselues with no lesse folly to fight against it then the souldiers in Pacu●ius did against a Snaile which they thought to be some Monstrum borrendū informe ingens as the Poet speaketh that is some fierce and terrible monster when they heard it thus described Animal terrigenum tardigradum Domiportum sanguine cassum Thus ignorance and blindenes there faineth many monsters where true and solid knowledge findeth none at all But let vs now proceede vnto our second position that Reading is an effectuall and a powerfull kinde of Preaching For which point whereas the Papists teach vs that the Scriptures as they be darke and cannot teach vs so they be weake and cannot moue vs whereupon they call the Scripture but literam frigidam and egenum elementum that is a weake and beggerly rudiment we positiuely

our owne be we neuer so ignorant it must be none other mans be he neuer so learned and it must be our owne not by ordinary course of reading attained either from old or new writers neither yet by often iteration decocted but in a sort after the Anabaptistical manner both sodainely infused and effused This is with those men that noble and that worthy kind of Preaching which must in credit and authority equall the holy Scriptures in power and perspicuity farre excell them A very blind and a bad kind of doctrine For these great inconueniences must needes insue of it First if our Sermons be truely and properly the worde of God as they comonly affirme it will from thence follow that the Preacher in his Sermons cannot erre For The word of God can not erre And so we who haue taught all this while that the Fathers can erre the Pope can erre the Coūcels can erre shall now teach with the selfe same mouth that We our selues cannot erre Which were both an impudent and an impious assertion For what is that which can priuiledge vs from errour in our Preaching The Chaire of Moses could not priuiledge the Pharises from errour the Chaire of Peter cannot priuiledge the Pope from errour the earthly Paradise could not priuiledg the first man from errour nay Heauen it selfe could not priuiledge the Angelles from errour and can onely the Pulpit priuiledge vs from errour Is not Papistry Preached is not Heresie Preached is not Schisme and contention and all errour Preached doe not all these find Pulpits to vent themselues out of Why then it is apparent that a Sermon may not onely bee the word of a man but also sometimes the word of a wicked and vngodly man the word of a Schismatike the word of a Papist the word of an Heretike For as Gregory truly teacheth vs Si desit spiritus nihil adiuuat locus It is not the place can helpe vs if the spirit be not with vs. Secondly if Preaching be truely and properly the word of God as they affirme it will from thence follow that all our glosses must needes be canonicall Scriptures For the word of God is canonicall Scripture and so wee who haue taught all the expositions of the Fathers to be but the bare opinions of men shall foolishly now teach of our owne expositions that they be the very word of God which is to set the Preacher not vp in Moses chaire but to plucke downe God himselfe and to set him vp in Gods chaire Thirdly if Preaching be truely the word of God as they affirme then if I expound the Scripture one way and another man an other way both these must bee taken for canonicall senses and both be true meanings of the word of God though the one of them should be cleane contrary vnto the other as they be but too too often And so euen we our selues should make the holy Scriptures to be indeed no better then a very nose of waxe to be bowed euery way though we bitterly and worthily reproue it in the Papists Fourthly if Preaching be the very word of God and the sole ordinary meanes to beget a true faith in vs as they affirme then will it from thence follow that the Scriptures of themselues are not sufficient to saluation but as the Papists adde vnto them their apocryphal and vnwritten traditions so we must adde vnto them our vocal and speaking expositions to make them perfect These and diuers such like false dangerous consequents must necessarily follow that phantastical doctrine that Preaching is properly the very word of God of which I may truely say with S. Augustine Piget metā dicere quàm muita eos v●sana sequantur talia sentientes talia dicentes A new and a strange opinion which only doth proceede from humaine pride and ignorance and from an arrogant conceit of men which dote vpon their owne giftes Why is not all this enough which we ascribe vnto Sermons when we acknowledge them to be Gods owne holy institutions to be necessarie meanes of our instruction and powerfull meanes of our conuersion to be truthes which ought of all men to be accepted and honored when they consent and agree with the holy word of God Is not all this I say enough which we lawfully may willingly do ascribe to Sermons but that we must needs make them the very word of God it selfe The Apostle S. Paul though he spake all by Gods owne holy inspiration yet doth hee twice professe in one and the same Chapter that This hee speaketh and not the Lord. He is very well content though hee were an Apostle that where he lacke the warrant of the expresse word of God that part of his writing should be held and esteemed but as the word of a man But some men now adaies are so farre inamored of themselues and so vainely conceited of their owne gift in Preaching as to obtrude all the idle fancies of their owne addle heads vnder none other title but the very word of God Purum putum flat contrary to the doctrine of S. Paul in an other place who telleth vs expresly that a Preacher may take for the foundation of his Sermon The very word of God and yet build vpon it as well Clay and Stubble as Gold and Siluer But these men do tell vs if we will beleeue them that they do build nothing but only pure gold Belike they would faine haue vs to take all for gold that glitters Beloued though we ought in all true sincerity to giue all due honour and reuerence vnto Sermons when they be truely made according to Gods word yet must we alwaies put this difference betweene Sermons and Scriptures The Scriptures we must know to bee Gods owne diuine and holy word containing nothing but pure and tried truthes being all of them writ and penned by Gods holy spirit and by him so commended vnto his holy Church and therefore of all the true members of the Church to be reuerently accepted without all exception But for Sermons we haue an other rule and direction we must in them both examine the spirit of euery speaker exact the matter of euery speech vnto the strict rule of the scripture as the Bereans dealt euen with the Apostle Paul himselfe So that Sermons ought to haue no greater credite with vs then they can gaine vnto themselues by their agreement with the Scriptures if they dissent from them no pulpit can sanctifie them no spirit can make them to bee the word of God if they consent with them yet the Canon of the Scripture being now sealed vp the Truth of God or the Doctrine of God they may be called but The word of God they cannot but onely by some Metonymie or Synecdoche or some other such vnproper and figuratiue speech Therefore it is as true a position to say that a Sermon is the word of a man as it is to say that a House is