Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	authority_n	church_n	reject_v	2,895	5	9.0049	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36913	Luthers Alcoran being a treatise first written in French by the learned Cardinall Peron, of famous memory, against the Hugenots of France, and translated into English by N.N.P. : the page following sheweth the particular contents of the booke, which consisteth of symbolismes, parallells, identities.	Du Perron, Jacques Davy, 1556-1618.; N. N. P.	1642 (1642)	Wing D2638; ESTC R480	118,976	240

libri c. The Apocryphall Bookes of the New Testament are the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Imaes the second and third of Iohn the second of Peter the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps Thus much to demonstrate that Luther and diuers of his schollars agree with Mahumet in denying most at least of the Epistles of the Apostles And therefore we haue lesse reason to be amazed at that prophane saying of Caluin in dishonour of the Apostles in generall His words are these Apostoli (7) Caluin●● Instit 4. c. l. 9.4 non debent garrire quicquid illis collibitum fuerit c. The Apostles ought not to babble and speake idly of things as it pleaseth them but they are to relate the Commandements of God sincerely We are indeed to belieue the Apostles but this only as they speake out of the Word of God not as they speake from themselues but from the precept and speciall commandement of their Legation Thus Caluin O wonderfull procacity and insolency of Heresy As if the Apostles did somtimes babble and talke idly did speake only of themselues and not as instructed and directed by God The 5. Symbolisme Touching the erring of the Apostles CHAP. VI. THe Turks or Mahumetans as they do not belieue the writings of the Apostles So they hould the Aposties to haue erred in diuers of their Actions since they maintaine that the Apostles had not greater warrant for their not erring in their Actions then they had for their not erring in their Writings The same point is maintayned by seuerall of your first Instructours so great is your conformity with them herein For according hereto Luther sayth of S. Iames speaking of Extreme Vnction I say (8) Luther de Captiuit Babylon cap. de extrema Vnction● thaeth in any place Iames erred in this place especiall b●●e erred c. For it is not lawfull for an Apostle 〈◊〉 ●is owne authority to institute a Sacrament As 〈◊〉 the Apostle would or dared to ordayne a Sacrament without the authority command of Christ our Sauiour In like manner Brentius the Lutheran thus boldly writeth Peter (9) In Apolog Confess cap. de Conciliss the Chiefe of the Apostles and also Barnabas after the Holy Ghost receaued togeather with the Church of Ierusalem erred The Magdeburgians thus prosecute this Point Paul doth (10) Cent. ● l. ● c. 800 ●u●ne to Iames the Apostle and a Councell of the Presbyters being celebrated he is induced by Iames and the●est that for the offended Iewes he should parisy himselfe in the Temple to which Paulyieldeth which without doubt was no small slip in so eminent a Doctour Finally to o●●● the like condemnation giuen by our Reformist Whitaker the English Sectary thus hath left written It (11) De Eccles contra Bellar. controu ● q. 4. is manifest that after the descending of the Holy Ghost the Apostles erred in the Vocation of the Gentills And that Peter in like sort erred in manners touching the abrogation of the Cerem●●●all Law Now where can we find any Mahumetan or Turke all who condemne the Apostles to speake more vnworthily and debasing of them then these alledged Ghospellers haue done The 6. Symbolisme touching the Ghospells CHAP. VII TO proceed Touching the Scriptures which the Mahumetans and our new Gospellers do admit as pure and sacred the Saracens or Turks I euer meane the Mahumetans agree with the Lutherans in the manner reason and custome of Proceeding with the said Scriptures The sole Reason why the Mahumetans do not admit the New Testament as now it is though they allow of it they say as it was first giuen by Iesus pretending that it hath been corrupted i● because (1) Cuspin de relig Turcarum Septem-Castrensis de relig Turca● the Sentences and authorities of the New Testement touching Christ are repugnant to their fayth first in●ti●u●ed by Sergius in the Alcoran so as they make their Mahumetan fayth to be a square where with to measure the Truth or falshood of the New Testament And do not out Euangelists runne in one and the same liue of proceeding According to this it is that Luther in the balancing of the foure Euangelists thus writeth Qui (2) Luth. tom 3. p. aefat in epist Petri. potismū maiort prae cateris studio docent c. Such Euangelists are the chiefest who more carefully teach then other Euangetists doe that fayth in Christ only without our works doth make vs iust and in state of Saluation Thus Luther lesning the worth of the Euangelists according as they seeme more to impugne his conceyted doctrine of Iustification by fayth only Againe the Centurists in reiecting with Luther the Epistle of Iames giue this reason saying The Epistle of Iames is countrary to the doctrine of the Apostles because (3) Cent. 2. c. 4. p. ●6● it maketh Abraham to be iustifyed not by fayth only but by Works In like manner Beza reiecteth those words as surreptitious in Luke 22. This is the Chalice the New Testament in my Bloud which shal be shed for you (4) Beza in annotat in ●a Lucae because as Beza sayth The words in the Greeke Copyes confirme the Reall Presence in the Sacrament Thus we obserue that both the Mahumetans and the Lutherans do iointly make the Religion which they professe the foundation o● ground-work why they do disauthorize such or such Bookes of Scripture not reputing them to be the Word of God A strange and retrograde proceeding for since fayth and Religion is to receaue its approbation from Scripture here with he Mahumetans and the Lutherans the Scripture is to take its force and authority from fayth it selfe that fayth I meane which euery particular Sectary whether Mahumetan or Lutheran shall in his owne priuat iudgment hould to be true The 7. Symbolisme Touching the Ancient Fathers CHAP. VIII FRom the authority of the Scripture let vs descend to the authority of the anciēt Fathers of the Church of God All whom we shall fynd to be equally reiected and contemned by the Mahumetans and the Lutherans Yea Luther his Offpring before they will lend a fauorable eare to those Sentinalls of Gods Church for the good of their owne soules will soner endanger their owne Saluation they bearing themselues therein with such desperate resolution wherewith Cato did of whom it is recorded Occidii se Cato ne diceretur Caesar me seruauit And first touching the Fathers We find Mahumet in his Alcorans thus to disualew them (1) Azoara 13. Increduli minime adoranies c. The Christians are incredulous not worshipping God when they are required to giue credit to the Commandements of God and to his Legate or Mesienger videlicet Mahumet for they say se nolle imita●●● quicquam nisi quod Patres imitati sunt They will not i●ntate others in any thing but in what the Fathers haue imitated But to this is obiected Virum Patres non nisi veram fidem semper ●e●uerunt

for false and erroneous doctrine or through want of Charity they would iniustly insimulate men within the compasse of belieuing presumed Heresies they not being Heresies Thirdly those Fathers who first registred the ensuing Opinions for Heresies with other Fathers not contradicting or impugning and therein silently agreeing with them did in those times represent the face of the whole Church as being the Principall Members thereof Whereas these other men making choyce of doctrines different from the whole Church did thereby manifestly discouer themselues to be Heretiks according to the Etymology of the word Haeresis as comming of the Greeke Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eligo And thus they by their Election and Choice of strang Opinions did range themselues in the number of those of whome S. Iohn writeth Exierunt (13) 1. Iohn ● ex nobis sed non erant exnobis Now then if these former learned and pious Fathers should haue er●●d in the condemning the said Doctrines for Heresies and in wrongfully anathematizing the broachers of them then might it be inferred that the whole Visible and Primitiue Church of God could erre and then actuall did erre Which granted how then could the Apostles words stand inuiolate and immoueable he stiling the Church Colu●●a (*) 1. Tim. 3. Firinamētum Veritatis Or could the praises giuen euen by our Aduersaries touching the Infallibility of the Vniuersall Primitiue Church in matters of fayth be true For thus we reade in these alleged writers following all being remarkable Protestants (14) Sarauta in defens tract de diuersis Ministro●um gradibus pag. 8. Sarauta sayth Spiritus Sanctus qui in Ecclesia praeside● c. The Holy Ghost who presideth ouer the Church is the true Interpreter of the Scriptures Therefore it is not a thing reasonable to reiect the authority of that spirit which presided ouer the primitiue Church and gouerned the sams by its Bishops Thus this writer Kempnitius thus aue●●eth (*) Kempnitius in Exam. Concil Trident part 1. pag. 74. We doubt not but that the Primitiue Church receaued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not only the Text and Words of Scripture but also the right and Nati●e sense and interpretation theref To be short and to pretermit others In the Confession of Bohemia (a) Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Confessions pag. 400. we thus reade The ancient Church is the true and best Mistresse of Posterīty and she going before leadeth vs theway Thus much of the Protestants Confessions in this point Fourthly and lastly diuers Theorems or Speculations of fayth and the professours of them by me vrged did take their denomination and names from the Authors of them being but illiterate ignoble obscure man the very impression or indeleble stamp● of Heresy according to those words of S. Chrysostomes Prout (15) Chrysost ●omil 3● in Act. Apost Haerestarcha nomon●ita sec●● vocatur As the name of the Heretike is so is the Sect or Heresy called These Names being imposed vpon the men so belieuing after the beginning and first rising of the said Heresies and taken from the first Coyners of them were inuented out of Necessity and constraint that by such their Appellation they might be distinguished and deuided from the true Orthodoxall Professours of the Christian Fayth Thus the Manichees the Arians the Eutichians and the like do borrow their Appellation from Manichaus Arius Eutiches and accordingly their Heresies are called Ma●ichenism● Arianisme Eutichianisme c. Here now I will pause stay my selfe and as prefixing this short Prolegomenon as afore I called it I will hasten to the Particular Heresies in those pure times condemned for such by many famous and worthy Fathers of Gods Church and now in this Iron Age reuiued with a most strong bent and endeuour by Luther Swinglius Caluin others of the later brood in all whome are iustified the words of an ancient Father Haereses (16) Tertul. l. do praescript apud eos mul●um valen● qui in fide parùm valent Now in reading hereof I would intreat you My Countrimen casting of your former sluggish security touching the presumed certainty of your fayth to recur in a secret reflexe of mynd to the former Aduertisments of this Proleg●m●●n and to what here followeth and withall to obserue by application of what is deliuered in the first Part of the former Treatise that the Catastrophe or Closure of all is that ●ug●●●tis●●s is ingendred betweene Mah●●●●s●●● and old conde●ned Heresier O how much is the deformity of that Child to be bewayled which is begotten of such vgly Parents Identity 1. But to begin with these Heresies The first Heresy shal be of certaine men who denied the Eucharist to be the true flesh of Christ teaching that it was but only a Figure thereof These Heretiks were condemned in those ancient tymes by Ignatius as Theodoret (17) Theodor. in Dialog qui dicitur Impatibilis Dial. 3. relateth in these Words Eucharistias oblationes non admittunt quòd non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse carnem Saluatoris quae pro peccatis nostris passa est c. These Heretiks do not admit Eucharisties and Oblations because they acknowledg not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour which flesh suffered for our sinnes These men were in like sort condemned in the seauenth Synod So hardly could such men being immersed in sense belieue that the Eye of fayth seeth things inuisible Identity 2. Simon Magus taught that God was the Authour of sinne of whom Vincentius (18) Vincent Lyr. l. aduers Haeres post med Lirinensis thus sayth Who before Simon Magus was bold to affirme God to be the Authour of our wickednes and deeds And S. Austin Detestanda c. (19) Austin ad artic sibi falso impositis Art 10. It is a detestable opinion to belieue that God is the Authour of any ill will or works Finally the Heretike Florinus taught the same doctrine of which Irenaeus thus speaketh This (20) Apud Eusebium l. 5. histor c. 80. Opinion is more then an Heresy Identity 3. The Heretike Aerias taught as Epiphanius (21) Epiph●● Haeres 7● S. Austin (22) Aust. Haer●sae 33. record That Orare vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem non oportet We ought not to pray or offer Sacrifice for the dead Identity 4. The Manichees denied Freewill according to those words of S. Ierome (23) Ierom. im praefat ●1● log contra Pelag. Manichaet damnant hominum naturam liberum auferunt arbitrium The Manichees do condemne the Nature of Man and do take away free will And S. Austin (24) Aug. Haeres c. 4● Peccatorum originem non tribuunt Manichaet libero arbitrio The Manichees do not ascribe the origin of sinne to Free will Identity 5. The Heretike Xenaias was the first who denied the Due worship to Images Of whom Nicephorus thus writes Xenaras (26) Nicephor in hist Eccles l. 16. ● 27

ad Mahumet● some nyne hundred yeares since or more to wit within some fifty or more yeares after S. Grogery the Great Mahumet first appeared to the World and planted his Religion Which his Religion hath euer from that time continued euen to this day without any Interruption Now Lutheranisme in compare hereof is of so late a date as that being first broached by Luther it is not past one hundred yeares since it was first heard off According to which my speaches we find that Bucer the Protestant doth stile Luther Primum (1) Bucer in Epist●an to 1536. ad Episcop Hereford Apostolum purioris Eu●ligeli●● the first Apostle of the Reformed Religion Another Lutheran thus writeth 〈◊〉 (2) Georgius Milutus in Augustan Confess explicat art 7. ●ntecess●●● Lutherus in ●fficia●●bersset c. If Luther had any Predecesso 〈…〉 and function then there had been 〈…〉 of ●uthers Reformation In like manner a thir● confesseth in this sort It is impudency (3) Sch●ussenberg in Theolog Caluinist l. 2. fol. ●10 to●maintaine that any learned men did b●●ld the doctrine of the Ghospell in Germany before Luthers dayes A fourth thus writeth I● is ●ridiculous (4) Bernard Morgenstern Erect de Eccles pag. 145. to thinke that before Luthers dayes any had the purity of the Ghospell considering it is euiden●●●●●he whole World that before Luthers time all Churches were drowned in more then a ●y●mtri●● darknes To contract this point●● Luther himselfe thus boasteth h●●● of i● 〈◊〉 à 〈◊〉 primò ●●●gain●● audemus● gloriari We dare vaunt that Christ was first 〈…〉 The 6. Parallell Touching Vniuersality of Mahumetisme and Lutheranisme CHAP. VI. ANother Prerogatiue is to be dispersed through many Nation● Countries For this respect also is Mahumetisme superiour to Lutheranisme For Mahumetisme possessed in former Ages as also at this present as aboue I haue declared a part of Persi● Tartaria India Asia Minor Arabia Mauritania Bathory c. Wheras Lutheranisme is confined and circumscribed as it were within most narrow Precincts of England Scotland some small parts of France some parts of Flanders some parts of Germany of Denmarke of Sweueland of Tra●siluania Which Religion as yet neuer did set foote our of Europe The 7. Parallell Concerning Vnity of doctrine in Mahumetisme and Lutheranisme CHAP. VIII THe third Prerogat●●e shal be Vnity in Doctrine Certaine it is that in the Turks dominions Wherein Mahumetisme hath been first planted and in which the same Religion at this day reigneth there hath been and still is Great Vnity in that Religion And hence it proceedeth that in those Nations subiect to the Turke there are very few or no Bookes written among themselues wherein any diuersity of Fayth or Points in religion is maintayned and defended for if any such were written the Historiographers of their Countryes Nature and Religion would make some relation of them would not passe so great a matter ouer in silence Therfore it followeth that the Mahumetans and Turks with a ioynt consent for the most part preach and practize the same points of Religion without difference or contradiction among themselues Now how far distant our New Ghospell is from Vnity it is a world to obserue into how many Sects Lutteranisme is deuided and distracted The first disagrement among them is their Account of (1) Touching the retecting of these bookes See Luther in Prafat in Epist. Iacobi c. Kempnitius in Euchiridio p. ●● Adanius Praucis●● in Margarita Theol. p. 448. The Centuvists cent 1. l. 2. c. 4. Bullinger vpon the Apocalyp● c. 1. Canonicall Scripture Luther and such as are most linked to him in obseruācy do reiect as Apocryphall the booke of Wisdome the second Epistle of Peter as els where I haue noted the second and third of Iohn the Episle to the Hebrews the Epistle of Iames the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps All which Bookes are commonly acknowledged for Canonicall Scripture by the Swingliani Caluinists Their disagrements (2) Touching their mutual reprehensions herein see Osiander his reprehensions mentioned by Luther in Colloq Mensal ●idis Germ. sol 145. So also Beza in respons ad def●●l respon● Cast allouis Also Beza in Testam 1556. in prafas Hospinta●● in ●istoria 8● cram part 〈◊〉 tera fol. 183. Moli●aus in ●ua Translatione noui Testam part 12. fol. 110. Castatio in defens Transl●t pag 170. Secondly are touching the Translation of such Bookes of Scripture which they all acknowledge for Canonicall The Translators of it to wit Luther Swinglius O●colampadius Caluin Biza Castal●o in great acer●ity of Words do reciprocally charge one anothers Translation with sacriledge corrupting the sense of the Holy Ghost with making the Tent to leap●vy downe with actually changing the Tent sinally with sacrilegious for all these are their owne Words Ethuicall and wicked proceeding therein Their next disagreement consists among those who in a more restrained sense are called (3) Of this poins see Nicolaus Galiu● in Thesibus Hypothesibus Lutherans for their main tayning of the Reall Presence Of these men some are called Osiandrians others Mai●rists others Placcians others Adiaphorists others agains Phiquitaries ech of these holding all the rest for Heretikes Another disagreement is betwene the Lutherans so called in a limited sense and the Caluinists Concerning which point we may aduertize you that the Bookes written by the Protestants against the Protestants in matter of fayth only and Religion do amount to seuerall Hundreds as may be gathered out of I●docus Coccius his Thesaurus out of Hospinian in his historia Sacramentaria part altera and finally from the Catalogues of Bookes returned for many yeares past from Franckford Thus farre I hould it conuenient to discourse in generall of the disagreements Vant of Vnity in Fayth ●mong our New Brethren And now I referre to your owne iudgment My Countrimen whether a greater●ble mish resteth vpon the face of Lutheranisms or of Mehumetisme to recapitulate a li●●e if we respect touching fayth and Religion either Antiquity Multitude of Belieuers or Ve●ity in Doctrine The 8. Parallell Whether Mahumet or the Lutherans stand more chargeable in teaching God to be the Authour of Sinne CHAP. IX I Will now descend to parallell and waigh the particular Opinions or Articles maintained seuerall wayes by Mahumet and Luther and his Schollers and so by conferring them together we may obserue whether Sentence is lesse iustifiable I wil begin with the Questions Whether God be the Authour of sinne or not 's Mahumet teacheth That God is not the Authour of sinne Your first Maysters teach That he is the Authour of sinne That Mahumet or Sergiu● did not teach God to be the Authour of sinne I thus prous First we find no such Tenet or Article thereof in the Alcoran But if they had taught this Doctrine that God were the Authour of sinne they would infallibly haue placed is in their Alcorans Which Books they made 〈◊〉 it were to become the Catechisme of