Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	faith_n	word_n	write_a	3,171	5	10.6412	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A16174	A reproofe of M. Doct. Abbots defence, of the Catholike deformed by M. W. Perkins Wherein his sundry abuses of Gods sacred word, and most manifold mangling, misaplying, and falsifying, the auncient Fathers sentences,be so plainely discouered, euen to the eye of euery indifferent reader, that whosoeuer hath any due care of his owne saluation, can neuer hereafter giue him more credit, in matter of faith and religion. The first part. Made by W.P.B. and Doct. in diuinty.	Bishop, William, 1554?-1624.	1608 (1608)	STC 3098; ESTC S114055	254,241	290

we are justified not by faith alone but also by good workes That in extremity of sicknesse we must cal for the Priest to anoile vs with holy Oile That we must confesse our sinnes not to God alone but also vnto men these and diuers such like heades of our Catholike faith formally set downe in holy Scripture the Protestants wil not beleeue though they be written in Gods vvord neuer so expresly but doe ransacke al the corners of their wits to deuise some odde shift or other how to flie from the euidence of them Whereupon I conclude that they doe not receiue al the written word though they professe neuer so much to allow of al the bookes of Canonical Scripture Lib. 2. de Trinitate ad Const For the written word of God consisteth not in the reading but in the vnderstāding as S. Hierome testifieth that is it doth not consist in the bare letter of it but in the letter and true sence and meaning joined togither the letter being as the body of Scripture and the right vnderstanding of it the soule spirit and life thereof he therefore that taketh not the written word in the true sence but swarneth from the sincere interpretation of it cannot be truly said to receiue the written word as a good Christian ought to doe Seing then that the Protestants and al other sectaries doe not receiue the holy Scriptures according vnto the most ancient and best learned Doctors exposition they may most justly be denied to receiue the sacred vvritten word of God at al though they seeme neuer so much to approue al the Bookes Verses and Letters of it vvhich is plainly proued by S. Hierome vpon the first Chapter to the Galathians Now to draw towardes the end of this clause not only neuer a one of M. Abbots assertions whereby he went about to proue them selues and their Church to be Catholike is true as hath beene shewed before but ouer and besides his very conclusion conuinceth himselfe euen by the verdict of himselfe to fal into the foule fault and errour of the Donatists Our faith saith he because it is that which the Apostles committed to writing is the Apostolike faith and our Church by consanguinity and agreement of doctrine is proue to be an Apostolical Church c. and is the only true Catholike Church c. see you not how he is come at length to proue their Church to be Catholike Page 16. Line 5. Ex perfectione doctrinae By perfectnesse of their doctrine vvhich was as he himselfe in this very assertion noted a plaine Donatistical tricke reproued by S. Augustine whom in that point he then approued What doating folly is this in the same short discourse so to forget himselfe as to take that for a sound proofe which he himselfe had before confuted as heretical we like wel of Tertullians obseruation That our faith ought to haue consanguinity and perfect agreement with the Apostles doctrine but that is not the question at this time but vvhether our doctrine or the Protestant be truly called Catholike that is whether of them hath beene receiued and beleeued in al nations ouer the world that is to be proued in this place M. Abbot if he had meant to deale plainly and soundly should not haue gone so about the bush and haue fetched such vvide and vvilde windlesses from old father Abrahams daies but should haue demonstrated by good testimony of the Ecclesiastical Histories or of ancient Fathers vvho were in the pure times of the Church the most Godly and approued Pastours thereof that the Protestāts religion had flourished since the Apostles daies ouer al Europe Afrike and Asia or at least had beene visibly extant in some one country or other naming some certaine Churches in particular which had held in al points their faith and religion vvhich he seing impossible for any man to doe fel into that extrauagant and rouing discourse which you haue heard concluding without any premises sauing his owne bare word that in the written word There is no mention made of the Pope or his Supremacy nor of his Pardons c. Belike there is no mention made of S. Peter nor aught said of his singular prerogatiues It hath not peraduenture That whatsoeuer be should loose on earth should be loosed in heauen The other points were touched before and shal be shortly againe But I would in the meane season be glad to heare where the written word teacheth vs that Kinges and temporal Magistrates are ordained by Christ to be vnder him supreme Gouernours of Ecclesiastical affaires because M. Abbot made choice of this head-article of theirs for an instance that the written word was plaine on their ●ide he should therefore at least haue pointed at some one text or other in the new Testament where it is registred that Princes are supreme gouernours of the Church Nay are temporal Magistrates any Ecclesiastical persons at al or can one that is no member of the Ecclesiastical body be head of al the rest of the Ecclesiastical members or is the state Secular higher and more worthy then the Ecclesiastical and therefore meete to rule ouer it though they be not of it to say so is to preferre the body before the soule nature before grace earth before heauen or is it meete and decent that the lesse worthy-member should haue the supreme command ouer the more honourable vvhere the Christian vvorld is turned topsy-turuy that may be thought meete and expedient but in other places that wil not be admitted for currant vvhich in it selfe is so disorderly and inconuenient without it had better warrant in the word of God then that new position of theirs hath ROBERT ABBOT NOw vvhereas he alleageth that al his Majesties most roial Progenitours haue liued and died in that vvhich he calleth the Catholike and Apostolike faith Ambros lib. 5. epist. he plaieth the part of Symmachus the Pagan sophister who by like argument vvould haue perswaded Valentinian the Emperour to restore their Heathenish Idolatry and abhominations We are to follow our Fathers saith he who with happinesse and felicity followed their Fathers Aug. psal 54. Thus men haue hardned themselues in their heresies saying What my parents were before me the same wil I be But his Majesty wel knoweth that in matter of religion the example of parents is no band to the children L. 2. epist 3. but the trial thereof is to returne to the roote and original of the Lordes tradition as Ciprian speaketh not regarding what any before vs hath thought fit to be done but what Christ hath done who is before al. It is not vnknowne to his Majesty that there should be a time when Apocal. 17. vers 13. the Kinges of the earth shal giue their power and kingdome to the beast vntil the word of God be fulfilled and with the whoore sitting vpon many waters Vers 14. should bende themselues to fight against the Lambe Wherein if any of his Progenitours

heauen shal preach vnto vs any thing concerning Christ or concerning his Church or concerning any thing pertaining to our faith and life but what we haue receiued in the Scriptures of the law and Gospel accursed be he Our faith therefore because it is that which the Apostles committed to writing is the Apostolike faith and our Church ex consanguinitate doctrinae by consanguinity and agreement of doctrine is proued to be an Apostolical Church c. of this Apostolical Church his Majesty is the supreme gouernour vnder Christ As for M. Bishops religion it cannot be the Catholike religion because it is not that vvhich the Catholike Church that is the faithful of al ages haue practised His faith is not the Apostolike faith because it is not that vvhich the Apostles left in writing They make no mention of the Pope of his Supremacy of his Pardons of worshipping of Images inuocation of Saints Pilgrimages and a thousand such trumperies WILLIAM BISHOP WE agree in this that there is but one faith one baptisme one spiritual foode and one religion in the Catholike Church but M. Abbot is fouly ouer-seene about the time when the true Church beganne first to be called Catholike which was not before Christs time but afterwardes according to that alleaged out of Pacianus an ancient authour who writeth of the name Catholike saying Christian is my name Pacian epist ad Simphor de nomine Catholico Catholike is my surname For when among Christians some beganne to teach false doctrine and to draw others after them into sects they that remained sound did cleaue fast vnto the whole body of the Church were intituled Catholikes to distinguish them from Heretikes that did not joine vvith the vniuersal corps of Christians in faith and religion which M. Abbot before did in plaine wordes confesse see his text afore vvhere he beginneth to argue of the word Catholike And the reason is most perspicuous why the Iewes and their religion could not be called Catholike though it vvere right and according to the wil of God for that time because Catholike signifieth that which is spread al the world ouer and receiued of al nations so was not the law of Moises and the manner of seruing God therein prescribed but vvas peculiar vnto the children of Israel and as it were confined within the limits of one land and country vvherefore it could not be called Catholike and vniuersal And M. Abbot was greatly deceiued or else goeth about to deceiue others when for proofe of communicating with the Catholike Church he recoileth back vnto the beginning of the vvorld Why did he not rather shew that their new Gospel flourished in al countries assoone as the Christian faith vvas planted and that it hath continued in al ages since the Apostles daies vntil our time that had beene to haue spoken directly to the purpose which he seldome vseth But he saw that to be a worke to hard for Hercules and therefore to delude his reader and to lead him from the matter he flieth vp to the old farne-daies of Abel Noē Abraham c. as though they had reuealed vnto them al those particular points of faith which Christ taught his Apostles and the same religion and manner of vvorshipping God that we Christians haue which is flatly opposite to the doctrine of S. Paul who testifieth Ephes 3. v. 4. That the mistery of Christ vnto other generations was not knowne vnto the Sonnes of men as now it is reuealed vnto his holy Apostles and Prophets in the spirit Those ancient Patriarkes as men Hebr. 11. vers 13. looking a farre off at the daies of Christ the light of the vvorld did not discouer so distinctly the misteries of the Christian faith as the Apostles vvho vvere Iob. 6. v. 45. taught by his owne mouth and made to know Ioh. 15. v. 15. al his Fathers secretes and had ¶ * Rom. 8. vers 23. the first fruits of the spirit in best sort to vnderstand them and carry them away To be short our Sauiour hath decided this question and saith in expresse wordes Math. 13. vers 17. Many Prophets and just men haue desired to see the thinges that you see and haue not seene them and to beare the thinges that you heare and haue not heard them Obserue then how absurdly M. Abbot behaueth himselfe in this matter First he vseth tergiuersation in leaping so farre backe from the point of the question seeking communion with the Catholike Church some thousandes of yeares before there vvas any Church Catholike Secondly in auouching the ancient founders of the first world to haue beleeued clearely and particularly al the articles of faith that vve beleeue or else why doth he conclude that the Roman faith is not Catholike because in that old and hoare-headed world some branches of their faith were not sprong vp and of ful growth They did not saith he worship Idols and Images they did not pray to Saints c. But good Sir did they beleeue that al their children vvere to be baptised and that al persons of riper yeares among them were to receiue the holy Sacrament of Christes body yea can M. Abbot demonstrate that they had perfect faith of the most holy and blessed Trinity beleeuing distinctly in three persons and one God or that the redeemer of the world Christ Iesus was to be perfect God and perfect man the nature of man in him subsisting vvithout the proper person of man in the second person of the Trinity which are the most high misteries of our Christian faith I am not ignorant that albeit those ancient Patriarkes and Prophets had not cleare and distinct knowledge of many articles vvhich vve are bound to beleeue yet they beleeued some few of them in particular and had a certaine confuse and darke conceit by figures and tipes of most of the rest Touching these very points vvhereof M. Abbot would haue them vvholy ignorant if his bare vvord without any manner of proof were so powerful I affirme that they held the most of them vvhich I wil not stand here to proue at large for that were Protestant-like to runne from one question to another without order but I wil only giue a touch to euery one of his instances referring the reader for more ful satisfaction to the proper place of those head controuersies First no Catholike euer taught any man to worship Idols let that then passe as a Protestant slander but that Images are to be placed in Churches the examples recorded in the old Testament of hauing them both in their a Exod. 25. vers 18. Tabernacle and in the b 3. Reg. 6. vers 23. Temple of Salomon this sentence of the Psalmist c Psalm 98. vers 5. Adore his foote-stoole and many such like places and resemblances doe argue very strongly that Images are to be worshipped Secondly inuocation of Angels is most plainly practised by the holy Patriarke Iacob the Father of al

his spiritual Pastour would of himselfe doe any such lowly seruice as to hold the basin c. that is not to be imputed to him that suffereth it against his wil as a marke of pride To say that any Emperour or King contrary to his wil was enforced to doe it is a very fitten as euery child may perceiue for who either would or could force so mighty a Monarke to so base a seruice vnlesse he himselfe desired it As for that oath of fidelity vvhich the Emperour maketh to the Popes Holinesse I finde it not either in the 69. or 96. Distinction but in the 63 and it is only that the Emperour shal not doe any harme vnto the Popes temporal state in Italy and if he chance to come to Rome that be then shal carry to him and the Church of Rome such respect as is meete I vvould gladly be informed what alleageance may be picked out of this and whether it be not expedient the Emperor being to be confirmed by the Pope that he should take such an oath of him for his owne safety The next text cited out of the Clementine De appellatione is a meere fiction Can. Pastor for there is no such chapter nor matter That Priests be spiritual Fathers and Masters in matters of religion to Kinges and Princes vvho can doubt vnlesse they vvould haue Kinges neither baptized nor instructed in Christian religion by Priests And let the Protestants paint it out al they can a monstrous thing it must needes appeare vnto al men of vpright judgement and the Christian world to be there turned topsy and turuy where children shal take vpon them to rule their fathers and schollers to teach their masters Thus much in answere vnto al that is objected out of S. Leo to vvhich I wil joine that vvhich M. Abbot in another place pleadeth for the same matter out of the example of Constantine the great because it doth principally appertaine thereunto I hauing in my Epistle to his Majesty said that he being at the Councel of Nice would not sit downe before the Bishops beckned to him so to doe and that he there did professe that it did not belong to him to judge of Bishops but vvas rather to be judged of them M. Abbot answereth cleane contrary to the Emperours open confession that he was judge ouer the same Bishops Page 191. Whether wil you beleeue sooner either the Emperour speaking for himself or M. Abbot speaking he knowes not vvhat of his secret thoughts and intentions specially when that which I affirmed of the Emperour hath plaine testimony out of the best approued Authors nearest to that time and M. Abbots proofes to the contrary doe consist meerely vpon his owne surmises and collections Ruffi lib. 1. hist cap. 2. Socrat. lib. 1. hist cap. 5. Ruffinus and Socrates I then cited who in expresse tearmes deliuered so much as I said to whom I adde for further cōfirmation first the irrefragable record of the most famous Doctors that were present at the same Councel Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine the Popes principal Legate in that Councel of Nice affirmeth as is afore rehearsed that one may worthily cal that Emperour the abhomination of desolation fore-told by Daniël who presumeth to make himselfe Prince of Bishops and President ouer Ecclesiastical causes vvhich he would not haue done if he had beene perswaded that the Emperour Constantine vvhom he tooke to be a most vertuous Prince had beene judge ouer Bishops their spiritual causes in that very Councel where he vvas there also present Secondly Athanasius who was a principal agent in the same Councel auoucheth that it cannot be called a Synode and Councel Apolog. 2. Where not a Bishop but some temporal Magistrate is President He then tooke not Constantine for President of the Nicene Councel which he esteemed so highly off and vvas indeede the patterne of al other Councels Thirdly S. Ambrose vvho liued shortly after in formal tearmes doth say that Constantine the great was not judge in the Councel of Nice but left the judgement free to Bishops And writing vnto the Emperour Valentinian addeth When haue you heard most gratious Emperour Ambros l. 5. Epist 32. that lay men did judge ouer Bishops in cases of faith surely if your Majesty please to pervse the course of holy Scriptures or of former times you shal find none that deny but in matters of faith in matters I say of faith Bishops were wont to judge ouer Emperours not Emperours ouer Bishops S. Gregory the great in expresse wordes vvitnesseth L. 4. epist 31. That the Emperour Constantine durst not judge Bishops though they themselues wished and desired it By the record therefore of these most ancient holy and learned Prelates neither Constantine the great nor any other Catholike Emperour was or could be judge in Ecclesiastical affaires ouer Bishops vvhence it followeth most perspicuously that Constantines owne wordes confessing that it did not belong to him to judge Bishops and their causes are to be taken plainly as they signifie and vvere not spoken by him as M. Abbot speaking by ghesse affirmeth of modesty only as though he meant himselfe to be their judge in al causes aswel Ecclesiastical as Temporal But let vs heare what moued M. Abbot to hold that strange opinion so contrary to the Emperours owne confession and the declaration of the worthiest men of that age His first conjecture is that though Constantine sate not downe vntil the Bishops beckned on him yet he sate in the highest place on a seate of gold vvhich if it were true Euseb de vita Constant lib. 3. cap. 10. as it is false yet vvould it not proue Constantine to be the President or Iudge of that assembly For as Theodoret doth expresly note the place that he there had vvas by permission of the Bishops at his sute and not properly belonging to him these be his vvordes Then the Emperour sate downe Theodor. l. 1. histor cap. 7. in a little chaire set in the middest istud enim sibi permitti ab Episcopis postulauerat for he had requested the Bishops to permit him so to doe It being then a place by permission of the Bishops it rather argueth that he acknowledged the Bishops of vvhom he requested that place to haue beene the Presidents and commanders there Secondly the Tripartite Hystorie doth manifestly declare that Constantine sate below the Bishops Lib. 2. Hyst Tripar ca. 5. these be the wordes taken out of Zozomenus The Emperour Constantine entred into the Councel house after al the Bishops and had his seate beneath them al neither would he sit downe before the Bishops commanded him Theodor. l. 1. Histor cap. 7. And the wordes of Theodoret may also import as much He sate in a little seate placed in the middest amongst them And falsly or craftily doth M. Abbot report out of Eusebius That he sate in the highest place for Eusebius saith not so but that

cap. 21. by the best Hystoriographers and other approued authors of the auncient Church for denying Priests to haue power to forgiue some sort of the more hainous crimes Our Protestants exceede the Nouatians therein for they hold that Priests haue no power to pardon any sinne at al either little or great but only to pronounce them absolued for the satisfaction of the congregation And M. Abbot doth vpon meere surmises goe about very ignorantly to colour their deceit Page 187. in saying that the Nouatians denied absolution not from any sinnes but only from the sentence of excommunication Ibidem for both Socrates and Sozomene doe affirme in plaine tearmes the Nouatians to haue taught that it lay not in the power of a Priest but in God alone Illud genus peccati ignoscere To pardon and forgiue that kinde of sinne And againe That hope of pardon was not to be expected of the Priests but of God who could remit sinnes And there is no mention of any sentence of excommunication pronounced against them but that the offendours through the enormity of their sinnes had depriued themselues of the benefit of the Priests absolution And because M. Abbot saith yet further that Nouatus denied absolution to one only kinde of sinne let vs heare how formally that most graue Doctor S. Ambrose hath 1200. yeares before confuted him these be his wordes The Nouatians say Ambros de Poenitent cap. 2. that excepting some of the grieuous sinnes they doe giue pardon vnto the lighter offences But S. Ambrose replieth thus So did not Nouatianus the authour of your errour For he held that penance was not to be injoyned to any sinne at al vpon this consideration that he would not binde that which afterwardes he could not loose least by binding he might put them in hope of loosing Therefore doe you condemne the sentence of your owne Master because you put that difference betweene sinnes that some of them may be forgiuen and other some you thinke remedilesse But God maketh no such distinction who hath promised his mercy vnto al and hath giuen licence vnto Priests to pardon without any exception Obserue how directly that auncient Father doth crosse our new Masters in witnessing that both Nouatianus himselfe denied Priests to haue power to pardon not only the greater but any sinne at al And on the other part that God gaue vnto Priests authority to pardon al sorts of sinnes without any exception of the most grieuous Hieron 〈◊〉 Epist de errorivus Mōtan Niceph. lib. 18. cap. 43. Math. Paris in Henrico 3. Guido de lacobis cap. 2. The Montanists also as I rehearsed before out of S. Hierome did jump with the Nouatians in this point Afterwardes as heresies in tract of time grow more formal about the yeare of Christ 600. there sprong out of that corrupted roote certaine lewd impes called Iacobites who did teach in terminis That it was not necessary to confesse our sinnes to a Priest but it would serue to confesse them only to God Doe our Protestants differ from them any one jote therein That the Manichees among many other errours did deny Free-wil al Antiquity doth confesse The same doe the Protestants though not altogither after the same manner nor vpon the same groundes For the Manichees denied freewil aswel to sinne as to doe vvel Aug. 1. Retract 15. de duobus naturis cont Manich. for they dreamed that there vvas in a man both a good soule which they supposed to be a part of the good God and an euil soule descended of the nation of darkenesse Out of the forcible operation of the one of these two soules they imagined al good and badde deedes of man to proceede vvithout the free choise or consent of his owne wil. M. Abbot craftily to cleere their party from the infamy of the one branch of the Manichean heresie doth deny that they doe agree with them in the other True it is that the Protestants doe not deny vs free-wil to doe euil as the Manichees did yet doe they agree with them in the other part attributing the vvhole vvorking of good vnto grace as the Manichees did to the good soule without any free choise or consent of ours And albeit S. Augustine in refuting them doe most cōmonly insist vpon their denial of liberty to doe euil In disput cōt Fortunatū in act●s cum Foeli●e cap 12. as being the more euident eminent absurdity yet doth he in sundry places intimate that the Manichees held it absurd to affirme that we had free wil to doe good The Donatists vvere of opinion that the visible Church of Christ was perished in al other parts of the world and only remained vndefiled in those coasts of Afrike where their heresie bare the sway August ad Quodvult alibi and vvere therefore by the verdict of Antiquity declared blinde Heretikes The Protestants as obstinately and more blindly doe auouch that the visible true Church was for 900. yeares togither banished out of the world and was of late restored from that long exile by Friar Luther and his followers and doth yet remaine only vndefiled in those corners of Europe where their new Gospel doth domineer they are therefore in that point Donatists It was a very preposterous shameful inuention of the Arrians yet of necessity imbraced afterwardes by other Heretikes to appeale from the judgement of their spiritual Pastors vnto the lay Magistrate thus writeth S. Ambrose of the Arrian Bishop Auxentius He being brought vnto an exigent doth flie vnto that suttle tricke of his predecessours to draw vs into the Emperours displeasure Orat. tertia cont Auxentium affirming that he being but a young-man and a Nouice in the faith ignorant also of the holy Scriptures as commonly other Princes are must notwithstanding in his Consistory determine this Ecclesiastical cause so did the Donatists appeale from the judgement of Bishops vnto the Emperour Epist 48. 162. Lib. 3. cont Iulian. cap. 1. as witnesseth S. Augustine And so the Pelagians would haue done if they could haue preuailed therein as the same most graue Father hath also recorded And is not this as it were the foundation and shot-anker of al the Protestants superstitious proceedinges Another rotten twigge of the same Pelagians heresie it was Aug. de Peccat Merit lib. 1. cap. 9. To deny children to be purged from original sinne by baptisme attributing that rather to a couenant made long since to old father Abraham most learned Protestants be of the same minde And al of them agree vvith Proclus the condemned Originist Epiph. Haeres 64. vvho taught Original sinne to be so in seperably joined with our mortal bodies that til death it is not clearely purged of it The Antidicomarianitae that is Epiph. Haeres 78. enemies of the blessed Virgin Mary were scored vp for Heretikes for denying that most holy Mother of God to be worshipped and honoured yet doe the Protestants