Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	authority_n	church_n	infallible_a	2,008	5	9.8493	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12484	Of the author and substance of the protestant church and religion two bookes. Written first in Latin by R.S. Doctour of Diuinity, and now reuiewed by the author, and translated into English by VV. Bas.; De auctore et essentia Protestanticae Ecclesiae et religionis libri duo. English	Smith, Richard, 1566-1655.; Bas., W.	1621 (1621)	STC 22812; ESTC S117611	239,031	514

OF THE AVTHOR AND SVBSTANCE OF THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH AND RELIGION TWO BOOKES Written first in Latin by R. S. Doctour of Diuinity AND Now reuiewed by the Author and translated into English by VV. Bas Euery thing must be reduced to its beginning Tertull. Praescript cap. 20. Permissu Superiorum M.DC.XXI The Scope of this Worke. IF both Luther himselfe and the famousest Protestantâ— of all sorts haue many wayes most plainly and most freely confessed that Luther was the Author and Beginner of the Protestant Church and Religion as in this worke doth manifestly appeare then vndoubtedly he was so And if Luther were the Author and Beginner therof assuredly it is not the Church and Religion of Christ. Read therefore and iudge indifferently and thereby an end may be made of all Controuersies in Religion betwixt the Catholiks and Protestants THE PREFACE OF THE AVTHOR TO the Reader Wherein the manner and profit of this Worke is declared THERE are two kinds of questions gentle Reader which are in controuersy betwixt the Catholikes and Protestantes the one kind is of fact to wit Whether Luther was the Author and beginner of the Protestants Church and ReligioÌ„ whether before him it were visible and had Pastours whether he and the first Protestant Preachers were sent to preach Protestancy and the liâ—e The other kind of question is of Christs doctrine or law For example whether Christ taught good workes do iustify be necessary to saluation meritorious and such others Why a a question of Fact is handled rather theÌ„ of doctrin At this present I treate not of this second kind of question but only of the former and that for three causes First the questions of Doctrine are innumerable but the questions of Fact few And many haue handled them and that most exactly but these few haue touched and for ought that I know none of purpose hath hitherto written of the Authour of Protestancy and in that manner as I intend to write Secondly there are few questions of doctrine of that nature that all other controuersies of faith depend vpon them but the most questions of Fact are such as if they be well decided al other Controuersies of religion are at an end Such kind of question this especially is which now I handle VVhether Luther were Author and beginner of the Protestant church and Religion For if it be made manifest that he was the Author and Beginner of it euery one will straihgt see that it is not Christs Church Religion but Luthers deuise and inuention Thirdly in questions of doctrine or law Protestants want not some pretext of Scripture as neither any Heretikes wanted and therfore diuers tymes they are ready to debate these kind of Questions in which as Tertullian sayth they pretend Scriptures Prescrip c. 15. and with this their boldnes shake some and in the dispute weary the constant catch the weake send away the midalâ— sort with scruple and douâ—ts But in questions of Fact they are destitute not only of al pretence of Scripture vnles it be some most vaine but also of all testimony of men and help of reason and stand only vpon their owne sayinges are conuinced by the testimonies of the whol world and sometyme also by their owne confessions and therefore are brought to debate these kind of questions no more willingly then is a theefe to his tryall Neither do they in these disputs either weary the constant or catch the weake but shew their owne weaknes and wilfullnes vnto all kind of men And this is the cause why Ministers are so loath to dispute of the Church because the Church being a company of men includeth many questions of fact as of antiquity succession continuance visibility mission ordination of Pastours and such like in which points there is little colour or shew on their part 2. Fourthly Protestants exact more difficult poofes in questions of doctrine then they can demand in matters of Fact For in matters of Fact wherof the scripture speaketh nothing they must be content with testimonies of men against whome no iust exception can be made or they must refuse all triall of these kind of questions But in controuersies of doctrine they account those only to be lawfull proofes which are taken out of the scripture Neither doe these satisfie them vnlesse they be plaine (a) Melan. Brent in Hospin fol. 107. Colloq Ratisb sess 11. expresse and as they say word (b) Vorst respons ad Slad for word containe that which is in question or at least be so pregnant and strong that they (c) Luth. de seru arbitr fol. 440. Lib. 6. confess c. 4. stopp all mâ—ns mouths that they can gainsay nothing For it is the common fault of Protestants which S. Augustin saith himselfe was guilty of whiles he was an heretike that they will be as certaine of all things as that seauen and three make ten Nay they yield not alwayes to these kind of proofs For what can be sayd more expressy more plainly more literally then the scripture saith that man is iustified by workes and not only by faith that that which our Sauiour gaue with his hands to his Apostles after his last supper was his very body and bloud and such like yet the Protestants yield not to these kind of testimonies but deuise figures and shiftes to delude them Catholiques proofes in controuersies of doctrine are certainly Theological demonstrations because they are clearly drawne from the proper principles of Diuinity to wit from cleare words of God confirmed by the tradition of the Church and vnanimous exposition of the Fathers which kind of proofe is as great and strong as either Diuinity or law or any Science whatsoeuer which is founded in words either doth affoard or the nature of any law or science which is grounded in words as Diuinity is can beare or affoard And as the Philosopher saith well it were starck madnes to exact any other kind of proofes of any Profession then the nature therof can affoard 1. Eth. 1. But because heretiques expound what words soeuer as they list and litle set by the authority of the Church or Fathers and the vnlearned hardly perceaue what kind of proofe is a Theologicall demonstration such as Diuinity can affoard no greater or which is the true sense of Gods word or how great the authority of the Churh and Fathers ought to be therefore with them Catholiks proofs in points of doctrin albeit in truth they be Theological demonstrations take litle effect Wheras on the other side Catholique proofes in matter of Fact are not only Theologicall but also that I may so speake Mathematicall demonstrations because they consist of one principle which is grounded not only vpon the foundations of Diuinity to wit the word of God together with the expositioÌ„ of the Church and Fathers but also is manifest by the light of reason which kind of principles these are That Gods Church hath alwayes him

a true Church and vnderstand their foresayd Maior vniuersally it is false for not euery true Church in that sense is Apostolicall or hath euer beene For a schismaticall Church is true in doctrine and yet is neither Apostolicall nor hath euer beene And if they vnderstand their Maior particulerly the conclusion followeth not because it is deduced out of pure particuler propositions And thus much of the Maior 7. Secondly the foresayd argument is a sophism because of the Minor by which one vnknown thing is proued by another one false thing by another not only false ProtestaÌ„ts proofe out of a thing more vnknowne but also impossible For it is more vncercertaine that the Protestant Church holdeth the doctrin of Christ then that she was before Luther For albeit she were not before notwithstanding it was not impossible that she should haue beene but that she holdeth the doctrine of Christ is both false and impossible also And as Luther sayth in defens verb. Coenae tom 7. fol. 385. It is a mad mans part to proue vncertaine things by others as vncertaine And D. Whitaker cont 2. quest 3. cap. 3. All proofe is by thinges that are more knowne Which also he hath cont 2. quest 5. cap. 18. Sadcel praefat lib. cont Traditiones Daneus l. 4. de Eccles cap. 2. D. Morton part 2. Apol. lib. 1. cap. 37. Pareus lib. 3. de Iustificat cap. 1. Wherupon Luther tom 2. Praefat. assert Antic fol. 95. writeth Aristotle and all sense of nature sheweth that vnknowne thinges must be proued by thinges more knowne and obscure thinges by manifest If therefore as Pareus sayth lib. 1. de Iustificat c. 20. when the Aduersarie is brought to that that eitheir he gainesayth himselfe or beggs that which he is to proue assuming that in his proofe which is in debate or trifleth by repeating now and then the same thing he is vanquished surely then Protestants are vanquished whom in this smal work we haue shewed oftentymes to gaine say themselues now including these within the Church now excluding them now affirming the Church to be inuisible now denying it now to haue alwayes Pastours now denying it and the like And in this argumment with which alone they proue the existeÌ„ce of their Church before Luther they assume in the Minor that which most of all is in debate Caluin 4. Insticut c. 1. Â§ 12. Narrat de Eccles Belg. p. 196. And the Maior they can proue no otherwise then by trifling by repeating it and saying that it is out of all doubt I add also that the sacramentaryes say that the Lutheran Church erreth euen in the fundamentall points and the like say the Lutherans of the Sacramentaries and scarce there is any Protestant who doth not thinke that the Church whereof he is doth erre in some points What reason then haue they out of the truenesse of the doctrin of their Churches to inferre their perpetuall existence 8. Thirdly I adde that the manner wherwith Protestants doe proue the Minor of their foresayd syllogisme is sophisticall and not such as they exact of vs for proofe of our doctrine For commonly they exact of vs to shew that our doctrine is contained in expresse words in Scripture or as Luther sayth lib. de seru arbit tom 2. fol. 440 inso manifest testimonies as are able so to stop all meÌ„s mouths as they are not able to say any thing against it But manifest it is that such be not the proofes wher with Protestants proue their doctrine For to omit other points where is in expresse words in scripture that fundamentall point of their doctrin that we are iustified by only faith Say the contrary is so expresly in S. Iames epistle Tom. 6. in c. 12. Gen. as therfore Luther blasphemously sayth S. Iames doted And the Lutherans for that very cause deny his epistle to be canonicall Besides VVhitak cont 1. q. 4. cap. 3. Protestants doe now confesse that the scripture is not of it selfe sufficient to end all questions of faith and that Schismatikes cannot be conuinced by scripture How then can they sufficiently proue al the points of their doctrine by scripture VVhitak loc cit p. 490. Plessy l. de Eccles c. 9. Againe themselues acknowledge that they need certaine meanes to attaine to the right sense of the Scripture and that their meanes are humane and not infallible as knowledge of tongues conference of places and such like and with all that such as the meanes be such is the exposition of Scripture If therfore their meanes be not infallible how can their vnderstanding of the scripture be infallible Moreouer they scarce euer proue any thing by both principles out of scripture but almost euermore adioyne one human principles as easily will appeare if their proofs be brought to a syllogisticall forme as well obserue the most learned Bishop of LuÃ§on in his defence of the Principall articles of faith cap. 3. 5. And how can they be infallibly certaine of the conclusion which they cannot know but by one human principle whereof they can haue no such certainty Furthermore because many of their proofes doe not only consist of one humane principle Protestats conclude against sense which is not at al in the scripture but also they inferre a conclusioÌ„ directly contradictory to that which the scripture in most expresse words teacheth of that matter As for example when they proue that the Eucharist is of not the very body and bloud of Christ alwayes one of their principles is humane and besides their conclusioÌ„ is flat contrary to expresse words of scripture which affirmeth that it is Christs very body and bloud And who is he in his wittes that will perswade himselfe either that the scripture meaneth that the Eucharist is not the body bloud of Christ which directly it neuer sayth rather then that it is his body and bloud which it as expresly sayth as euer it sayth any thing or that that proofe is not sophisticall which out of one humane principle at least inferreth the contrary of that which the scripture most expresly teacheth Lastly they neuer proued any one point of their doctrine any otherwise then euer Heretiks do that is in their own iudgmeÌ„t neuer before any iudge or general Councell which Luther himselfe confesseth in c. 27. Gen. tom 6. fol. 368. in the words In the affaire of the Gospell we haue decided the matter against al the impiety of the Pope without form of law VVe accused not the Pope neither could we for there was no iudge Yea their doctrin hath bin coÌ„demned according to all forme of law in the Generall Councel of Trent of the Patriarch of Constantinople to whoÌ„ they appealed and of al other kinds of Christians 9. Fourthly I say that the foresayd argument is a sophisme in that in a seÌ„sible matter as the Church is it concludeth against the sense of all men For nether did any see the Protestant Church before Luther

Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Text snippets containing the quad