Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	apostle_n	church_n	faith_n	5,700	5	5.3212	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13642	Keepe your text. Or a short discourse, wherein is sett downe a method to instruct, how a Catholike (though but competently learned) may defend his fayth against the most learned protestant, that is, if so the protestant will tye himselfe to his owne principle and doctrine, in keeping himselfe to the text of the scripture. Composed by a Catholike priest	Véron, François, 1575-1649. Adrian Hucher ministre d'Amyens, mis à l'inquisition des passages de la Bible de Genève. aut	1619 (1619)	STC 23924; ESTC S107525	31,396	48

and shall eate her flesh and burne her with fire Now how can the Whore here signifie Antichrist or his seate if at his comming she is to be ouerthrowne and demolished Next you may shew that the Expositions of the Fathers are different concerning what the Whore of Babilon here signifieth yet not any of them can bee applyed to the Pope for (q) In Psal 26. Austine (r) In hunc locum Aretas (Å¿) Ibidem Haymon and S. Bede doe vnderstand by the Whore which sitteth on seuen Hills and hath domination ouer the Kings of the earth not Rome but the vniuersall Citie of the Deuill which in the Scripture is often called Babilon and is opposed to the Citie of God which is his Church and called Ierusalem And by the seuen Hills these Fathers vnderstand the generall state of all proud Men and chiefly of earthly Kings But (t) L. contra Iudaeos Tertullian and (u) Epist 17. ad Marcell Ierome doe indeed meane by the Whore of Babilon Rome to wit Rome Ethnike as it worshipped Idols and persecuted Christians but not Rome Christian which Exposition doth nothing preiudice the Pope or vs Catholikes Heere now if your Minister will not rest satisfied with these Expositions will him to refute all or any of them from the Scripture alone as hee hath obliged himselfe by his owne doctrine to doe in acknowledging the Scripture for sole Iudge of all Religious Controuersies To conclude you may for the close of all tell your Mi-Minister that rhis and the other Text alleaged are so farre from prouing the Pope to bee Antichrist that diuers learned Protestants as holding the proofes deduced from them to be most in consequent doe maintaine that Antichrist is not yet come Of this Opinion to wit that Antichrist is not yet come and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist is Zanchius (x) In Epist Paul ad Philip Boloss Thess p. 246. and Franciscus (y) In his Booke entituled Antichristus siue Prognostica finis mundi p. 74. Lambertus both markable and learned Protestants And from hence you may tell him it proceedeth that Mr. Doue in his Sermon touching the second comming of Christ thus writeth Some Protestants make a doubt whether Antichrist bee yet reueiled or no. A point so euident that our English Puritanes in their mild defence of the silenced Ministers Supplication to the High Court of Parliament doe charge and censure most seuerely our English Protestants besides for other things disliked by them for teaching that the Pope is not Antichrist And thus farre of this second example and of the Method to be holden herein in disputing with your Minister where you are to aduertize him that seeing in his Disputes hee must relye much vpon conference of Scriptures that this course is holden most vncertaine euen in the iudgements of the Learned Protestants to wit of D. (z) L. de Eccles contra Bellar. contr 2. q. 4. p. 22. Whitakers aboue alleaged of (a) Vbi supra Beza and of Mr. (b) So vrged by Hooker in the Preface of his Eccles Politie p. 28. Hooker And here according to this method of answering I could wish the Catholke to bee well practized in the Question it selfe of the Scripture being sole Iudge when the Protestant seeketh to proue the same only from Scripture seeing this Question containeth implicitly in it selfe all other Questions and Controuersies of faith Now against this former Method of disputing and answering if it should be obiected by any that the learned Catholike when he maintaineth at any time the part of the opponent stands exposed to the same danger and so dum capit capitur to the which the Protestant in this Discourse is said to lye open since the Catholike often insisteth in consequences drawne from Scripture vrgeth Reasons deduced from Naturall or Morall Philosophy warranteth his owne Expositions of Scripture by the testimonie of Men to wit of the Pope and generall Councels and so Meteor-like in regard of Diuine and Humane Authorities hangeth betweene Heauen and Earth To this I answere that learned Catholike is not preiudiced by this my Method And first concerning Consequences drawne from Scripture though the Catholike doth freely embrace them as not holding the expresse Scripture alone to bee the rule of faith yet so farre forth as concernes only Scripture he insisteth not in them alone but he is able to produce expresse plaine and literall passages of Scripture prouing his Articles of faith without any helpe of Scripturall consequences though neuer so necessary Of which kind of proofe the Protestant is wholly depriued and therefore flyeth for refuge only to supposed illations from Scripture or to some obscure passages thereof which in expresse termes speake nothing of the Question for which they are alleaged but only are strangely detorted by his most wilfull mis-application For example of the perspicuous Texts of Scripture in defence of our Catholike faith I will insist in some few of them for some delibation and taste of the rest And first concerning the Reall Presence afore mentioned wee vrge those plaine wordes of Christ To (c) Mat. 26. wit this is my body c. This is my bloud c. In like sort for the Primacie of Peter we vrge that passage Thou (d) Mat. 16. art Peter and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it For the not erring of the Vniuersall Church wee insist besides in the former Text in those words of the (e) 1. Tim. 3. Apostle Who calleth the Church the pillar and foundation of truth How then can the Church erre That Priests may truly forgiue sinnes we rest vpon the promise of Christ made to his Apostles who were Priests and in them to his Successours Whose sinnes (f) Iohn 20. you shall forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose sinnes you shall retayne they are retayned What more euident That Baptisme truely remitteth Originall Sinne contrary to the Protestants Doctrine wee prooue from that most perspicuous place (g) Iohn 3. Except a Man be borne againe of Water and the Spirit hee cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heauen Finally to omit infinite other passages of Scripture of the like conuincing euidency for our Catholike Articles and Religion that Workes doe iustifie and not only Faith wee produce Saint Iames saying in expresse words thus (h) Iames 3. Doe you not see that a Man is iustified by Works and not by Faith only How literally and punctually hee proues the Point controuerted In all which places we find the Catholike Conclusion it selfe for which they are vrged literally set downe and our Aduersaries therefore as acknowledging so much are forced to flie to figuratiue constructions of them Neither doe we neede to forge any strange or mysticall construction of them as the Protestant in his allegations of Scripture is accustomed to doe saying only by our owne warrant This the Scripture here

wounding their owne Religion with their owne hands seeing all the reformation as they terme it which they haue made of our Catholike faith consists only in certaine pretended sequences and inferentiall deductions out of the Scripture If the Minister here reply that diuers Catholike Authours for all are not of that opinion doe teach that necessary and ineuitable consequences deduced out of the written Word are to be taken as Articles of faith then may you say first admitting so much yet such consequences are not Scripture and therefore what is proued only by them is prooued by that which is not Scripture Next demand of your Minister if hee grownd himselfe herein vpon the authoritie of some particular Catholike Writers if he doth then followeth it that hee grounds his Articles of faith not vpon the Scripture which by his owne doctrine he should doe but vpon the iudgements of certaine Men and such whom at other times hee absolutely reiecteth with all contempt and scorne And here he is to note that Catholikes as not holding the written Word to bee the sole rule of faith may without contradicting themselues teach the foresaid opinion which the Protestant cannot defend without mainly impugning and crossing his former doctrine of the Scripture being the sole Iudge of faith since as I haue said the Scripture in no place affirmeth that consequences drawne out of it selfe are to bee receiued as Articles of faith If our Minister secondly reply that our Sauiour himselfe in Matthew 22. hath argued from consequence of Scripture and prooueth thereby the Resurrection of the dead you are to answere thereto first that Christ our Lord by drawing any consequences from Scripture doth make the same consequences to become Scripture since whatsoeuer hee said which is recorded by the Euangelists is thereby become Scripture Secondly say that it is an Article of faith to beleeue that our Sauiour concludeth truly whatsoeuer hee deduceth from the Scripture by consequence since the Scripture witnesseth that he enioyed an infallible assistance of God neyther of which priuiledges can our poore Minister assume to himselfe Thirdly say it is true that the Resurrection of the dead is an Article of faith but the Scripture saith not that it is an Article of faith in that it is prooued by consequence from Scripture which is the point only here questioned of 5. In the fift place you may put your Minister in mind that euery true consequence resulteth out of two Propositions put in good forme of a Syllogisme according to the true rules of Logick but the Scripture deliuereth not any rules which are to be obserued in the forme of a Syllogisme or other approoued method of arguing therefore it followeth that when the Minister laboureth to prooue his Articles by consequences of Scripture he proueth not his Articles by only Scripture since Scripture as is said speaketh nothing of the forme of consequences and consequently in his controuersies of faith hee relyeth not vpon Scripture as only Iudge as he promised in the beginning to doe but rather vpon Aristotle who setteth downe the true rules and precepts to be obserued in consequences or at the most hee relyeth vpon the Scripture ioyned with Aristotle and then not vpon Scripture only 6. In the sixt place demand of your Minister who shall iudge of the consequence which he deduceth from Scripture whether it be good or no As for example in the former alleaged illation concerning Christs body in the Eucharist to wit The body of Iesus Christ is in Heanen as we reade in the Acts c. 3. therefore it is not vpon the earth vnder the formes of Bread and Wine The Protestant maintaines this to bee a good consequence wee Catholikes deny it Who must now iudge whether it bee a true or a vitious consequence If the Scripture must be Iudge hereof then cause the Minister to alleage some Text of Scripture which according to our Sectaries is the rule of all truth in faith affirming the Inference to be good If the Protestant Minister himselfe must iudge of the goodnesse of the consequence and yet there is no more reason for him then for the Catholike to iudge thereof who then seeth not that the Protestant vnder the pretext of the holy Scripture maketh himselfe sole and last Iudge of Scripture it selfe of consequences drawne from the Scripture and finally of all Controuersies in Faith and Religion And here you may further adde and demand how it is possible that an ignorant Mechanicall fellow who perhaps cannot write or reade can haue true faith of any point that is deduced by consequence from Scripture since he is not able to iudge whether the Consequence bee good or vitious especially where one of the Propositions is taken from the difficult grounds of Philosophie and then much lesse can he iudge of the requisite formes of syllogismes Hee must not here insist vpon the affiance hee hath of his Ministers learning who deduceth this Consequence seeing by so doing hee forsaketh the former Principle of the Protestants to wit that articles of Faith are to receaue their proofes not from Men but only from the written Word of God Againe seeing in the Protestants censure the whole Church of God may erre as is afore vrged in consequences drawne from Scripture and in articles builded vpon the said consequences much more then may any one Minister be deceaued therein 7. In the last place of all after the Catholike hath thus fully shewed by seuerall wayes that the Minister many times in his proofes hath relinquished the Scripture whereupon afore he pretended to relye hee may descend if so hee finde himselfe furnished with sufficient learning thereto to examine the truth or falshood of the Propositions from which the Ministers consequence ariseth though perhaps it were better iudgement to rest satisfied with the former Victorie as being more easily to be discerned by the ignorant Auditorie then otherwise it could be being gayned by long and difficult disputes Now in the examining of the Propositions of the former Argument for example which was this That body which is in Heauen is not vpon the Earth But the body of Christ is in Heauen as wee reade in the Acts chap. 3. Therefore the body of Christ is not vpon the Earth c. The Catholike I say is here to denie the first Proposition to wit That body which is in Heauen is not vpon the Earth distinguishing for greater satisfaction that one and the same body cannot naturally or by the ordinarie course of Nature be at once both in Heauen and vpon the Earth but supernaturally and by the Power of God it may be as we hold that Christs body is supernaturally and by the omnipotency of God both in Heauen and vnder the formes of Bread and Wine where his body through Gods infinite power hath no reference to any externall coextention of Place If the Minister doe proceede on further against this distinction still drawing one argument after another out of