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	holy_a	teach_v	2,670	5	6.1174	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A14357	M. le Hucher minister of Amyens in France compelled to fly from the pure word of holy write; strucke dumme; and made to runne away Vppon the subiect of the B. Sacrament of the altar. By F. Francis Veron of the Society of Iesus, encountring him with the Bible of Geneua only. In the presence of the Duke de Longueuille. VVith a briefe and easie meanes, by which each Catholike may, in like manner, put to flight any minister or sectarie. Sent from Sieur de la Tour one of the sayd Dukes gentlemen, to Sieur de Rotois, gentleman of the Kings game.; Adrian Hucher ministre d'Amyens, mis à l'inquisition des passages de la Bible de Genève. English	Véron, François, 1575-1649.; Catcher, Edward, 1584?-1624?	1616 (1616)	STC 24675.5; ESTC S107356	29,473	96

it belongs to Aristotle to iudge if the consequence be good or no the Minister building vpon consequence must admitt for his iudge in the controuersies of our fayth not the pure Scripture but Aristotle or els at least choose for vmpyre in this cause the word of God together with Aristotle 3. You must demaund of the Minister if the Scripture do teach that one must beleeue as an article of faith not only that which the Scripture saith but also that which by necessary consequence followeth therevpon or no if he say so make him shew the text which without doubt he cannot throughout the whole bible if no such be founde then doth the Minister build his articles of fayth vpon a proposition which is not in the pure word to witt vpon this That that which followeth out of Scripture by necessary consequence must be beleeued as an article of saith Howbeit the Scripture frames no such article but the Minister only and that not by the pure Scripture but by humane reason from which notwithstanding in his 5. Article he disclaimed wholy For he wold haue vs take at his handes for an article of faith that proposition which by consequence followeth out of the Scripture though the termes of that proposition deduced out of Scripture for an article of fayth be not there sett downe Hence is it that all the articles of the Confession of these sectaries which are founded vpon a consequence are not articles of fayth being that they haue not for them theyr only rule of truth the sole Scripture Heere againe you must hold him They will say perauenture that IESVS Christ and the Apostles proued many thinges by consequence I graunt it But in so doing they themselues made new Scriptures or holy write which priuiledge I thinke the Minister haue not But they neuer taught that the Scripture which they alledged was the singular and sole rule of all truth and that they spake not but by the mouth of the Scripture as these Pretenders professe and thyr poore flocke which thinke they are as good as theyr wordes persuade themselues 3. If he that buckle with the Minister be learned and will after he hath often driuen the deere from his fortresse of the pure worde course him alonge the plaine champion of humane and philosophicall reasons though according to my aduise it be ordinarily more expedient to content our selues with that before sett downe for to cure him if it be possible after the aboue said he may passe to the examen of the truth or falshod of his consequence whether the propositions from which it is deduced be they taken from philosophy or holy writt be true or false and whether the forme of the argument be according to the rules of Philosophy and so deny that which the Minister assumed falsly Still hauing in minde that the Minister is putt to the proofe not the Catholick who beares the personne of the party instructed be sure not to change that personne For the drift of all the Ministers fetches is to vnload himself of that obligation to prooue his consequence which he will bring to passe by this sleight if he can make him that defends the disputant For example In the argument proposed That body which is in heauen is not on the earth The body of Iesus Christ is in heauen Therfore it is not on the earth You shall deny the first proposition and lett the Minister prooue it If that his proofes come on to long he enter to farre into Philosophicall quiddities lett the Catholicke note that it is in his free choice to curbe the Minister short when he listeth demaunding him if all the propositions which he hath brought to prooue his consequence be in the Scripture or no. If they be lett him bring them forth Many of them questionles are drawne out of Philosophy or grounded vpon humane reasons If they be not the Minister which out of them inferres his consequence doth not deduce it out of the pure word or which is all one prooues not by consequence deduced out of the pure and only word that the Catholicke erreth which was that he vndertooke and moreouer denieth his Cōfession of faith for he drawes his cōsequence ioyntly out of the word of God and out of diuers propositions which are not in holie write Is not this to flinch from their worde and to renounce their articles of faith or rather do not the Minister his confession of faith abuse people in promising that which they neither do nor canne performe Behold a breefe and easy methode to encounter all Ministers and Sectaries Is it not obuious euen for those who are not students in deuinity to putt it in practise There needs no more but eyes to see and to vnderstande English to know if the pure word without additions interpretations or consequences of others do say such a thing or no. Do you not by this meanes euidently perceaue that all the Ministers are abusers and how the whole troope of Sectaries is misledde Yea I dare say double abusers For first the Minister abuseth men in that he promiseth by the pure word to shew them that which he would haue them beleeue next that he will by the pure word lay open their errours pretended and yett performeth neither the one nor the other Wherfore the Ministers promising in their 31. and 5. articles to performe them both and yet effecting neither as by the forsaid practise is made euident are impostours and double impostours as this methode which euery Catholick may vse doth apparently declare And so I haue fulfilled my promise which was to lay downe a short and easie methode by which all Catholiques may euidently shew that each Minister in all and euery point of his pretended religion is an abuser consequently that all their followers are abused This therfore is my aduice to all Sectaries to those especially which seeke sincerly theyr Saluation Your Confession promiseth you the pure word of God and you suppose that according to that promise there is nothing in your articles of fayth which is not in the pure word Practise this methode and you shall euidently and easily perceaue how you are abused Place on the one syde the Principall articles of your faith which I haue cited before That original sinne remaines after Baptisme as it is a fault That Iesus Christ is our only Aduocate That faith alone iustifieth and which is cheefe of all That the B. Sacrament is a figure of the body of our Sauiour which is eaten by faith Then ouer against each of these articles set downe the textes which are cited in the margent for eache of them doubtles if you had any plaine text of Scripture which taught that which is in that articles it wold haue been coated in the margent you shall cleerly see that the pure word setting aside interpretations and Ministeriall consequences hath not that which is in your article neither is there required ought

the same pure word This article therfore is of great consequence and with good reason to be beleeued ought to be found in the holy Scripture which if the Ministers should frame in the force of their owne braynes they deserue doubtles to be banished all honest company as men impudently bold which seeke to make the world renounce all things abouesaid for a proposition of their owne inuention and contradict themselues hauing before said they would only carry themselues as the organe of the wholy Scripture Let vs therfore set downe in one line first the article then vnder that the text cited in the margent for proofe thereof Article 5. The vvritten vvord is the rule of all truth or els as you commonly say Nothing is to be beleeued but that vvhich is in the vvritten vvord In the margent of this article you cite 4. textes for proofe of the contents 1. Text. You shall not add any thing to the vvorde vvhich I commaunde nor take any thing from the same Saith Moyses to the people of Israel Deuter. 4. Vers 2. 2. Text. That vvhich I commaund you that shall you doe neither shall you adde any thing nor diminish Deut. 12. Vers 32. Examen Heere is not any worde of the article in these passages for you neyther finde written word nor rule of all truth which are the two termes of the article wherfore this pure word doth not conteine that which the article affirmeth Lett vs weigh it more exactly 1. Moyses spake vnto the Iewes of that only which he ordained to witt of the Iudaicall law and of no other 2. he spake not of the written worde of which alone the article is but vniuersally of the word 3. Albeit he spake vnto Christians and of the only written word haue we increased the bookes of Moyses haue we added ought vnto them 4. Thinke you that the Prophets composing new Scriptures and ioyning them with the bookes of Moyses haue infringed this precept 5. if Moyses forbid to beleeue any thing but that which he ordayned we must neyther beleeue the Psalmes of Dauid nor the other Prophets nor the Ghospell for he ordained not that which these conteyne Perceaue you not how ridiculous a thing it is to alledge this text to verify by the pure word your article which sayth the written word is the rule if all truth The same article is prooued by an other passage Galat. 1. Vers 8. 3. Text. Although vve or an Angell from heauen preach othervvise then that vvhich vve haue preached vnto you be he accursed Examen In this text I neither read written word nor rule of all truth which are the two termes of the article wherefore the text hath not that which the article teacheth Nay it containes not one only word therof come to the examen 1. Is there in the text anie mention of the written word of which onlie we dispute and the article speakes of no other 2. Who knoweth not that the Apocalipse was reuealed and writt after that epistle of S. Paule and yet besides that which S. Paule euangelized it also must be beleeued Or is he which preacheth and beleeueth the Apocalipse accursed Or rather is S. Paule accursed who preached manie things afterward which are not in that epistle to the Galathians who is there of so small capacitie that in the reading of this chapter doth not see that the word otherwise is the same in sense with against The Apostle as it is manifest at the verie opening of the epistle crieth out against those which togeather with the law of Christ would ioyne Circumcision against the doctrine of the Apostles The wordes immediatlie going before make the matter more cleere I maruaile saith he to the Galat 1. Vers 6. 7.8 that leauing him who hath called you vnto the grace of Christ you are so soone transferred vnto an other Ghospell which is not another vnles there be some that trouble you will inuert the Ghospell of Christ But although we or an Angell from heauen preach to you otherwise then that which we haue preached to you be he accursed Is it not euident that S. Paul reiecteth that only which is against that which he had preached Then it is apparent also that this text makes nothing for that which the article contains to witt That the written word is the rule of all truth The last passage cited for the forsaid article is out of the Apocalipse 22. Vers 18. in these wordes 4. Texte I testifie to euerie one hearing the vvordes of the prophecie of this booke If any man shall add to these things God shall adde vppon him the plagues vvritten in this booke And if anie man shall diminish of the vvords of the booke of this prophecy God shall take avvay his part out of the booke of life and out of the holy Citty and of these things that be vvritten in this booke Neither do I reade in this passage written word of the entyre Bible of which only the Article intreats nor rule of all truth wherfore the text sayth not that the pure word of the entire Bible is the rule of all truth as the Article auerreth rather the text consents not in one only terme with the article Examine it 1. Is it not manifest that S. Iohn spake not but of the word conteyned in the Apocalipse which the Ministers will not allowe to be the rule of all truth to what purpose then for proofe of that Article That the pure word of the entire Bible is the rule of all truth do they bring out this text 2. if S. Iohn sayd that nothing must be added to that word of the Apocalipse in this sense and after this Ministerial paraphrase that nothing must be beleeued which is not therin contained then he which should beleeue the Ghospell the Epistles of S. Paul of S. Iohn and others and the old testament should be accursed Where were the Ministers witts thinke you when to proue that nothing must be bleeued but that which is in the Bible they alledged this passage 3. To adde to the Apocalipse is to thrust in somthing as part of that sacred booke doe we doe so What frantik people are your Ministers and you o Caluinists how grossely doth your Confession of fayth abuse you which treats you in such a fashion as if you had not eyes to reade nor iudgment to vnderstand the signification of one pure text How many Ministeriall glosses ar heere wanting to make these textes speake that which this article contaynes Lett vs go on Whence haue you that the bookes of the old and new Testament are holy Scripture how know you that these bookes are Canonicall By the inward persuasion of the holy Ghost so you aunsweare in the 4. article That he makes vs decerne them from other Ecclesiasticall bookes It is not then by the holy Scripture that you know this for your inward persuasion is not the written word Consequently it is false That the pure word is the rule of

donne in the other clauses An other clause of the 24. article Out of the vvare-hovvse of the deuill proceede the forbidding to marrie and the free vse of meates and the ceremonious obseruation of some daies Text. In the last times certaine shalt depart from the faith attending to spirits of errours forbidding to marry commaunding to abstaine from meates vvhich God created for the faithfull to receaue them vvith thanks giuing for euerie creature of God is good and nothing to be reiected 1. Timoth 4. Vers 3. Examen By this clause the Article seemes to reprehend the Catholicque Church but wrongfullie For. 1. shee forbids not to marrie otherwise no Catholick could be married but that he must breake the precept of the Church shee onlie causeth that to be kept which God in his Scriptures commaundeth to witt that men fulfill their vowes and for this cause that Preests and others which haue vowed chastity and continencie obserue their vowes wherby it followeth that they may not marrie Neither doth the text alledged say ought to the contrarie 2. I admire the little iudgment of the Ministers doe they thinke that the Physitians commaunding their patients to abstaine from some meates for a time to recouer their health doe goe against the Apostle and teach a deuilish doctrine I ame more amazed at the impudency of these men whoe reading the prohibition of some meates made by the Apostles gathered togeather in the 1. Councell Act. 15. vers 28. in these wordes It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to vs to lay no further burden vppon you then these necessary things Among other things that you abstaine from bloud and that which is strangled They dare abusing the text cited say not without execrable blasphemy against the holy Apostles and against the holy Ghost That from the ware-howse of the diuell proceedeth the prohition of some meates terming heereby the holy Ghost sathan and the first sacred Councell of the Apostles the ware-howse of the deuill and theyr prohibition an abuse and illusion S. Paul which assisted at that sacred Councell is farr of from censuring in that manner that precept which he with the rest had decreed to abstaine from certayn meates But forseeing that there wold come heretiques that wold forbidde mariage as a thing in it self vnlawfull and inuented by the deuill and some meates as naught in themselues and of their owne nature so did the Maniche Marcion and Tatian as S. Augustine with others recounteth these the Apostle condemneth The Church is farr distant from this errour Thus doe S. Augustine S. Chrisostome S. Hierome and S. Ambrose expound this place and the reason which the Apostle bringeth for his condemnation conteined in these words euery creature of God is good doth authorize the same And it belongs to the Minister who is plaintife to prooue the contrarie Finally the Church doth not absolutelie commaund to abstaine from meates for it forbiddeth not fish whice is meate nor at all times but onlie certaine particular meates and at certaine times which thing the Apostle reprehends not who speaketh of these who absolutelie commaunde to abstaine from meates and that without limitation to any times 3. for the proofe of the 3. clause of the obseruation of daies the article hath cited no texte in that therfore it deceaueth An other clause of the 24. article IESVS CHRIST is giuen vs for the sole Aduocate All that vvhich men haue imagined about the intercession of Saintes departed is nought els but an abuse and deceipt of Sathan Examen The onlie pointe of controuersie between vs in the first clause of this article is of the word sole for thes two textes are cited in margent for the second clause nothing the first in the 1. Timoth. 2.5 Texte There is one only God and one onlie mediatour betvveen God and men man IESVS CHRIST Examen I will set downe the texte entierly to make it more cleere that he saith not that which the article teacheth behold the Apostles wordes God vvill that all men be saued and come to the knovvledge of truth for there is one only God and one only mediatour betvveene God and men man IESVS CHRIST vvho gaue himselfe for reedmption of all I finde not in this passage alledged the termes of Aduocate of intercession of which we debate neither finde I thar Saints are shutt out from that office of Aduocate as saith the article And if the Minister say that the name of mediatour as S. Paul vnderstands it is the same with Aduocate I aunsweare first that the Minister or rather his Confession of faith must prooue that the name of mediatour is taken for mediatour and Aduocate by intercession and not for mediatour and Aduocate by redemption He I say must prooue this and that by the pure word alone otherwise the place alledged consenteth not with the Confession of faith neither doth it reiect the intercession of Saintes 2. I make aunsweare which by the place entirely cited doth appeare that S. Paul spake of one Mediatour they are the Apostles owne words who hath giuen himselfe a redemption for all of such a Mediatour he saith that he is one alone neither doe the Catholickes teach that the Saintes are such mediatours This passage therfore prooues nothing against Catholicques neither doth it say that IESVS CHRIST is giuen vs for our sole Aduocate nor that to beleeue the intercession of Saints is an abuse and deceipt of the deuill ● This word sole hath beene added by the Ministers in the Geneua Bible for it is neither in the Greeke nor Latin texte and S. Paule to the Galat. 3. calleth Moyses Mediatour The seconde passage alledged for this clause in their Confession is in the 1. epistle of S. Iohn 2. Vers 1.2 2. Texte These things I vvrite vnto you that you sinne not But if any one sinne vve haue an Aduocate vvith the Father IESVS Christ the iust for he is the propitiation for our sinnes and not for ours only but also for those of the vvhole vvorlde Examen Is it not manifest that he speaketh not of euery Aduocate but of an Aduocate which is a propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world to witt by the effusion of his bloud The Catholicques hold not any other such Aduocate but our Sauiour To what purpose then is it to bring this passage which toucheth not that which is in controuersie And marke well that it is the Ministers parte who is Plaintife to shew that the name of Aduocate is heere taken for anie intercessour euen him who is not a propitiation for the sinnes of the world by his passion and all this by the pure worde 2. Besides if the Minister will pertinaciously vnderstand by the name of Aduocate him who is not a propitiation for the sinnes of the world which is of his owne head without the pure word yea against the pure word alledged This word only of which wee only striue not being in this text this place vere●eth not this