Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	church_n	scripture_n	write_a	3,679	5	10.6506	5	false

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

that Christ in the foresaid words speaketh or meaneth of his owne body but only of a (*) So is this Text expoūded by Cyprian Serm. de Coena Domini Origen l. 3. Ep. ad Rom. Chrysostome vpon this place carnall vnderstanding of spirituall things If the Minister will not yeeld to you herein then will him according to his vndertaken taske to proue out of some place of Scripture that the former words are spoken of Christs body if he say he can cause him presently to repeate it if hee confesse hee cannot as it is impossible for him to doe then let him openly acknowledge that it cannot be proued from Scripture that the former words to wit The flesh profiteth nothing doe concerne the flesh of Christ much lesse the absence of it in the Eucharist 3. Thirdly the Catholike is to demand touching the interpretation of this Text of Scripture or of any other who is to iudge whether the interpretation giuen by the Minister be good or no. If he reply that the Scripture is to iudge of it then vrge him as I admonished afore to shew any passage of Scripture teaching that his interpretation of the former Text is good and true if the Scripture affirmeth not so much then is it the bare assertion of the Minister himselfe which warranteth his former interpretations of the Texts alleaged by him for true and then the Minister forsaketh herein his mayne Principle of prouing from the Scripture alone erecting himselfe the last and supreme Iudge in all Controuersies of Faith and Religion and then consequently he performeth no more herein then all Heretikes heretofore haue beene accustomed to doe to wit strangely to alleage and detort (e) So witnesse Tertul. l. de Praescrip aduers haeres Ierom. Ep. ad Paulinum August cont Maximinū Arianum l. 1 Vincent Lyr. aduer haeres the Scripture for patronizing of their Heresies and finally to make themselues sole Iudges of interpreting the Scripture 4. Fourthly for the greater confronting of our poore Minister thus intangled you are to demand of him whether his grauitie forsooth stands subiect to errour or mistaking in his exposition of the former Texts of Scripture against the Reall Presence if he confesse that he may erre therein then followeth it that his beliefe as being founded vpon a doubtfull construction and such as may be erroneous is no longer any true beliefe since Faith in it owne nature according both to Catholike and Protestant is most certayne and infallible If the Minister say that he relyeth in the interpretation of the Texts mentioned or the like vpon other learned Ministers of his owne brotherhood then leaueth hee againe the Scripture and finally relyeth for proofe of his faith vpon the bare authorities of certayne particular men But if his vanitie rise to that height as to maintayne himselfe not to be subiect to any erroneous mistakings in interpreting the Texts of Scripture then first cause him according to his owne prescribed method of prouing to alleage some place of Scripture warranting this his supposed infallibilitie of expounding and if hee vrge any Text detorted to that end and purpose tell him that if it make for his not erring in expounding the Scripture then much more maketh it for the not erring of the whole Church of Christ therein which point notwithstanding I meane the (f) see Whitakers hereof hee Eccles cont Bellar. controu 2. q. 4. p. 223. Iewell in his Apologie of the Church of Eng and part 4. c. 4. Luther epist ad Argentinenses Perkins in his exposition vpon the Creede pag. 400. For these Protestants teach that the Church of Christ wholly erred from Austins time till Luthers dayes not erring of the whole Church in it interpreting of the Scripture himselfe denyeth But if the whole Church of Christ may and hath erred in Religion and consequently in interpreting Gods written Word as the Protestant confidently auerreth that it hath then aske the Minister with what face can he being but a member of his Church and perhaps but a bad and vnlearned member thereof assume to himselfe a freedome of not erring when hee interpreteth the Scripture 5. Fiftly and lastly it behoueth you to heare at large the Ministers interpretation of Scripture and his proofes and reasons warranting his said interpretation and then you are to desire him to make good those proofes and reasons out of the Scripture alone which he not doing then are you to denie his said Explications Proofes and Reasons not obliging your selfe as being the Defendant to shew the reason of your denyall And it is more aduantageous for you simply to denie his expositions and proofes of the same then to set downe the reasons of such your denyall For by alleaging your reasons whereunto the Defendant is neuer obliged besides the danger perhaps of your owne insufficiency discouered in labouring to make them good you giue fit occasion and oportunitie to the Minister to beginne new discourses against your Reasons and so by degrees and afore you bee aware hee leaueth his Scene and windeth himselfe out of his vndertaken taske to wit of prouing his interpretation of the Texts of Scripture by Scripture to which method if you punctually and precisely tye him without suffering him to vse any digressions or euasions by questioning of you or otherwise as by his owne Principle Doctrine and often vanting he obligeth himselfe then shall you find him presently stabled and plunged in the middest of his disputes it being impossible for him to iustifie and make good his first vndertaking or his expositions of Scripture by Scripture alone And thus farre concerning the first kind of the Ministers alleaging Texts of Scripture in proofe or disproofe of any point controuerted Which course here set downe the Catholike is to obserue in all other Texts of Scripture which any Protestant shall vrge out of their immediate and literall Construction to proue or disproue any point controuerted betweene him and vs. In this second place it commeth in to prescribe certaine directions how an vnlearned Catholike is to answere to the Protestant Minister when hee laboureth to proue or disproue any article of Faith from the Scripture but this not immediately from the expresse and euident sense thereof whereof I haue afore entreated but only by certayne inferences and sequels necessarily as hee saith deduced out of the said Scripture This forme shall be exemplified in the former example of the Reall Presence the falsehood of which doctrine our Protestant Minister will perhaps labour to proue by an inference or deduction drawne from the pure written Word of God in the Acts chap. 3. where we reade that Heauen must receaue Christ vntill the time of the restitution of all things meaning that Christ is to stay in Heauen till the end and consummation of the World Now out of this place the Protestant Minister thus argueth as aboue I haue touched in one of my former obseruations That body which is in Heauen is not at

of Scripture prouing that there is a double manducation in the Eucharist the one of the signes of Christs body by the corporall mouth the other of Christs reall body by the mouth of faith The same course the Protestant may be forced to take in all such articles in the which besides his denying of our doctrine himselfe affirmeth something 3. The third obseruation That as it is aboue noted the Protestant thus obliging himselfe to proue not only his owne affirmatiue Positions out of the Scripture but also to disproue from Scripture what the Catholikes affirme concerning any articles he is by this meanes compelled to proue Negatiue Propositions as being meere contrarie to the Catholikes affirmations from the Scripture Thus for example where we hold that there is a Purgatorie that we may pray to Saints c. the Protestant is to euict and proue out of the written Word that there is no Purgatorie that we ought not to pray to Saints Where wee are to premonish first that it is not sufficient for the Protestant to say that the former Negatiue Positions of Purgatorie and the like are proued sufficiently by the written Word of God in that the written Word of God which is by his iudgment the rule of Faith maketh no mention that there is a Purgatorie or that we are to pray to Saints This answere auayleth not only because to omit that the Catholikes do not acknowledge the Scripture for the rule of faith it is directly false since from the (f) Praying to Saints proued out of Luke 16. Acts 5. 2. Cor. 1. c. As Purgatorie from Matth. 5. Matth. 12. Mark 3. Luk. 16. c. besides out of the Machabees Scripture we can proue the foresaid articles but also in that the Protestant Minister euer with great venditation of words liberally engageth himselfe positiuely and expressely to refute the Catholikes pretended errours from the written Word it selfe which he doeth not by vsing his former euasion Neither secondly can he say that Negatiue Propositions such as there is no Purgatorie no Reall Presence and the like are not to be proued alleaging herein the authoritie of (g) Metaph. Aristotle who teacheth that that which is not cannot he knowne and consequently cannot be proued This I say forceth nothing for the Protestant hereby discouereth his ignorance in Philosophie seeing Aristotle in the former words vnderstands by that which is not that which is false as the contexture of the precedent and subsequent passages in him do cleerly manifest so much meaning that that which is false is not and consequently cannot be demonstrated as true for otherwise who knoweth not that Aristotle proueth infinite negatiue Propositions as that there is no Vacuum in rerum natura that there are not many Worlds and diuers such like a veritie so generally acknowledged by all Philosophers as that two of the Moodes of arguing in the first figure to wit Celarent and Ferio are inuented only for proofe of Negatiue Propositions Adde hereto for the greater conuincing of this sleight that the Scripture it selfe proueth sundrie Negatiue Positions as for example (h) Rom. 9. Saint Paul proueth most amply that God is not vniust in the predestination and reprobation of Men in like sort the Scripture demonstrateth that there is no variation or change (i) Numb 23 and Malach. c. 3. in God that God cannot sinne that he willeth not (k) Eccles 15 Iob 31. Psalm 5. Man to sinne and the like Thus it appeareth that the Protestant assuming to refute our supposed Errours from the Scripture is there by engaged to proue many Negatiue Propositions from the Scripture and this not from the silence of the Scripture not speaking of such points but from it as it particularly condemneth them And here adde further that though it were true that the Scripture by not speaking of Purgatorie disproueth the being of it yet doth not the Scripture therefore proue as an article of Faith that there is no Purgatorie which is a point here to be insisted vpon euen as the Scripture speaketh nothing in a Propheticall Spirit that Mahomet was a false prophet and yet though the Scripture by not speaking of him should condemne him for such it followeth not neuerthelesse to beleeue from the Scripture as an article of Faith that Mahomet was a false prophet since it is one thing to say that the Scripture by silence and not speaking of it proueth a thing not to be another to affirme that the Scripture proueth the not beliefe of the said point to be an article of Faith 4. The fourth and last obseruation That if the Protestant in his disputes draweth any argument either from Philosophie from the authoritie of Fathers Councels or any other humane testimonie the Catholike may well answer that though at other times he is well content all these seuerall kinds of arguments to haue their due respect and place yet at this present by reason that it is an Axiome obtruded vpon him that the Scripture alone is to determine all points of Faith hee is to reiect all such reasons and morall persuasions Neither can the Protestant iustly insist in vrging of them without renouncing his foresaid Principle We are here further to instruct the Reader that a syllogisme or argument in proofe or disproofe of an article of Faith whereof the one Proposition is taken from the Scripture the other from Philosophie or some other humane authoritie I say that such a syllogisme or argument doth not prooue any thing only from the written Word of God and therefore seeing the Protestants in their disputes are accustomed to frame such syllogismes when their arguments are reduced into Logicall formes the Catholike may and ought to reiect al such arguments as long as the Protestant vndertaketh to proue his faith only by the Scripture as being by his assertion the sole rule of Faith from which rule are excluded all Philosophicall and humane authorities whatsoeuer Here I say the Catholike I euer meane a Catholike not learned in humane literature and therefore not able to discusse the weight and force of Philosophicall points or other humane reasons may well answere that admitting such an argument for good and perfect in forme yet the authoritie wherevpon it lyeth is at this present to be reiected since it is taken partly from Scripture and partly from humane learning and so the Scripture not wholly but in part proueth the question controuerted contrarie to the Axiome of the Protestants who teach that the Scripture is not a partiall but a totall rule of Faith and who glorieth that he is able to iustifie his owne Protestant faith only from the Scripture without the helps of any humane authorities at all We will illustrate what we here meane in this syllogisme following whereby the Protestant laboureth to proue that Christs body cannot really be in the Eucharist That body which is in Heauen is not at the same time vpon the earth But the body of Christ

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