Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	body_n	church_n	head_n	2,189	5	6.7060	4	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

would say c. or this is the meaning of such a Text c. but it sufficeth for vs to presse only the most obuious familiar and literall sense of the said Texts Now to that second part of the former Obiection where it is vrged that the Catholike insisting in Proofes drawne from Philosophie or from humane authorities of the Pope Fathers Councels and the like stands obnoxious to the same inconueniences whereunto the Protestant by vrgeing proofes of like nature is iudged in this discourse to runne I answere to this first that seeing the Catholike notwithstanding all due reuerence and honour to the Scripture acknowledgeth not the Scripture to be the sole rule or square of Faith that therefore hee may seeke to proue his articles from other testimonies then only Scripture Secondly I say that the Catholike beleeueth not any point as an article of faith because it receiueth it proofe from humane authorities since they are holden as morall inducements only of faith the Church of God being the Propounder of such diuine Mysteries and the reuelation of them made by God the true Formall and last Cause of our beliefe of them Lastly I answere that the supreme Bishop or generall Councell from whom the Catholike drawes his authoritie are not simply humane authorities but withall diuine and supernaturall Since the one is the head of the Church the other the mysticall body of Christ to both which himselfe hath (q) Mat. 16. 1. Tim. 3. giuen infallible assistance in points touching Mans saluation and hath (r) Mat. 18. threatned that they who finally shall denie this assistance shall neuer enter into the spirituall Canaan And thus much touching the solution of the former obiection Hitherto wee haue discoursed of the Method which is to be obserued by an vnexperienced Catholike with a ready and prepared Protestant Scripturist where if we deeply weigh what can be the last hope of such a Disputation we shall find that the finall resolution of all would runne to this point to wit to know what credit and affiance is to be giuen to certayne exorbitant constructions of Scripture forged against all true contexture of the passages themselues and crossed by the reuerent Antiquitie of the purest Ages by which course the Protestant stands no lesse chargeable in beleeuing of errours then in not beleeuing the truth So as this must be in all likelihood the issue of all for so long as the Protestant Minister perseuers in alleaging of Scripture so long he expects that we should reuerently entertayne that sense and construction of it which his worthy-selfe vouchsafeth with wonderfull pertinacie of iudgement the very Crisis of all Hereticall disease to impose vpon it thus making himselfe in the end sole Iudge both of the Scripture and of all Controuersies from thence to be proued For to admit our expositions of the Scripture he scornes solemnely affirming that it were openly to patronize superstition to follow the iudgements of the ancient Fathers in their interpreting of it he is no more willing since he is content to charge and insimulate though truly the said Fathers within the defending of our supposed errours And hence it is that diuers of our Aduersaries haue disgorged out of their impure stomachs most Serpentine and venimous speeches against those Lamps of Gods Church And answerably hereto we finde Luther the right hand of Satan thus to belch forth in his Inuectiues against the Fathers of the Primitiue Church saying (Å¿) Tom. 2. Wittenberg An. 1551. l. de serm arbitr p. 434. The Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their life time and vnlesse they were amended before their deaths they were neither Saints nor pertayning to the Church Thus Luther Doctor Whitaker saith (t) Cont. Duraeum l. 6. p. 423. The Popish Religion is a patched Couerlit of the Fathers errours sewed together The pretended Archbishop of Canterbury (u) In his defence to the answere of the Admonit p. 473. How greatly were almost all the Bishops of the Greeke Church and Latine also for the most part spotted with doctrines of Free-will of Merit of Inuocation of Saints and such like Beza (x) Epist Theol. epist 1. p. 5. Itaque dicere nec immerito c. I haue been accustomed to say and I thinke not without iust cause that comparing our times with the ages next to the Apostles we may affirme that they had more conscience and lesse knowledge and we more knowledge and lesse conscience So Beza Melancton (y) In 1. Cor. c. 3. Presently from the beginning of the Church the ancient Fathers obscured the doctrine concerning the iustice of Faith increased Ceremonies and deuised peculiar Worships Finally (z) L. de notis p. 476. Peter Martyr speaking of our Catholike doctrines thus saith So long as wee doe insist vpon Councels and Fathers wee shall be alwayes conuersant in the same Errours But who is more desirous to see at large how the Fathers of the Primitiue Church are first confessed by Protestants to teach euery particular article of our Catholike and Roman Faith Secondly reiected by the Protestants for teaching such doctrines Thirdly abusiuely alleaged by the Protestants for the more debasing of the said Fathers let him peruse (a) viz. tract 1. and 2. throughout that most exquisite and excellent Worke the very scourge of our moderne Heretikes stiled The Protestants Apologie of the Roman Church from which I acknowledge that I haue discerped these last few testimonies In this manner now you see wee find not only Vertue Learning and Antiquitie to be most shamefully traduced by Vice Ignorance and Innouation but also our selues consequently by reason of our refuge made to the Fathers Commentaries for the exposition of the Scripture to bee mightily wronged by our Aduersaries as if vnder the pretext of Antiquitie wee laboured to introduce Noueltie Now from all this it necessarily followeth that in the rigid censure of these seuen Iudges the ancient Fathers those Champions I meane of the true Israelites against the wicked Philistians whose pennes were peculiarly guided by God to the pursuite and profligations of future Heresies did most foulely contaminate and defile the beautie of the holy Scripture with their erroneous Commentaries since they beleeued nothing but what as they thought was warrantable at least not repugnant to those diuine writings thus distilling by their misconstruction of it to vse our Aduersaries owne phraze our Superstitious and Babylonian Religion But since it importeth much to the picking out of the true sense of Scripture alleaged by the Protestant against vs and consequently to the drift of this small Treatise to shew whether it is more probable that the Fathers whose ioynt interpretation of Scripture is euer coincident and conspires with ours should rather not erre in their exposition of it then our nouelizing Sectaries therefore I will more largely set downe which shall serue as the Catastrophe to close vp

is now in Heauen according to that Text in the Acts chap. 3. Heauen must receaue Christ vntill the time of the restitution of all things Therefore the body of Christ is not now vpon the Earth or Altar Here now the vnlearned Catholike is to reiect according to the Protestants owne Principle the authoritie of this argument though otherwise Logicall in forme for though the Minor or second Proposition be taken out of Scripture and is most true yet the Maior or first Proposition whereupon the weight of the argument chiefly relyeth is borrowed from a Proposition in Philosophie to wit that one Body cannot be in seuerall places at one time and thus what is here proued is proued principally from Philosophie and consequently the argument is not to be prized by the Catholike who at this present expecteth proofs only from the Scripture and from nothing else Thus farre concerning these few precedent obseruations of which the Catholike is to make vse and put in practice as often as occasion shall be presented when hee contesteth in disputation with any Protestant It now followeth in this next place to exemplifie in one or other Article or Question how a Catholike who is but of small reading is more particularly to comport and carry himselfe in his conflict with a Protestant Minister or some other such like man who hath promised afore-hand with great iollitie of words to confirme his owne faith and refute our pretended errours only from the Scripture it selfe And because the Scripture is alleaged by the Protestant after two sorts The first manner in obiecting the pure and expresse Word it selfe without helpe of any illations or consequences so as the immediate and literall sense thereof is auerred by him to fall plumbe vpon the prouing of his faith or disprouing our errours The second in vrging a Text of Scripture for proofe or disproofe of a point but this not in it immediate sense and construction but only by way of necessary inferences and consequences as himselfe affirmeth Both these two sorts of the Protestants disputing we will consider a part and shew how a Catholike not greatly seene in Diuinitie is able to defend his faith against any learned Protestant insisting only in the holy Scripture as the sole rule of faith And first I will beginne with the first manner of pressing the Scripture against vs to wit in seeming to vrge it in it immediate sense and Construction where I am in the beginning to forewarne the Catholike that hee doth seuer and distinguish these words frequently vsed by the Protestant in alleaging of Texts to wit This is the sense of such a Text of Scripture or the Scripture in this place meaneth thus c. from that which that Text importeth in it plaine and familiar acception of Words since that other construction vnderstood by the former words of the Protestant is but calumniously obtruded vpon the Text. And for the better encouraging of the vnlearned Catholike herein I can and doe assure him that there is not any one Text through out the Bible which the Protestant vseth to alleage against any Article of our faith the which Text euen according to their owne English Translations may seeme in direct and expresse words immediatly to impugne the point against which it is produced yea oftentimes it doth not so much as concerne it but that when it is obiected against the said Catholike point it is forcibly wrested by the Protestant thereto with this or the like vshering phrase This is the sense of this Text c. or else it is applyed against our doctrine only by helpe of weake inferences or sequels of which kind of consequences we shall hereafter speake 1. But to proceed forward I will exemplifie my following Method in the Questions of the Reall Presence and of Antichrist which may serue as Precedents to bee followed in all other Questions And here if you for I now suppose that I speake to an vnlearned Catholike bee to dispute with a Protestant Minister you are first to demand of him if hee can alleage any euident and expresse place of Scripture not seconded only with his owne interpretation of it or helpe of sequels for the destroying of the Reall Presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist if he can then vrge him presently to shew it if hee cannot as certainly he cannot then afore you proceed further force him to confesse in plaine termes that hee hath no expresse Scripture without further interpretation which doth condemne the supposed errour of the Reall Presence 2. Next if the Protestant Minister should seeke to expound by way of conference of places those wordes of our Sauiour This is my (a) Mat. 26 body This is my bloud figuratiuely by those other words of his I am (b) Ioh. 15. the Vine and I am (c) Ioh. 10. the doore c. both which Texts all grant to be taken in a figuratiue construction then demand of your Minister if he can alleage any passage of Scripture which affirmeth that these wordes This is my body c. ought to be interpreted by those wordes I am the Vine or I am the Doore If there be any such passage let it be instantly read if the Scripture saith not so much but only the Protestant Minister auerreth it from his owne coniecture then force the Minister to confesse that it is not the Scripture but himselfe that teacheth that these two figuratiue Texts of the Vine and the Doore are to serue for a rule whereby we are to interpret those other words of Christ This is my body c. for these open Confessions as shewing that the Minister euen in the beginning abandoneth his Principle touching his relying vpon Scripture will much confound him in the presence of his auditorie Adde that such conference of Scripture is but vncertaine euen according to D. Whitaker who thus writeth hereof L. de Eccles contra Bell. controu 2. q. 4. p. 221. Qualia illa media or Looke what the meanes of interpreting are speaking of conference of places such the interpretation must be but the meanes of interpreting obscure places are vncertaine therefore the interpretation must be vncertaine and if vncertaine then may it be false thus He. In like manner if he vrge those words of our Sauiour (d) Ioh. 6. The Spirit quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing or any other Text of like nature you may tell him that you finde nothing in the expresse wordes and immediate construction of them touching the absence of our Sauiours body in the Eucharist since these wordes say nothing of our Sauiours body nor so much as naming it at al. If the Minister reply that Christ meaneth in these wordes that his body profiteth nothing and therefore hee would not really giue it to his Disciples to eate at the last supper you may answere that besides the atrocitie of this Position ascribing no profit to Christs body which suffered death for the redemption of Mankind you denie

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

Philosophie or other humane authoritie the Catholike may when it please him demand of the Minister whether all the Propositions which he alleaged in so many arguments be in the Scripture or no if they be not as certainly they are not but are grounded vpon Philosophie or other humane learning then followeth it ineuitably that the Minister besides his often leauing of Scripture before hath afresh abandoned the Scripture many times after the distinction was giuen And the reason hereof is manifest because hee draweth his Consequence from the written Word of God accompanyed with some nine or ten Propositions or more or lesse according to the number of the Propositions made Which Propositions are not found in the Scripture nor can be proued from it but are taken from Philosophie or other humane literature Of all which Propositions besides that nothing is proued by Scripture alone as it is proued by the helpe of them if but any one be false or through ignorance or otherwise misse-vnderstood then necessarily it followeth that the first proofe and consequence drawne from Scripture as implicitly and potentially relying vpon the said false or misse-vnderstood Proposition be also false and consequently the article as proued thereby can be no article of Faith And thus farre of this Example of the Reall Presence yet for greater illustration of the Method here prescribed and that euery ordinarie iudgement may become more capable thereof I will proceede further in exemplifying it in another point of Controuersie maintayned by the Protestants to wit that the Pope is Antichrist Now for proofe hereof the Protestant Minister doth commonly vrge that Text in the second of the Thessalonians chap. 2. viz. Vnlesse there come a reuolt first and the Man of Sinne be reuealed the sonne of Perdition which is an Aduersarie and is extolled aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped so that hee sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himselfe as though he were God c. Out of which words our Aduersaries doe teach that the true portrayture or delineation of the Pope may be taken since say they this former Text doth euen literally and expressely personate the Pope 1. Now here againe according to the former method the Catholike is first to demand of the Protestant Minister who alleageth this place whether this Text in cleere and expresse wordes or only but by his owne presumed construction either nameth the Pope or speaketh of him in direct termes That it nameth not him it is euident That it is to be vnderstood of the Pope we denie but our Minister affirmeth 2. Therefore secondly you are to require your Minister to shew by conference of Scripture or otherwise where the Scripture affirmes that the points contayned in this former Text to wit a Discession or reuolt the Man of Sinne the sonne of Perdition one that is extolled aboue all that is God and finally one that sitteth in the Temple of God as God are to bee vnderstood of the Bishop of Rome If the Minister say there are some such Texts auerring so much will him to shew them if he grant that there is not any as of necessitie hee must then is the former Text wrested to the Pope only through the Ministers wilfull misse-application and misse-interpretation 3. Thirdly demand of your Minister who shall iudge whether this foresaid Text bee to bee vnderstood of the Pope or no. If the written Word must iudge as according to his owne Principle it ought then cause him to produce some passage of Scripture warranting so much if no other Scripture doth warrant so much then resteth it that the Minister soly becomes Iudge thereof and so he abandoneth the Scripture for Iudge and erecteth himselfe as Iudge 4. Fourthly enquire of your Minister as afore in the example of the Reall Presence whether the Minister in his application or interpretation of this Text of Scripture bee subiect to errour or no If hee bee then followeth it that the beleeuing the Pope to be Antichrist as being proued from the interpretation of this Text of Scripture deliuered by the Minister is no article of faith since it is grounded vpon that authoritie which is subiect to errour If the Minister say that he cannot erre in this his construction then as is afore deliuered hee swarueth from that generall doctrine of the Protestants which teacheth that the whole Church of God and then consequently any one member may and hath foulely erred in construction of Scripture and in points of faith deduced from such constructions 5. In the fift and last place examine his interpretation of the former Text more particularly and shew if your sufficiency of learning will extend so farre for otherwise content your selfe with your former demands how seuerall points in this Text cannot in any sort be applyed to the Pope and how the ancient Fathers haue interpreted the same Text in a most different sense from the Ministers interpretation and in the same sense which wee Catholikes deliuer as for example that the Reuolt or Discession here specified is not meant of any reuolt from truth of Doctrine as the Protestants affirme but a reuolt or departure from the obedience of the Roman Empire as (a) Catech. 15. Cyril (b) In hunc locum Chrysostome (c) In Apolog c. 32. Tertullian and (d) In 2. Thessal 2. Ambrose doe expound these wordes Againe that the Pope is not extolled aboue all that is God is euident and consequently that the Pope is not Antichrist since hee acknowledgeth God and Christ our Sauiour yet according to the iudgements of (e) L. 20. de Ciuit. Dei c. 8. Augustine (f) In c. 11. Danielis Ierome (g) L. 6. de ●●●●tate Hilarius and others Antichrist shall in expresse and direct words deny Christ not acknowledging him in any sort as the Redeemer of the World That the Pope confesseth himselfe to be the seruant of God which by the former Text Antichrist shall not doe and that therefore he sitteth not in the Temple of God as God is also cleere And therefore answerably hereto wee reade that Damasus then Pope of Rome was called by (h) In 1. Timoth 3. Ambrose Rector domus Dei the gouernour of the House of God and that the Bishop of Rome was in like manner stiled by the Councell of (i) In Epist ad Leonem Chalcedon Custos Vineae the keeper of Gods Vineyard Lastly that by the Temple of God in the former Text is not to be vnderstood the Church of the Christian but the Temple of the Iewes as wee Catholikes maintaine and shew out of the ancient Fathers to wit out of (k) C. 23. in Matthiam Hilarius (l) Catech. 15 Cyril of Jerusalem (m) In c. 21. Lucae Ambrose (n) In hunc locum Chrysostome (o) L. 20. de ciuit Dei c. 19. Austine and (p) Q. 12. ad Algasiam Ierome All which Fathers doe ioyntly teach that the