Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	canonical_a	scripture_n	testament_n	4,068	5	8.3314	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47166	Quakerism no popery, or, A particular answere to that part of Iohn Menzeis, professor of divinity in Aberdeen, (as he is called) his book, intituled Roma mendax Wherein the people called Quakers are concerned, whom he doth accuse as holding many popish doctrins, and as if Quakerism, (so he nick-names our religion,) were but popery-disguised. In which treatise his alleadged grounds for this his assertion, are impartialy and fairly examined and confuted: and also his accusation of popery against us, justly retorted upon himself, and his bretheren. By George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1675 (1675)	Wing K194; ESTC R213551	62,351	126

received As also they have limited GOD from moving or inspiring any men in any age of the world to come to writ any book or books that may be of equal authority with the Scripturs For which bold and presumptuous alleadgeance neither Papists nor they have the least solid ground Finally there are some writtings that both Papists and they reject as not having Scripture authority which yet we find no just cause to reject such as the 151. Psalm that is in the Septuagint and Paul his Epistle to the Laodiceans which are both extant to this day wherein nothing is to be seen unsuitable either to other Scripturs or unto that spirit that gave them forth And if you say they want the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Scripturs have I suppose it will be as hard for I. M and his Brethren to evince by any evidence that such books have or have not the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is for any Quaker to evince by any evidence that he hath the Spirit of GOD this I say not as denying but that the Scripturs have a Secondary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 known unto them who know the primary of the Spirit in their hearts but seeing our Opposers require of us to show or evidence unto them some infallible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we have the Spirit of GOD I would have I. M. to know that the same difficulty recurreth as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Scripturs it being a thing which cannot be shown or made to appear by any evidence unto the carnal mind which yet is evident unto the spirituall And indeed as the Scripturs have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which convinceth that they are of GOD ●o all the Children of GOD have their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also who are as a living book or Epistle of Christ which convinceth that both they are of GOD and have the Spirit of GOD and this is a sufficient demonstration unto them that are spiritually minded And here onely I shall mind I. M. how the Protestants themselves are not agreed upon the number of the Canonicall books The Lutherians at this day rejecting some which the Calvinists receive such as the Epistle of Iames the second and third Epistles of Iohn and the book of the Revelation by some yea Luther cal Iames Epistle a STRAWY EPISTLE And if he had charged it as a Popish principle on the Calvinists that with Papists they hold Iames Epistle to be Canonicall I suppose I. M. would no● for this have rejected it although Papists at this day doe own it to be Canonicall with him However this Advertisment I give to the Reader that seeing the books commonly called Apocryphall are controverted by some to have that sufficient authority Yet in all matters of debate betwixt our Opsers and us we shall not urge their authority upon any who doe not receive them but are willing to wave them and keep to those books of Scripture acknowledged by them wherein we have sufficient testimonies to all the Principles of Truth mantained by us and furniture enough by the help of our GOD to resist and oppose the contrary It is worth the observing that not only both Papists among themselves and Protestants among themselves have been divided about the number of the Canonicall books as what books be Canonicall and what not but even the Fathers so called and the Councills who did Canonise them have differed greatly also Eusebius in his Ecclesiastick History lib. 3. cap. 22. writteth exceeding uncertainely concerning divers of the books of the New Testament such as the Epistle of Iames The Second Epistle of Peter the second and third Epistles of Iohn The Revelation of Iohn as being received by some at Authentick and gain●a●d by others The Councill of Laodicea which was the first councill I read of that did determine the Canon of the books of Scripture as it omitteth or passeth by as not Authentick all these books commonly called Apocryph● so it also omitteth the Revelation of Iohn But the third Councill of Carthage which ●a● not long after where Augustin was present doth put into the canon both the booke of the Revelation and most of these books commonly called Apocrypha yea Augustin himself lib. 2. de Doctrin● Christiana cap. 8. Among the other books of the Old Testament numbereth Tobias Hester Iudi●h and two books of the Maccabees and two of Esdras and the book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus concluding thus In these fourty and four books the authority of the Old Testament is determined Now if to hold some of these books equall to Scipture be a Popish doctrin then Augustin himself did hold Popish doctrin in this very thing And yet I suppose I. M. doth not think that Augustin was a downright Papist for all this But if this prove not Augustin to be a Papist how will it prove us the people called Quakers to be Papists he must either assoilzie us or condemne Augustin in the case SECT VII Where the alleadged agreement as if the efficacy of Grace depended upon Mans FREE-WILL is considered and answered THe Sixt Instance of Popish doctrin charged by I. M. on the people called Quakers is that the efficacy of Grace depends on Mans free will I suppose this is but a consequence of I. M. his making upon the doctrin or principle of Universall Grace mantained by the Quakers As for my self I never heard it nor read it mantained by any of these people that the efficacy of grace depends on mans free will And I doe altogether deny that it is a consequence lawfully deduceable by any principles of sound reason from the doctrin of Universall grace as mantained by us For we deny that there is any free-will in man to any thing that is truly good and acceptable in the sight of GOD but what is of the grace of GOD. The will of man is servum arbitrium as Luther called it and not liberum arbitrium in respect of any obedience acceptable unto GOD that is to say servil and bound over unto Satan and captivated by him but as the grace of GOD doth make it free and that all men at times have some measure of a freedom of will by the grace of GOD we doe with holy boldness affirm conform both to the Scripturs testimony and the consent of the greatest part of Antiquity if not of all generally as both Vosius a learned Antiquary in his Pelagian History and Grotius in his disquisition of the Pelagian Dogma's doe show at great length By the visitations of which Grace of GOD upon the souls of all men at certain times and seasons the prison door is opened unto all who are in captivity as all men are in the unconverted state and the arm of GOD'S Salvation is stretched forth unto them yea it toucheth them and by its touches infuseth into them some measure of ability whereby the soul is put into a capacity to convert and turn

and a●l true Protestants we doe join against the Popish merit either of congruity without the Grace of GOD or of condignity with and by the Grace of GOD as condignity doth signifie an equality betwixt merit and reward as some Papists hold though contradicted by others but when Papists contradict one another one side must hold the truth at least in words but that is not to speak properly a Popish doctrin SECT VI. Concerning the Apocryphall-Books THe Fifth Instance adduced by I. M. is that Apocryphall Books are of equall authority with other Scripturs He meaneth those judged by him and his Brethren to be Apocryphall For the question is what Books are Apocryphall and what not also what Apocryphall is in his sense If by Apocryphall he meane writt and not from any measure of the inspiration of the Spirit of GOD. Surely we cannot conclude that all these books called by him so are Apocryphall seing as to some of them we find the testimony of the Spirit of Truth in our hearts to answer to many precious Heavenly and divin sayings contained in them which is as a seal in us that they have proceeded from a measure of the true Spirit yet as to all these books or sayings contained in them we doe not so affirme And I belive I. M. cannot prove out of any of our Friends books that all these books commonly called Apocryphall and the sayings contained in them are of equall authority with the Scripturs however if they hade done so it proveth not that they hold a Popish doctrin because Papists and they hold their judgment concerning them on different accounts which according to I. M. his own rule is sufficient to make that a Heresy in the one and not in the other The Papists on the account of the authority of the Church that is to say the authority of some Popes or Popish councills But the Quakers on the account of the inward testimony of the Spirit of GOD in their hearts whereby the spirituall ear tryeth words whether having proceeded from GOD or not as the Mouth tasteth meat as the Scripture saith So that this may be retorted as a Popish doctrin on I. M and his Brethren who agree with Papists in denying that the inward evidence and testimony of the Spirit of GOD in mens hearts is the principall rule and touchston whereby to judge of words and writtings whether they be of GOD or not Again seeing the Papists are divided among themselves and contradict one another touching the authority of those books some of them holding that they are of equall authority with the Scripturs others denying it and placing them in an inferior degree We have the same advantage to reflect Popish doctrin upon him as he hath upon us if we did hold that either some or all of them are of equal authority with the Scripturs which yet I know not if I. M. can prove out of any writtings of a Quaker so called If perhaps I. M. shall Object that our Freind SAMUEL FISHER that faithful servant of the Lord in His Book Intituled RUSTICUS AD ACADEMICOS Or THE RUSTICKS ALARM To THE RABBIES c. which was writ about sixteen yeares agoe but never as yet Replyed unto by any doth affirm that Some of those books commonly called Apocryphall are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or have proceeded from Men divinely inspired and are of a divi● Inspiration ●nd Authority To this I answere First SAMUEL FISHER ●oth not affirm that all these books esteemed by I. M. and his Brethren to be Apocryphall are divinely inspired but that some of them such as First the wisdom of Solomon Secondly the Wi●●om of Iesus the Son of Sira●h called Ecclesi●sticus Thirdly the Epistle of Ieremiah which 〈◊〉 ●ro●e to those who were to goe Cap●ive to B●bylon c. Fourthly the Fourth Book of Esdras or the Second as it stands usualy in the Old English Protestant Bibles which books and especially this last of Esdras which gives so clear a testimony unto Christ as in Chap. 13. are denyed by unbelieving Iewes to be of divin inspiration with whom I. M. and his Brethren are in this matter to be classed together who deny them also Secondly albeit SAMUEL FISHER affirmeth that these afore mentioned books were writt by men divinely inspired yet he doth no● affirm that they are of equall authority wi●h the Scripturs as I. M. falsly chargeth us for writtings may be from divin inspiration and yet some of them of greater authority then others as proceeding from a greater measure of the Spirit however if I. M. have any convincing reasons why these books aforesaid are not of a divin originall let him produce them Now that some principall and famous men among the Papists doe place th●se books commonly called Apocryphall in an inferiour degree to the Scripturs Gratius doth plainly show in his Annotations upon Cassander his consult that both Cajetan and Bellarmin who were Cardinalls did hold them to be placed in an inferiour degree And also that KING IAMES the sixth did approve the same But let me ask I. M. one question or two First doth he think it a matter of faith that these books are not equall to Scripture If he doth I ask Secondly By what rule of faith he doth know or can prove that they are not equall to Scripture The Scripture it self can be no rule in the case seeing no place in all the Scripture saith any thing of these books not indeed of the number of the books of the Scripture If he say there are ●ound in them contradictions to the Scripture I answere if it were so in some of them yet I suppose he will not say in all If he say they want that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or character which the Scripturs have I ask again By what rule doth he know this that they want that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing the Scripture do●h not say they want it and seeing possibly some may as strongly affirm that they have it Who shall be judge in the case Moreover we have this just retortion of Popery to reflect upon I. M. and his Bretheren that both Papists and they have set up such a determined number of books though differing among themselves as to the number of the Old Testament yet agreeing in one as to the number of the New which closeth up the Canon whereby they have both of them limited the GOD of Glory Himself both from bringing to light what other books have been writ that may be of equall authority with the Scriptures such as the Prophecy of Enoch mentioned Iude 14. the Epistle which Paul wrote to the Corinthians not to company with fornicators mentioned in the first of these Epistles which are extant 1. Cor. 5.9 and diverse other books which are mentioned in the Scripturs not ●ow to be found although it is possible they may be found yet if they were found by their principle they are to be rejected as not being in the Canon