Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	king_n	write_v	year_n	5,160	5	4.8919	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03885	A summary of controuersies Wherein are briefly treated the cheefe questions of diuinity, now a dayes in dispute betweene Catholikes & protestants: especially out of the holy Scripture. Written in Latin by the R. Father, Iames Gordon Huntley of Scotland, Doctour of Diuinity, of the Society of Iesus. And translated into English by I.L. of the same Society. The I. tome, deuided into two controuersies.; Controversiarum epitomes. English	Gordon, James, 1541-1620.; Wright, William, 1563-1639.	1618 (1618)	STC 13998; ESTC S104309	167,262	458

it weake Sophisticall and erroneous 11. Besides that there are so many and so contrary illations of diuers men that the authority of the Church is altogeather necessary in maters of faith that there may arise a certayne and an vndoubted faith of these matters of which sort Traditions are that is to say the doctrine of the whole Church 12. But when one belieueth such an illation with a diuine or Catholike faith he must needes know two thinges the one is that the expresse place of Scripture from whence this conclusion is deduced must certainly be well vnderstood by him which disputeth the other is that he who maketh such a deduction and collection can neyther deceiue others nor be deceyued himselfe But none can know eyther of these without the Traditions of the Church seeing that otherwise there is none which may not be deceiued sometimes All collections therefore which produce or breed fayth in vs do most clearly conuince and shew the authority and necessity of Traditions CHAP. VII Wherein it is proued that there are Traditions by the absurdities which otherwise would follow THE fifth argument wherby we proue that many things are to be belieued which are not expressed in holy Scriptures is taken out of the absurdities which do ensue of the contrary doctrine For hauing once admitted that nothing is to be belieued which is not expressed in Scripture all old heresies are renewed and a great vncertainty and confusion of all things is brought into the Church of God yea euen the way to Atheisme is layd open because hauing once reiected despised the Traditions of the Church all the poynts of fayth from the Apostles tyme till now explicated and proued by the auncient Fathers against heretiks all those things also which were decreed and determined by all the generall Counc●lls in times past against the said heretiks loose their chief●st strength and authority the which notwithstanding our Aduersaries do acknowledge themselues to receiue and belieue 2. Neyther do we know by an assured Catholike faith whether there were euer any Fathers or Councells but by the Traditions of the Church But neyther do we know any other way but by fayth whether since the Apostles tyme till now there were any Catholikes or no● because of those things which were done since the tyme and death of the Apostles there is nothing extant in holy Scripture seeing that all the bookes thereof were written before the death of the Apostles But such things as haue b●n done since till now cannot otherwyse be knowne but by the Tradition of the Church 3. Neyther is it sufficient to say that we know these things by the Ecclesiasticall histories For that fayth which proceedeth of histories without the authority or Traditions of the Catholike Church is but an humane fayth which oftentimes deceaueth others and may be deceiued it selfe and therefore these kind of histories cannot produce a diuine fayth in vs this experience it selfe doth clearly teach vs. For our Aduersaries do somtymes doubt whether S. Peter was euer at Rome or no because forsooth this is not to be found expresly in holy Scripture wheras notwithstanding it is most assuredly proued and testified in many bookes both of the auncient Historiographers and holy Fathers Why may they not as lawfully call other matters in question which are notwithstanding expressely set downe in other auncient writers Our Aduersaries therfore do make all things very doubtfull and vncertayne whiles they will only belieue and admit the Scripture but now l●t vs answere their arguments CHAP. VIII Wherein the arguments of our Aduersaries taken out of the old Testament are confuted THE first argument wherby our Aduersaries oppugne Traditions and which they vse very often the which also as inuincible they haue added to the confession of their Rupell Confess Art 5. Deut. 4. v. 2. Deut 12. v. vlt. fayth they take out of these words of Deuteronomy Thou shalt not add any thing to the word which I speake vnto you nor shall you take any thing from it And againe that which I commaund thee do that only neyther add or diminish any thing from it By these places of Scriptures our Aduersaries do inferre that nothing is to be receiued as a point of fayth which is not expressely set downe in Scripture 2. But this argument is erroneous and the weaknes thereof is very great for many causes First because in those words there is no mention made of the Scripture nor of the written word of God but only of the word preached and deliuered viua voce Thou shalt not add sayth the Scripture to the word that I speake vnto you he doth not say that I write vnto you Againe Do only sayth he that which I commaund thee he doth not say that which I write vnto thee 3. Moreouer in these words the holy Scripture doth not only speake of matters of fayth to be belieued but also of ceremonies and customes to be done and obserued but our Aduersaries themselues confesse that these customes may be added by the authority of the Church yea they haue ordeined themselues very many the which they chang euen yet when they please Caluin also acknowledgeth that Calu. cōtra 4 sess Concil Trident. many vnwritten customes were deliuered vnto vs by the Apostles 4. That also according to the phrase of Scripture is said to be added to the word of God which is contrary opposite vnit For Iosue did not transgresse this commaundement of Deuteronomy when he added his booke to the bookes of Moyses Nor did others transgresse it who added the bookes of the Iudges Ruth and of the Kinges which were not written by Moyses which are also to be belieued as contayning pointes of faith But in these bookes there is nothing contrary to that which Moyses wrote And the Hebrew text agreeth very well to this answere for in both places of Deuter●nomy this word Ghal is vsed which sig●●tieth o●tentines contrary or against so that the sense is Do not add any thing contrary to the word which I commaund and againe yee shall not add any thing contrary to the word which I say vnto you For so is that particie G●●l taken in the 40. Psalme or according to the Hebrewes 41. in the 2. Psalme also the second verse And in the 14. of Numbers the 2. verse els where very often Euen as also in the new Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answereth to the Hebrew Ghal signifieth also contrary or ag●i●st when the Apostle writeth to the 1. ad Cor. 4. v. 6. Corinthians that in vs you may learne one not to be puffed vp against another aboue that is writtē that is to say against the Scripture the which saith we must not be puffed vp in pryde ●s S. Chrysostome and after him Theophilactus others do note vpon that place The which place some bouldly alledge against Traditions wheras the Apostle in that place doth not speake of the whole Calu in

that name to the Morauians at their first Conuersion to the faith of Christ but this was 880. yeares after Christ and this custome was of no long continuance amongst them as appeareth Baron Tom. 10. an 880. n. 19. Tom. 11. an 1080. n. 1. by that which Pope Gregory the s●auenth writeth to the Duke of Bohemia is to be seene in Caesar Baronius 6. The third assertion To translate the Scripture into the vulgar tongue is neyther in it selfe vnlawfull nor forbidden by any Ecclesiasticall law so it be truly translated Nay such a translation serueth Preachers to great vse who are to cite and expound the Scriptures to the people in the vulgar tongue Hereticall translations are indeed forbidden especially of the new Testament because in them many places of holy Scripture are by false translating corrupted 7. The fourth assertion It is not a thing profitable to all to read the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue yea to many it is rather pernicious for we are taught by ● Pet. vlt. v. 26. the Apostle S. Peter that in the Scriptures are many thinges hard to be vnderstood which vnlearned and vnstayed persōs depraue to their owne destruction Many also there are vncapable of meate and solid sustenance who are therefore to be ● Cor. 3. v. 2. Heb. ● v. 12. fed with milke as the Apostle speaketh and for such it is more wholesome to be fed by the sermons and instructions of their Pastors then to feede themselues with reading the Bible It was therefore great prudence of the Church to forbid that the Bible though translated and set forth by Catholikes should be read of Index li. ●roh●● Reg. 4. all indifferently and without the approbation and leaue of the Bishop Pastor or Ghostly Father 8. Our Aduersaries obiect certayne places of S. Chrysostome and S. Hierome in which they exhort to the reading of the Scripture but they should haue obserued that those Fathers speake of reading the Scripture in the Greek tongue then extant or in the Latin according to the old edition which was neuer forbidden to any by the Church whereas our Controuersy is about the translations of the holy Scripture out of the Hebrew Greek and Latin into the vulgar tongue which are all for the most part corrupted 9. And it is worthy the noting that our Aduersaries spend their tyme in vayne in gathering togeather arguments by which to perswade men that it is necessary for them to read the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue to the end they may learne out of them what they must necessarily know if they wil be saued for how truly or plainly soeuer they be translated no man shall euer receyue any fruite by them vnlesse he first belieue aright and be guided by the holy Ghost to whome it appertayneth to guide vs into the right Psal 142. v. 8. 1● land to make knowne vnto vs the way in which we are to walke to teach vs the will of God which we are to fulfill VVhich is manifestly to be seene in the Iewes who vnderstād the Hebrew text much better then Christians in which there is so ample and cleare mention of Christ and yet for all that they do not belieue in Christ Our Aduersaries therefore haue little reason to keep such ado about the wordes of Scripture or the translation of them let them first imbrace the true Faith which is in the Church only let them seeke after the holy Ghost who is not to be found out of the Church let them seeke out the true sense of the Letter which the Church only conserueth vncorrupteed and it will easily be graunted vnto them to haue the Scriptures in what tongue soeuer they will so they be truly and vncorruptedly translated and that they vse them to their owne saluation and not to their destruction as many do wherof we haue for witnesse not only the Scripture but dayly experience And this shall suffice concerning the translatiō of the Scripture into the vulgar tōgue 10. For of the prayers in Latin eyther priuately made by the people or publikely offered by the Priest at masse and in the administratiō of the Sacramōts we wil treat hereafter in their proper places CHAP. XIII That our Aduersaries vse many sleightes in corrupting the Word of God OVR Aduersaries often require vs to proue all that which we say out of the written Word of God but when we cite the same in expresse tearmes they haue many wayes by which they depraue it Wherfore before I make an end of this Controuersy concerning the written Word it shall not be from the purpose briefly to detect such their corruptions partly to the end that no man be deceaued by them and partly that euery man may vnderstand nothing to be so plainely and clearely set downe in the written VVord which by the Commentaries of crafty and subtile wittes may not be weakned and made of little force if no regard be had to the authority and iudgment of the Church And that no man may thinke that I herin calumniate them or deale lesse sincerely with them I will set downe out of their owne writings some one or two exāpls of each manner of corrupting wherof many will occure in ech Controuersy 2. The first manner of shifting of places alleadged out of the written Word is to say that the originall text is corrupted and what is alleadged is crept out of the margent into the text whereof see many examples in the 12. and 18. Chapter of the Latin Edition of this Cōttouersy 3. Their second shift is to reiect the vulgar translation and insteed thereof to cite some new and corrupt translation of their owne It is euident inough that Luther in his first version of the new Testament into the German tongue set forth in the yeare 1522. hath more then a thousād e●rors as many haue obserued amōgst Ioannes Cocl eus de actis Luther an 1522. which neyther the last nor the least is his presuming to add to the text of S. Paul the 3. Chapter and 28. verse the particle alone thereby the stronglier to establish his doctrine that Fayth alone iustifieth for this place of the Apostle VVe thinke a man i● Rom. 3. v. 28. iustifyed by fayth he trāslateth by sayth alone when a certaine friend of his to whome the same was obiected by a Catholike asked the cause why he so translated it he no lesse ridiculously then proudly answereth in a certayne little booke set forth by him in the yeare 1530. vnder this title A certaine information or answere made to two questions proposed by a certayne good friend concerning the translation of Scripture and the inuocation of Saints In which he aduiseth his friend to answere the Catholikes obiection after this manner D. Martin Luther Luth. ●0 4. Germ. excuso VVittemb an 1551. fol. 475. will haue it so and sayth that a Papist and an Asse i● all one thing so I will so I command let my

predestinate 2. Tim. 2. v. 19. only to belong vnto this their inuisible Church as we haue now declared who are only knowne vnto God and vnknowne vnto all others 11. Hither also it belongeth that those could not be Saints predestinated who haue byn for these many ages past in that inuisible Church of our Aduersaries For those if per●●uenture there were any neyther durst publikel● professe Christ nor preach openly the Ghospell but terrified with humane feare haue done all thinges by dissimulation and hypocrisy least they might be bewrayed and made knowne vnto others for otherwise they should haue byn visible not inuisible Luc. 9. v. 26. But Christ saith that he that shall be ashamed of me and that which I teach hym the sonne of man wil be ashamed o● when he shall come in his Maiesty 12. Lastly our Aduersaries being vrged with so many and inuincible reasons see well inough especially the wiser sort of them how absurd the doctrine of their inuisible Church is And therfore many of them now adayes acknowledge the Church of Christ to haue byn alwaies visible and moreouer that this visible Church remayned still in the Popedome as they speake For they cānot assigne any other visible euer continuing Church besides that of Rome but least they be conuinced of fal●hood by the authority of this visible Church they seeke out some other euasion for they say this visible Church may yea hath often erred in matters of faith The which error we will Cap. 7. seq confu●e a little after assoone as we haue answered the arguments obiected by our Aduersaries against this Chapter CHAP. V. The arguments against the visible Church are confuted MANY of our Aduersaries reasōs do not so much proue that Infr. c. 7. the visible Church hath perished decayed as that it hath erred in fayth the which therefore shal be confuted afterward when we declare that the Church cannot erre in matters of fayth The rest of their arguments are Tom. 2. Epi. 48. Tom. 7. de vni Eccles c. ●● ad Donat. post col ●● 20. in fine 3. Reg. 19. v. 10. Calu in ●r●f● ●●arum ●●st Beza ● 5. suae Confes ●rt 9. almost all one with the old reasons of the Donatists For they in tymes past affirmed that the Church of Christ had perished through out the whole world but only in Africk Vnto whom S. Augustine answereth very well in many places But we will only heere briefly examine the more probable arguments and now a dayes more vsed by our Aduersaries 2. The first argument is taken out of those words of the Prophet Elias I am left alone and they seeke my lyfe I answere that this argument is of no moment albeit our Aduersaries Caluin and Beza do often vse it For Elias doth not speake of the whole Church but only of the Kingdome of Israel wherein the wicked King Achab 3. Reg. 16. v. 18. then reigned albeit in it also there were seauen thousand men who did not adore Baal and who made a visible Church Moreouer at that very time Iosaphat a very pious and godly King reigned there was also the temple of God and Priests and Sacrifice as also publike solemne and daily seruice of God yea out of the second book of Paralippomenō we gather that King Iosaphat laboured very much to conserue 2. Paral. 19. v. 4. seq and increase the honour and worship of God neyther was the number of them litle who professed publikely the true Religion For in the same booke are accounted and numbred more then eleauen hundred thousād strong souldiars besides women and others lesse sit for warre by which it appeareth that the Church of 2. Paral. 17. v. 14. seq God was not inuisible in Iosaphats Kingdome but rather very visible and cōspicuous But Elias only complayned of the Kingdome of Israel they to wit the children of Israel and not the children of Iuda haue 3. Reg. 19. v. 10. forsaken thy Couenant Neyther do we deny but that in some one or other Kingdome there might sometymes peraduenture haue byn few or no Christians whiles in farre more places the Church of God was very manyfest and visible But that the Church of Christ was no where to be foūd in the whole world is most absurd and expresly against the holy Scriptures 3. The second argument is taken out of many places of Isay Ieremy wherin those Prophets complayne that all the Iewes did transgresse the Couenant made with God Moreouer they obiect the small number of those who were sometimes in the ancient Church before Christs tyme or euen in Christs time before the Gospell was promulgated and heere they make many digressions to Noë and Adam himselfe The very same argument the Donatists also vsed as the words of Bishop P●●ili●n testify related by S. Augustine But Vide S. August Tom. 7. de vn●t Eccl c. 13. S. Aug. Tom. 7. in lib. ad Don it post ●oll c. 20. in fine S. Augustine answereth very well to those generall complaints of the Prophets that the holy Scripture hath a peculiar phrase o● manner of speaking who so reprehendeth the euill as though euery one of that company of people were wicked men so cōmendeth the good as if they were all such and this S. Augustine proueth in the same chapter out of diuers places of the holy Scripture 4. Our Aduersaries also who would seeme skillfull and cunning in the Hebrew and Greeke language should call to mind that aswell the generall particle amongst the Hebrews called col as that other which De voce Col vide Galat. l. 5. c. 4. Ioan. Fost Luth Io. Mer. Cal. in radic● Cal. in c. 2. Philip. v. 1● Beza ib. in 1. Tim 2. v. 1. ed. An. 1565. in edit an 1598 v. 4. ibid. Isa 1. v. 1. Oze 1. v. 1. Amos. 1. v. 1. Mich 1. v. 1. Ierem. 1. v. 1. Ezechiel 1. v. 2. Dan 1. v. 2. Sophon 1 v. 1. answereth vnto it in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often vsed in holy Scripture not generally for euery thing without any exception but for that which commonly is wont to be done as also non pro singulis ge●erum sed pro generibus singulorum the which not only the Hebrew Lexicons written by our Aduersaries themselues doe plainly demōstrate but also their chiefe principall ringleaders Caluin Beza The later wherof addeth also that we haue obserued that a generall particle is almost in every leafe of holy Scripture vsed indefinitely It is therfore most true which S. Augustine sayth that this word all in these kind of places is taken for many or for that which was common euery where as Caluin and Beza say for otherwise it is well inough knowen that in the tyme of the Prophet Isay there were some holy Kings as Ozias and Ezechias in Iury as also those Prophets Ozeas

faith is the ground of the Church we speake of the generall faith of the whole Church 19. There are other arguments of our Aduersaries but we may easily answere Canus l. 2. de ●ocis Theol. c. 8. Bellar. l 3. deverbo Dei c. vlt. therunto by that whi●h hath byn already said the which Mel●hior Canus and Bellarmine do prosecute and handle more at large vnto whom we referre the Reader For they are borrowed of the Anabaptists Libertines wherby the authority of the holy Scriptures themselues is no lesse diminished and infringed then that of the Church CHAP. VII That the Church doth not only giue a bare testimony but also authority to the Scripture THIS matter is heere briefly to be examined that it may more clearly be vnderstood how necessary the Churches approbation is to the establishing of the authority of the holy Scriptures But to the end that it may more clearely appeare wherof we dispute in this place it is to be considered that seing that our Aduersaries cannot deny but that the Church a●●oardeth some testimony to the holy Scriptures they affime that this testimony of the Church is only a bare testimony and not a testimony of authority 2. For there are two kindes of testimonyes The one is called a testimony of authority because vpon it the truth of the things testified dependeth Yt is called also a necessary testimony because without it the thing in question is not sufficiently testified The other is called a bare testimony and not necessary that is to say when such a testimony is not so necessary because the matter is otherwise Ioan. 1. v. 7. sufficiently testified Such a testimony was that which S. Sohn Baptist g●ue of Christ For Christ had sufficient testimonies besides 3. Of the former testimony of authority Christ saith But I do not receyue my Ioan. 5. v. 34. 36. Ibid. testimony from men to wit the testimony of authority necessary For of the bare testimony he had spoken a little before You sent vnto Iohn and he hath giuen testimony to truth But this was a bare testimony wherfore Christ a little after said I haue a greater testimony then Iohn for the workes which the Father hath giuen me to profit them the very works which I do giue testimony of me that the Father hath sent me And the Father that sent me himselfe hath giuen testimony of me All which saith Christ of the testimony of authority Our Aduersaries therefore say that the Church giueth only a bare testimony to the Scriptures as S. Iohn gaue to Christ but she giueth not a necessary testimony or that of authority 4. But that the testimony of the Church is altogether necessary as that Matt. 3. v. vlt. Matt. 17. v. 5. wherof the authority of the Scriptures dependeth is very manifest by that which is said in the former Chapter And by that also which we alleadged in the first disputation where we shew that there is now no firme testimony wherby we may know certainly which booke is canonicall and which not besides the testimoniy of the Catholike Church For now neyther are the miracles wrought which God did in tymes past neyther doth God speake immediatly by himselfe as he spake in the baptisme and transfiguration of Christ VVherefore there remayneth only the third ordinary manner wherby God speaketh by the mouth of the Church The Church therfore doth not giue a bare testimony only to the holy Scriptures but the testimony of authority to wit that wherof the authority of the Scriptures dependeth as concerning vs and our knowledge 5. Moreouer if the doctrine of S. Paul stood in need of the Churches approbation as we haue already proued out of Supr c. 3. §. 13. huius Controu the Scriptures much more S. Lukes Ghospell who was ōly S. Pauls choller stood in need therof as Tertullian witnesseth especially because S. Luke receyued not those things which he wrot by reuelation from God Tertu l. 4. contra Mar●● 2. Luc. ● v. 2. as S. Paul did but by tradition from others as he hymselfe writeth And the same also may be said of S. Marke whose Ghospell as S. Hierome writeth the Apostle S. Peter approued and by his authority he commaunded it should be read in the Church 6. But neyther is it true that some say that the authority of approuing the Canonicall bookes was only resident in the Apostles and the primitiue Church but the ensuing Church hath it not For the Apostles did not approue all the Canonicall bookes of the new Testament For if they had donne so there had remained no doubt of many of them for many ages after the death of the Apostles euen among Catholike good men as we Supra ca. 5. Contr. 1. haue noted before But many yeares after the Apostles tyme by the generall Councells and Decrees of the Church some bookes were approued wherof there was before some doubt 7. Yea more then six hundred yeares after Christ there were many Catholikes who did not receyue the authority of the Toletan Concil c. 16. Apocalyps as appeareth out of the fourth Toletane Councell 8. And that which is more before the Councell of Trent ther were many Catholikes who thought that it was lawfull for them to doubt of all the bookes of the new Testament the which in tymes past S. Hierome seemed to iudge as doubtfull as are the Epistles of S. Iames the second of S. Peter the second and third of S. Iohn the Epistles of S. Iude the Epistles to the Hebrewes and the Apocalyps And if it had not byn for the Councell of Trēt or some other new Decree of the Church none would as yet condemne them as Heretikes who called those bookes in question 9. By that which hath byn sayd it appeareth manifestly that the Canonicall Scriptures receiue their strength and authority not from the approbation of the primitiue Church but rather from the approbation of the Church succeeding yea euen of this present Church to wit of the Councell of Trent 10 Lastly albeit the present Church should not haue the authority of approuing Scriptures as these men say yet notwithstanding for three other reasons the authority testimony of this present Church is necessary First because we know not certainly what bookes the primitiue Church hath eyther written or not writen approued or reiected but by the testimony of the present Church Secondly neyther do we know whether those bookes came vncorrupted vnto vs or no but by the same testimony Thirdly because we cannot otherwise know which is the true sense of those bookes CHAP. VIII The Argumentes of our Aduersaryes are confuted THE first argument of our Aduersaries is The Church is grounded vpon the word of God and by the word also of God ●t is ingendred nourished and gouerned and it is subiect to the word of God as to the words of her spouse I answere our Aduersaries do in a manner cōfound the writen word of God