Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	old_a	part_n	testament_n	2,968	5	7.9440	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12062	The triall of the protestant priuate spirit VVherein their doctrine, making the sayd spirit the sole ground & meanes of their beliefe, is confuted. By authority of Holy Scripture. Testimonies of auncient fathers. Euidence of reason, drawne from the grounds of faith. Absurdity of consequences following vpon it, against all faith, religion, and reason. The second part, which is doctrinall. Written by I.S. of the Society of Iesus.	Sharpe, James, 1577?-1630.	1630 (1630)	STC 22370; ESTC S117207	354,037	416

heare him alwayes loue him alwayes assist him alwayes comfort him that no feare doubt wauering or perturbation did or could euer enter into his will or vnderstanding yea that all that time of his passion his soule had the perfect vision and fruition of God and only his sensible partes endured those paines and torments of the crosse Tenthly As for his descending into hell they derogate from it and dishonour him in that they affirme he descended either only to the graue in body or also to the lower hell in soule to suffer the paines of it either before his death on the crosse or after it in hell but not to haue freed the Patriarchs from Limbus by the presence of his soule there We honour it in belieuing that he descended in soule further then to the graue to which he only descended in body but not so far as to suffer the paines of hell in soule but only to the Limbus patrum where he gaue the Patriarches there detained present liberty fruition of eternall hapinesse afterwards carried them with him to the place of glory and so triumphed ouer hell led aptiuity Ccaptiue Eleuenthly From his resurrection and ascension they derogate and dishonour him both by denying him the subtility or penetration of his body wherby he was able to passe through either the stone of the sepulcher at his resurrection or the dores of the house at his entrance to his disciples or the hardnesse of the heauens at his ascension all which they wil haue either dissolued or opened or diuided We honour attribut more dignity to the same belieuing that by the gift of subtility or penetratiō his body did pierce passe through the stone the dores and the heauens at his resurrection and ascension as it did also his Mothers wombe at his natiuity with out any diuision dissolution or detriment to the nature of either the one or the other in which also he shewed his subtility and consequently his impassibility or immortality Twefthly From his adoration and inuocation by vs as he is now in heauen they derogate and dishonour him in affirming that as man he is not to be adored or inuocated by vs. We honour him as man so far that we bow downe at the name of Iesus praying to him with the blind man the Cananean saying Sonne of Dauid haue mercy on vs And fall down with the Sages the womē adore him In al which and many more as they by their priuate spirit the doctrine of it do derogate take from Christ his honour his power his goodnesse his beatitude his knowledge his sanctity his certainty of saluation his adoration and the vertue and power of his passion redemption resurrection ascension so do we in our Catholike doctrine attribute to same due honour and dignity so both in our doctrine practise giue more honour praise power and glory to God and to Iesus Christ then they do either in doctrine or practise Thirdly For the Saints and blessed soules in heauen they dishonour them and take from them 1. Their state of beatitude affirming as Luther and Caluin do that they yet sleepe and neither know what we do nor yet enioy any present glory and beatitude till the day of Iudgment 2. Their perfection of Sanctity in affirming as Caluin doth both of Angels and Saints that their obedience is imperfect that their iustice is defectiue and doth not satisfy God that their works require pardon and that in them is folly vanity and frailty 3. Their power of doing miracles by the gift of God which Beza Piscator Vrsinus and Perkins ●hould to be a vertue proper only to God not communicated to any creature man or Saint 4. Their difference and degree or honour affirming that all are equall in glory beatitude and reward and that no lawrels or crownes of accidentall beatitude are due to Martyrs Confessours or Virgins 5. Their respect and esteeme with God denying that God doth either apply in any sort their merits to vs or doth help and respect vs for their prayers 6. Their knowledge of vs and our affaires on earth denying that they heare vnderstand or know vs or any thing we do heere on earth 7. Their charity towardes vs affirming they neither at our intercessious sollicite or pray to God for vs nor offer vp any petitions and miseries of ours to God 8. Their honour and inuocation by vs denying it to be lawfull to worship them to honour thē to inuocate them or so much as saith Luther to imitate and follow their example 9. The custody and ●uition of Angels ouer vs and their hierarchies and orders in heauen denying or at least doubting of the custody of our Angell guardian the difference of al Hierarchies and orders among Angels In al which we and our doctrine on the contrary do attribute to them perfect and present beatitude in their soules complete obedience in their performing the will of God vpright Sanctity in all their actions extraordinary power in working miracles notable difference of degrees of glory eminent knowledge in vnderstanding our prayers excellent charity in making intercession for vs and due honour and veneration in giuing them adoration inuocation and imitation befitting both the Saints for their prayers for vs and the Angels for their custody of vs. Fourthly For the word of God they abuse it take 1. From i● one first and principall part of it to wit all the vnwritten word or which is diuine vnwritten tradition 2. From the written word they chop and cut off from the old Testament fourteene peeces or partes and some of them from the new Testament seauen whole bookes from the Canon of scripture 3. For the translation of scripture they reiect the ancient and follow euery nation euery congregation and euery person a new translation which best pleases them therby leaue no certainty of the verity of any 4. For the sense of scripture they contemne that which the spirit of God did inspire to the ancient Fathers Councels Church and follow that which euery mans priuate spirit suggests and therby follow not the meaning of the spirit of God but that of their owne spirit 5. For their faith grounded vpon scripture they belieue only those points which their spirit finds in that part translation and sense which they chose and therby make an vncertaine imperfect mained kind of faith and religion 6. For their Iudge and meanes to try which is scripture and which is true sense of it they admit not any infallible Iudgment either of Church or of Coūcels or of Pastours but leaue to euery man to choose himself what he will belieue to iudge and follow whom he pleases in his beliefe wherby they can haue neither any vnity in faith not any certainty of scripture of scripture sense We in our doctrine do admit for the word of

who receaue both the old and new Testament but interpreted according to Mahomets Alcaron and also by all Heretiks who seek to fill their books not ōly with words of Scripture but sayth Vincent Lyrin with thousands of testimonies thousands of examples thousands of authorityes out of the Law the Psalmes the Prophets the Apostles which expounded after a new and ill manner would thereby throw downe soules from the tower of Catholike fayth to the pit of wicked heresy being as our Sauiour sayth of them false Prophets or teachers who vnder the garments of sheep that is sayth Vincent Lyrin the wordes of the Prophets and Apostles are rauenous VVolues infesting the fold of the Church and deuouring the flocke of Christ and saying Christ is heere or there that is as Origen expounded it in this or that text of Scripture who thus transfiguring themselues into the shew of Apostles or preachers of Christ do labour to transfer the people into another Ghospell who depraue the Scripture to their owne and others destruction And by the wordes of the Law sayth S. Ambrose impugne the Law and do frame a false sense of the wordes of the Law that they may confirme their owne peruerse opinions by the authority of the Law Against al whome we may note the wordes of S. Hilary saying That Heresy is about the vnderstanding not the text of Scripture the sense not the words is the sinne And of S. Hierome That the Ghospell is not in the wordes but the sense of scripture not in the outward rine but in the inward marrow not in the leaues of wordes but in the root of the sense SVBDIV. 2. Who haue authority to make the Interpretation of Scripture SEcondly this sense and meaning of scripture because it is not facil and easy to be knowne to all by reason of the great obscurity in the wordes the great fecundity in the sense and the great profundity in the mysteries or articles belieued which cannot by euery one nor by any one without the assistance of the same spirit which penned it be vnderstood therfore is necessary some authentical certain and infallible authority for the true vnderstanding of this authenticall certaine and infallible sense of scripture This authority because it is in the Catholike Church chiefly in the Pastours and Prelates of the same for the better gouernement of it in true doctrine vpon whom God hath bestowed the infallible assistance of his holy spirit as is afterward proued therfore their authority is necessary for the finding out the true and certaine sense of scripture Whensoeuer therfore the chiefe Pastour or Pastours of the Church vsing the meanes for it appointed of which in the next proposition do either ex Cathedra or in a Councell confirmed approued or by a generall consent propose deliuer and declare any sense or exposition of scripture as true and to be belieued as an article of faith in any controuersy against heretikes then is that sense to be receaued for their authority as authenticall certaine and infallible From whence ensues that though in matters of Philosophy and reason we must rather attend what is said thē by whome it is said and respect rather the force then the authority of the person who sayes it yet in matters of faith we must first respect them who preach and the authority and commission of their person and by it iudge of their doctrine preached For if the person be lawfully sent if he haue lawfull commission if he be a lawfull pastour not deuided by heresy or schisme from the whole body then the people are to attend to him and for his commission to receaue his doctrine but if he want mission commissiō if he teach of himselfe and his owne authority if he produce the doctrine not of the Church-proposition but of his owne inuention let him teach what he wil proue it how he wil he is not to be heard nor belieued by the common and vulgar people to whom it belonges to be obedient subiect to the authority of their Pastour not to iudge of the verity of his doctrine more then in generall whether it be consonant or dissonant from the vniuersally receaued doctrine of the Church for they are to obey their Pastours to remaine in the same rule in the faith first deliuered in that which they heard from the beginning to auoid profane nouelties of words not to receiue any other Ghospel or doctrine but that which they learned and receaued from the beginning leauing the particulars to the testimony of others either equal to their pastour in function or superiour to him in authority Which point is to be noted against the Manichees of old and the Protestants of late who respect not the authority of the Preacher but the force of his reason attend not to the commission of the Pastour who he is that teacheth but to the plausibility of his doctrine what it is and how far it is pleasing to their priuat spirit disposition or iudgment SVBDIV. 3. What meanes are to be vsed to make this Interpretation and of foure Rules of infallible interpreting of scripture Thirdly The meanes which are to be obserued vsed and followed by these Pastours or Prelats for the securing vs of this true sense of scripture are these 1. The rule of faith that is the Catholike and vniuersally receiued doctrine of faith and piety which was deliuered by the Apostles receiued by posterity 2. The generall practise or obseruatiō custome or tradition of the whole Church in pointes where the doctrine is not certaine 3. The auncient exposition or consent of the holy fathers and doctours of the primitiue Church where the former do not appeare 4. The decrees and definitions of the Councels either generall or prouincial approued by generall and the conformity to them in all expositions doubtfull Th●se are as so many rules or conducts according to which the certaine and authenticall sense of scripture is by the Pastours of gods Church to be squared and guided First that the rule of fayth is to be presupposed obserued and followed in the finding out the true sense of scripture is proued 1. This rule of Fayth is by S. Paul who often doth mention it called sometymes a rule which bringeth peace VVho haue followed this rule peace be on them Sometimes a rule in which they are to remaine to auoid dissentions Let vs remaine in the same rule that we may iudge the same Sometymes his rule which he deliuered to them and by which they are to increase in fayth Your fayth increasing according to our rule Sometymes a reason of Fayth according to which is giuen the guift of prophesy or interpretation of scripture Donations or prophesy according to the rule of Fayth And in effect it is no other but the doctrine they receaued the fayth preached through the whole world the disposition

can be a fit meanes vpō which any certaine and authenticall exposition of scripture can be grounded Which is to be performed two wayes 1. By reasons drawne from the property and condition of the holy scripture and the sense and meaning of it 2. By reasons drawne from the property and condition of the priuate spirit and the vncertainty and deceitfulnes of it SVBDIV. 1. By reasons drawne from the nature of holy Scripture which is to be expounded FIrst therefore for the holy Scripture such is the difficulty of it which ariseth partly from the ambiguity of the words including diuers significations partly from the fecūdity of the significatiōs affording multiplicity of senses partly from the profundity of the matter inuolued in misteries obscure and exceeding our capacity such I say is the difficulty of the scripture which aryseth out of these grounds that no priuate man nor any priuate spirit of any man can secure himselfe of the certainty of any much lesse of all of them For if we respect the words and text of scripture this spirit cannot vpon any ground assure any man that either this booke rather then another is the diuine word of God or of this booke that this is the true and complete Canon or of this Canon that this is the first and originall text or of this text that it is the right authenticall translation or of this translation that any one rather thē another is the true and Canonical sense or of these senses that one more then other containes all articles and points necessary to saluation all which are yet necessary to be expounded This spirit cannot expresse and assure what booke is Canonicall and what not It cannot accord the Lutherans and Caluinists whether the Epistle to the Hebrewes of Iames 2. of Peter the 2. and 3. of Iohn nor the Catholikes and Protestants whether the bookes of Machabees Toby Iudith Hester c. be canonicall or not It cā giue no reason why there should be admitted into the Canon of scripture the Gospels of Mathew Marke Luke and Iohn and not the Gospels of Thomas Nathanael Matthias Thadaeus Bartholomew Iames Iohn c Andrew Paul Nicodemus the Hebrews the Egiptiās with that of Peter or the Nazarits It can giue no reason why the Epistles of S. Paul Iames Iohn Iude Peter should be admitted and why not those of Barnabas of Luke the rest of S. Peter of S. Paul that to the Laodiceans the 3. to the Corinthians the 3. to the Thessalonians It can giue no reason why the Acts writ by S. Luke should be admite●d and not the Acts writ by Peter by Paul and by Andrew Thomas Iohn Philip and Matthias nor the Periods of Paul Thecla nor the Constitutions of the Apostles or the booke of Hermes or Enoch why the Apocalyps of S. Iohn should be amittted not the Apocalyps of S. Peter Paul Thomas Stephen Elias nor the death of our Lady the circuite of S. Iohn the sentences of Bartholomew the ascension of Esie all which haue beene extant and by some challenged as Canonicall as may be seene in Doctour Stapleton It cannot resolue and assure what bookes were originally writ in Hebrew what in the Chaldean what in the Greeke or Latine tongue who they were that writ the bookes of the old Testament and whether they be the same which were first written and the same sound and vncorrupted Whether this Hebrew text be the same either in Character or letter of which is question or in wordes of which many doubt which was first written What is the sense signification phrase or stile of any Hebrew word Whether the Greeke of the Septuaginte which the Apostles followed be sound and incorrupted and to be preferred before the Hebrew Whether the ancient Latin vulgar or others of later translation as of Erasmus Luther Oecolampadius Bibliander Beza Castalio Tremelius and others be to be followed Whether of any English translations the Catholike translation of the Rhemist or the Protestants of Tindall of King Edward of the Bishops of Geneua or of King Iames are to be receaued as true which is to be rejected as false None of these can the priuate spirit in euery ordinary man nor yet in the learned Protestant certainly decide and resolue It cannot satisfy and assure when the wordes are in the literall or mysticall sense to be vnderstood And for the literall when it passeth from speaking of thinges carnall to thinges spirituall from temporal to eternall from the kingdome of Israell to the kingdome of Christ as often in the Psalmes and Prophets it doth As for exāple from the Kings of Syria and Israell to our B. Lady Christ From the King of Babylon to Lucifer From Salomon to Christ From the barly Bread to the sacramentall Bread And for the mysticall sense when it is to be vnderstood morally for manners when allegorically of Christ or the Church militant when anagogically of glory or the Church triūphant When the same wordes beare a proper and when a figuratiue sense and of the figuratiue sense when the figure is Synecdoche the part for the whole When Metonimya the signe or cause for the effect When it is Catechresis by which the inuentour of a thing is called Father Cittyes are called Daughters posterity is called House c. When by Hiperbole or exageration the whole world is put for much all for many When by Liptote or diminution Idols are called vaine thinges ●oxious vnprofitable When by Analoge one person tyme number gender or signification is set for another When by Hend●adis two thinges are put for one as signes and tymes for signes of tymes When by Prolepsis or anticipation places citties are named by names which afterward were giuē them When by Analoge or mutation one sense as seeing is set for another as hearing tasting c. When by Hetorosis the abstracte as abomination for the concrete as abominable By Haebraisme causalites or similituds ar omitted tenses are changed persons or matters are supposed when an occasion is set downe for a cause the euent for the effect the diuel for sinne eternity for a long time When sinne is meant for sinne it selfe or for a sacrifice or punishment of sinne God for an angell a desire of doing for the deed an act as of seeing for the obiect of feare for the thing or person feared When lawes are called by names of precepts statutes iustice iudgement testimonies or testamēt When works of the law of nature or of faith are tearmed only works or faith When Christ is taken for the person of Christ the head or for the body of Christ the Church or for both When father is meant essentially for God or personally for the first person only When by the Church is meant the Church militant or triumphant the whole body or principal members When Predestination is to glory or to grace When obduration is actiue

only a shadow a faigned diabolicall Fayth not a true diuine and supernaturall Fayth tending to iustification by which euery Christian belieues these articles 2. Is oppugned the vnity of God Deum by Caluin who houldes that the Sonne hath an essence distinct from the Father By Beza and Stegius who hould that the essence is diuided into three persons 3. By Luther who houldes that the Diuinity is threefold 4. By Melancthon who houldes that there are three Diuinities or essences in God By Sanctius who entitles his booke De tribus Eloim of three Gods 5. By the Tritheits in Polonia who expresly hould there are three Gods and three Eternalls 6. Is oppugned the God-head it selfe and his mercy and goodnesse 1. By all those who make God the authour willer commander and worker of sinne and damnation because so is his will and pleasure Who make him a sinner a great sinner the only sinner Who make him a lier a dissembler a tyrant and transforme him into a very deuill himselfe as is before proued and deduced 2. By those who make the diuinity of God passible as with Eutiches the auncient condemned hereticke Luther and Iacobus Andreas do 3. By those who affirme the diuinity to haue beene not only a mediatour betweene God and man as Caluin and Beza did but also to haue beene obediēt to God as Melancton and after him many Lutherans Tigurins also did And further to haue exercised the office of a Priest offering sacrifice to God as Iewell did affirme All which opinions do make many Diuinities in God one inferiour to another because where one is a mediatour is obedient doth offer sacrifice to another there must be a subordination subiection and distinction there one must be inferiour and distinct from the other and so there must be many distinct Diuinities and these inferiour one to another which is contrary to the nature of diuinity God-head 4. Is oppugned the person of the Father and with him the whole B. Trinity by Luther who affirmes that the diuinity is as well three and of three sorts as are the three persons that the word Trinity is an humane inuention a word which sounds coldly and is not to be vsed but insteed of it the word God and did therupon thrust out of his Letanies that prayer Holy Trinity one God haue mercy on vs. And did leaue out of his Germane bible those words of S. Iohn alleadged by Athanasius Cyprian Fulgentius to proue he blessed Trinity against the Arrians There are three which giue testimony in heauen the father the word and the holy ghost and these three are one To all which also Caluin subscribes who not only affirmes that the prayer Holy Trinity one God haue mercy on vs doth displease him as sauouring of barbarisme but also wrests all those places by which the Fathers out of the old and new Testament did proue against Iews and Arrians the diuinity of Christ to a contrary sense and meaning as the Lutherās in diuers bookes on set purpose against him haue conuinced And Danaeus his successor after Beza followes him who affirmes that the same word Trinity and the same prayer Holy Trinity haue mercy on vs is a foolish and dangerous prayer All which are directly contrary to the auncient orthodox and Catholicke doctrine of the B. Trinity three persons and one God 5. In the same first article is oppugned the omnipotency of God almighty by Beza VVhitaker others who affirme 1. That God cannot place one body in two places by replication or other wayes that is Christs body in heauen and on the altar at the same time 2. That God cannot place two bodies in one place by penetration one of another that is that Christs body with the stone of the sepulcher at his resurrection with the dores of the house at the entring to his disciples and with the solidity of the heauens at his ascensiō could not be togeather in one place but the stone dores or heauen were diuided opened or resolued into some liquid matter 3. That God cannot draw a camell or a cable-rope as it is said in the Ghospell though a needles eye 4. That God hath no absolute power to do any more then he hath already done 5. That the position of the archangell Gabriel Any word is not impossible with God is not generally to be belieued nor vniuersally to be admitted Al which if they be true that is if the diuinity be passible be a mediatour be a priest and be three and distinct as the person are if God be the authour and worker of all sinne and euill if the word Trinity and the prayer Holy Trinity haue mercy on vs be to be left out as barbarous foolish and dangerous if God cannot place one body in two places or two bodies in one place cannot draw a cable-rope through a needles eyes can do no more then he hath done then is the Deity the vnity the Trinity the goodnes and the omnipotēcy of God all which are by this first article belieued by this doctrine and these Doctours oppugned and so the Fayth of the first article reiected Secondly in the second article attributed to S. Iohn is oppugned the worke of the whole Trinity the Creation of heauen and earth 1. By Caluin who will haue only the Father properly to be creatour of heauen and earth as to whome alone the name of God by excellency is due and the Sonne to be the Vicar of the Father and to haue the second degree of honour after him 2. By Stenberge Seruetus Blandrata Somarus Francus others cyted by Kellison who deny the Diuinity of the holy Ghost as the third person in the Trinity and admit only a vertue from the father which they call the holy Ghost But if the father be only God if the sonne be inferiour as his vicar and second to him if the holy Ghost be only the vertue of the father not a person distinct from him then is only the father and not the sonne and the holy Ghost with the whole Trinity the creatour of heauen and earth Wherby the second article is oppugned Thirdly In the third article attributed to S. Iames the greater is oppugned the diuinity of the sonne second person Iesus Christ his only sonne our Lord. 1. By Luther who detested the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or consubstātiall signifying the sonne to be of the same substance with the father and made the diuinity of the sonne passible with Eutiches as I haue shewed before 2. By Caluin Beza and Whitaker who admit Christ to be sonne of the father but not to be God of the father or of the essence of the father or God of God as the Nicene Creed expresseth but God of himselfe and withall affirmes that the father doth not continually eternally beget the sonne 3. By Caluin Beza others before cited who make Christ as