Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	believe_v	book_n	canonical_a	2,414	5	10.7996	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45277	A Christian vindication of truth against errour concerning these controversies, 1. Of sinners prayers, 2. Of priests marriage, 3. Of purgatory, 4. Of the second commandment and images, 5. Of praying to saints and angels, 6. Of justification by faith, 7. Of Christs new testament or covenant / by Edw. Hide ...	Hyde, Edward, 1607-1659.	1659 (1659)	Wing H3864; ESTC R37927	226,933	558

learned and picus men from the Ministry So that for the most part no other young men entred into holy orders but such as looked after a fat living and a licentious life unless it were some few who through unadvisedness and inconsideration were brought into the snare Praeter nonnulios qui imprudenter nondum sibi satis noti in laqueum inducuntur And therefore saith plainly and positively unless marriage be tolerated they should scarce be able to find out fitting Ministers to supply the Church Nisi conjugium toleretur vix idonei Ecclesiae ministri in posterum quidem inveniri poterunt Cassander in Consult Art 23. And now considering that Truth is good in it self and Virginity is good only in order to another thing sc. to righteousness let any conscientious man judge which of the two Priests is more in the state of sin and damnation whether he that is lawfully and righteously wedded to a wife or he that is unlawfully and unrighteously wedded to such a false opinion although as self-interest now steers Saint Peters ship there is little hope that the one will part or be divorced from his opinion as there is little honesty that the other should part or be divorced from his wife CAP. III. Of Purgatory 1. PUrgatory a stumbling block not to be cast in the way of men that are departing hence 2. Saint Paul desired to be dissolved that he might be with Christ. 3. All that die in the faith of Christ at their death go immediately to Christ as did Saint Paul and the good thief and to assert otherwise is to be injurious to Religious souls and to Christ their Saviour 4. Bellarmine professeth it is uncertain that Christs humane soul was in Purgatory and by his proofs makes it impossible for they all speak of the Hell of the damned 5. To say Christ went into Purgatory as into a part of his Kingdom to take possession thereof savours of blasphemy and of infidelity 6. Bellarmines uncertainties are so many and great concerning the Place the Time the Torment the Tormentors and the causes for which souls are said to be tormented in Purgatory as to enfeeble any unprejudicate mans belief though he is so confident as to say That all shall be damned who do not believe Purgatory 7. This doctrine is neither in word nor sense taught in the holy Scriptures The Texts alledged for it in Bachonus his daies answered by him The Books of the Macchabees no more Canonical to the Christians then to the Jews The fire mentioned 1 Cor. 3. no proof of Purgatory It shall not be forgiven him in the world to come spoken by way of aggravation Mat. 12. Hell taught in the Creed not so Purgatory 8. Peter Martyr vindicated Bellarmines rules of prudence against the rules of Logick meer nullities Doctrines inferred from prudential consequences are humane imaginations but from Logical consequences are Divine Truths The one by being believed the other by not being believed make a man an Heretick 9. No remission of sins in the next world proved by Aquinas out of Saint Chrysostom and Saint Augustine 10. Gods Remitting of sin is not Punishing it for Christs sake 11. Saint Augustine defines against Purgatory 12. No ground for it in the Text nor in any true general Council 13. Beilarmines reasons for it are not from but against Gods Word though seemingly deduced out of the holy Scriptures 14. His arguments for Venial sins untheological 15. His wresling of Scripture against the analogie of faith to maintain this new doctrine of his Church which agreeth not with the belief of the remission of sins or the Communion of Saints 16. The Prayers of the Church may be abused by this doctrine as well as the Word of God 17. Christ not praying for souls in Purgatory they can if any there have no benefit of others Prayers The third Exception Part. 2. Chap. 2. pag. 174. Against Purgatory you object first Desiderium habens dissolvi esse cum Christo Phil. 1. 23. But all the strength of this argument stands upon a Desiderium habens having a desire And what good Catholick man doth not desire to die so holily as he may escape Purgatory and go immediately to Christ Secondly Hodiè me●…um eris in paradiso Luc. 23. 43. Where you say it is evident The Convert thief upon the Cross cannot be looked upon as a priviledged person Were this evident it is evident to me that most eminently learned men would have perceived this evidence yet our Rhemes Doctors confidently call it A rare example of mercy and prerogative Maldonate handling this place Mat. 27. 44. calls it a stupidity Ex uno exemplo generalem legem colligere Bellarm. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 8. concludes his answer to this very objection Privilegia pauco rum legem non faciunt Becanus compend men contr lib. 1. c. 11. n. 7. calls it expresly Singulare privilegium so that this your evidence is to me inevident Thirdly Bellarmine himself confesseth De Purgatorio incertum est you quote neither Chapter nor Book which is very uncouth amongst learned Antagonists These words may be understood in a double sense absolutely as to Purgatoty it self or relatively as to the good thief If the first then Bellarmine confesseth it is uncertain whether there be any such thing as Purgatory or no if the second whether the good thief went to Purgatory or no As to the first there can be nothing more certain amongst Christians then what is de fide of divine faith But Bellarm. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 2. 3. affirms it is de fide And again cap. 11. Constanter asserimus dogma esse fidei Purgatorium adeò ut qui non credit Purgatorium esse ad illud nunquam sit perventurus sed in gehennâ sempiterno incendio cruciandus What can a man speak more resolutely then this As to the second He hath not any such word but all the contrary as I have shewed to your second objection Where then Bellarmine should make this Confession is beyond my skill to find Fourthly none ever durst say That the humane soul of Christ was at all in Purgatory If you mean To suffer there it were an horrible blasphemy to say so But if to go down thither in majesty as a most victorious Conquerer and triumphant King to take possession of his whole Kingdom which according to Saint Paul is tripartite Philip. 2. 10. Coelestium terrestrium infernorum So Bellarmine besides what he saith thereof lib. 4. de Christo cap. 12. in fine durst c. 16. with a probabile say that Christs humane soul went down thither not only quoad effectum but secundum substantiam realem praesentiam For having made this querie Ad quae loca inferni descenderit He answers Probabile est profectò Christi animum ad omnia loca inferni descendisse But whether so or no it neither makes nor marrs but the good thief enjoyed Christs promise to be with him that

an Antecedent that is a meer nothing but pretending to be somthing it is no longer a meer nothing for it is a Lye which is worse then nothing I say A Consequence without the rules of Logick is a Lye and I am forced to say it as a Christian Divine That I may not betray the Truth of Christ nor bely the Church of Christ For how many Truths doth the Church of Christ teach me to believe which are Divine Truths only as they are Logical Consequences whereas it is palpable A Logical Consequence cannot be a Truth but an Unlogical Consequence must be a Lye I will instance but in one The Monothelite who said Christ had but one will is condemned for an Heretick by the sixt general Council and yet it is only a Logical Consequence That Christ had two wills from this Antecedent That two compleat rational Natures must have two wills Whence cometh this Syllogism Two compleat rational Natures must have two wills Christ had two compleat rational Natures sc. the nature of God and the nature of man Therefore Christ had two wills Here is a Truth inferred by Logical Consequence which hath a Being in it self and chargeth them for Hereticks who deny it because it is a Divine Truth whereas such inferences as are only from Prudential not Logical Consequences have no being save in the fancy of him that makes them and therefore Charges all with Heresie that believe them because they are not Divine Truths but only humane imaginations For it is an heresie to believe that for a divine Truth which God hath not taught in his Word neither explicitly nor implicitly neither as a doctrine nor as a deduction neither as a Theological Principle nor as a Logical Conclusion For such a belief doth not only set up Fancy or rather Falsity instead of Truth or man instead of God for the author of our Faith but it also disbelieveth that Truth whereof God is the undoubted Author For he which believeth that which God hath not taught concerning any Truth must needs in some respect not believe that which God hath taught concerning the same Truth as in this particular case concerning the remission of sins He that believeth remissionn of sins in the next world which God hath not taught must needs not fully believe remission of sins in this world which God hath taught For what sins are left to be remitted there cannot be remitted here so I must not believe remission of all sins here though upon never so earnest a repentance never so true a faith that I may believe the remission of some sins hereafter So dangerous a thing is it for any Divine to set up rules of prudence rather of imprudence instead of rules of Logick that is to say Phantastical additions instead of rational deductions even as dangerous as to teach men to believe a Lye instead of believing Truth For what is inferred from any Text of Scripture by Logical consequence is a Theological conclusion and may not be disbelieved without an affront to God the Author of Logick that is of Reason But what is inferred without Logick is not a Theological conclusion but a Phantastical Addition and may not be received by us either as Christians because it comes not from God nor as men because it comes not by Reason And I think such a conclusion is that of the same Cardinals lib. 3. de euch c. 7. Per divinam Potentiam posse ab homine tolli facultatem intelligendi interim ut maneat Homo That by Gods Almighty power may be taken from a man the faculty of understanding and he may still remain a man A Consequence doubtless from the first Article of our belief I believe in God the Father Almighty but inferred only by the Rules of this new prudence not by the Rules of old sound Logick and therefore to be looked upon as a meer fiction for it supposeth an Impotency in Omnipotency as if God could deny himself working contradiction and making a man not a man a reasonable creature not a reasonable creature at the same time and in the same respect But however this Consequence hath found us out a man fit to believe other such like Consequences For such Consequences are clearly without Reason and therefore the man that can believe them had need be a man without Reason 9. But it is high time to leave your Cardinal whom yet I had not traced so far had it not been to follow your footsteps and since our Countrey-man could not his own Countrey-man shall stop his mouth For Saint Thomas of Aquine as good an Italian as himself and a far better Divine seeth here no remission of sins in the next world but proveth the contrary both out of Saint Augustine and out of Saint Chrysostom in his Commentary upon this Text that is out of the two chiefest Doctors both of the Greek and of the Latine Church And he sets down Saint Chrysostoms exposition with the approbation not only of its Truth but also of its perspicuity Chrysostomus valdè planè exponit dicit c. Saint Chrysostom expounds this place very plainly and saith That we are here told of a twofold blasphemy one against the Son of God calling him a wine-bibber and for this they had some excuse because of their ignorance The other against the Spirit of God calling him Beelzebub and for this they had no excuse because they were sufficiently instructed in the Scriptures that evil spirits could not be cast out by an evil spirit but by the good Spirit that is the Spirit of God and therefore this blasphemy should not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come which saith he is spoken upon this ground Because some sins are punished in this world some in the next some both in this and that The sins punished only in this world are those of Penitents yet your Purgatory will needs punish them and only them in the next world The sins punished only in the next world are those of miscreants of whom it is said Job 21. 13. In a moment they go down into Hell But the sin which is punished in this world and in the next is the sin against the Holy Ghost Therefore it is said concerning that sin ●…t shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come Non quia sit remissio in futuro sed quia poena erit in futuro unde sensus est quod non remittitur quin poenam patiatur in hoc seculo in futuro Not because there is any forgiveness in the next world but because there shall be punishment in the next world wherefore the meaning is It shall not be forgiven but he shall suffer punishment for it both in this and in the next world Thus the Angelical Doctor expoundeth this Text and his Exposition stood good a long time and was generally received in the Latine Church for your own Ferus hath followed it saying