Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A01010
|
A secure and prudent choice of beliefe. Written by a student in diuinity
|
Floyd, John, 1572-1649.
|
1639
(1639)
|
STC 11115; ESTC S114863
|
16,290
|
54
|
22. Ios 5.14 and els where how the holy Prophets adored God in Images or in Angels representing his person prostrating themselues before them and though their intention was directed to God yet their outward worship was directed to those sensible apparitions or Images representing God to their imaginations wherein they conceiued God as represented and these Images representing God morally one obiect in the same manner as it hapneth in the honour of Images and in the worship of the figuratiue Communion or as all Ciuill Nations do when they honour the Chayre of State or Presence Chamber of a King without wrong to Christ or to the King 26. These three arguments do manifestly shew that whether in the Commandment we read Idol or Image by it nothing can be proued against the declared manner of worshiping Images vnlesse we will proue a Contradiction in holy Scripture Moreouer since it is cleerly proued by those examples and practice taken out of holy Scripture that in such worship there is no signe of dishonour to God it is doubtles more secure with the common practice of the world to honour them then by the deniall of it to condemne such manifest authority 27. That in the refusing there is no security it is also manifest since the Scripture brought is not cleere for condemnation of Image-worship therfore not sufficient to cry downe an ancient practice proued by sound Texts of Scripture which can neuer be reconciled with those words of the Law vnlesse where Image is read we reade Idol which word signifieth a Commād that no Creature should be made nor worshiped as God This vse of Images declared is iustified both in respect of making and worshiping by other texts of Scripture without any Contradiction to those words of the Law when the contrary without any necessity compelleth a man to deny cleere reason and Scripture 28. It may be obiected that since Idolatry hath been begun and maintained by Images and since men are prone to forget God and apply themselues wholy to corporall obiects the secure way is to abandon Images at the least in Churches This is spoken without reason or law Without law for there can be none brought since not Images but Idols were the beginning and maintayning of Idolatry Images I haue proued warrātable in holy Scripture Without reason for whereas an Idol representeth nothing besides it selfe and so is worshiped an Image representeth a true thing therefore moueth a man to a reuerence proportionable to the obiect represented Whence in reason an Idol occasioneth Idolatry not representing any further obiect whither our thoghts and honour may be transferred when contrarywise an Image of a true obiect necessarily draweth our minds and reuerence to some thing besides it selfe so that aske any simple Belieuer whether he pray to an Image or put any Confidence in it he will say no aske him againe when he is kneeling before a picture with his eyes fixed on it whither he directs his prayers he will say to Christ or some Saint What hurt is there in this S. Mary Magdelen prostrate kissed and bathed with her teares the feet of Christ what iustified that act but the vnion which those sacred feet had with his diuinity which notwithstanding she saw not but apprehended by fayth Though betweene Christ and his picture there be not so immediate connexion yet a morall Connexion there is such as betweene the King and his Picture Chayre of state Embassadour c. why then may not a Christian apprehend this connexion betweene Christ and his Image representing him and accordingly exhibite due honour without danger of Idolatry Whether is holy Scripture the only Rule of our Faith 29. HIther to I haue shewed that supposing Scripture the only rule beleefe is more secure then deniall for both parties relying vpon the same Scripture can neuer conuince ech others interpretation of falsity as experience sufficiently sheweth and probability at least must be supposed on both parts in which case finding no further euidence prudence compelleth me to choose that part which is most remote from danger of Condemnation Who will not betieue shall be damned 30. Now that there may remayne no doubt at all of the secure Choice of beliefe I will shew it consequent to reason holy Scripture that we must admit of some other rule besides Scripture If then beliefe be grounded not only vpon probable authority of Scripture wherin it is equal at the least with authority of Deniers or Disbelieuers but also vpon an other rule apparently knowne and seene as it is fit for a rule to be there can be no doubt of the security of beleefe 31. And first I suppose it is more then probable or either Physically certaine that there hath euer beene a Church teaching and practizing those points of beliefe aforementioned not sufficiently disproued in point of Continuance incorruption in Doctrine though the gates of Hell haue breathed forth all malice against it 32. Secondly I suppose holy Scripture as inspired by the holy Ghost to be a certaine rule of Christian beliefe yet for that it is certaine that al is not written that was deliuered by Christ neither doth it any where say that it is the infallible and sole word of God and for that it is obscure doth not cleerly explicate it selfe as it is manifest by experience it can not be an infallible rule for the deciding of contradictory opinions drawne from the same though it alone may be a sufficient direction to let vs know what more securely may be belieued 33. The question then is Whether besides the Scripture a Church also as an vnpartiall Interpreter thereof be to be admitted which is as much to say Whether the commō voice of a Church interpreting holy Scripture be a more secure rule then the voice of some particular men whose priuate interpretations as before I shewed are not certaine proofes out of holy Scripture but only probabilityes out of their owne iudgment which notwithstanding some will oblige all to admit as Scripture and contemne the explication of an ancient Church 34. For the negatiue part I find no cleere Scripture but such texts as require hard interpretation and which as much oppose the practice of the first Primitiue Church then admitted as a doubtles rule as it will appeare to any that shall consider them You shall not ad a word Deut. 4.2 Search the Scriptures Ioan. 5.39 These things are written that you may belieue Io. 20.31 All Scripture diuinely inspired is profitable Are not these places of as much force against the Primitiue Church Do they the like say that all truth is written or that what is written is diuine Scripture or that it needs no helpe of interpretatiō no not of a Church but of priuate spirits What ground then doth there remaine for the inforcing of sole Scripture as the only rule of our beliefe 35. For the affirmatiue part we haue first that Article of the Apostles Creed I belieue the holy
Catholique Church How can we belieue the Church of Christ to be holy and Catholique and doubt of Gods protection of it in point of true beliefe and Doctrine 36. Secondly the authority of the Euangelists Math. vlt. Teach all Nations c. Behold I am with you euery day euen to the consummation of the world Math. 18.17 If he shall not heare the Church let him be to thee as a heathen publicaÌ„ Luc. 10.16 he that heareth you heareth me and he that contemneth you contemneth me Besides the Church is called the Pillar and firmament of truth Tim. 3.15 Light of the world Math. 5.14 Do not these texts probably point at a liuing rule 37. Thirdly since Christ obligeth vs to a beliefe of his doctrine vnder paine of damnation it is manifest that by some meanes he will make it appeare vnto vs but by Scripture alone it doth not sufficiently appeare for by it we know not what is Scripture nor which is the true sense of Scripture els all would soone agree therefore Scripture is not sufficient alone to deliuer vnto vs our sauing fayth But the most vndoubted and indifferent Interpreter thereof is an vniuersall Church so as we may securely be ruled by it interpreting the said Scripture and cannot be reiected without danger of disbelieuing God's word Grant to disbelieuers probability of reason yet their danger is certaine 38. SOme may thinke that this Discourse proueth Belieuers secure but not that Dis belieuers are in certaine danger if they be ruled according to the meanes and capacity God hath giuen them and that such are not stubborne Deniers of truth consequently secure inough I grant that inuincible ignorance may excuse Disbelieuers as such from sinne yet it followeth not that continuall and finall disbeliefe though inuincible can consist with grace necessary to Saluation but this I dispute not nor against these but against such as do or may discern a difference betweene beliefe disbeliefe and who may see that the grounds of beliefe are at least probable the practice harmeles who finally know damnation to be denounced vpon disbelieuers notwithstanding aduenture vpon the denying part moued only by the same reasons which they must suppose in confessed Heretiques Let any one define what disbelieuer may be guilty of damnation he shall find thereby that either he shall condemne these Disbelieuers I speake of or els conclude that there neuer haue been any 39. Some againe may say if the beliefe be supposed only probably true then the denial is also supposed probable I suppose neither probability in the negatiue part nor only probability in the beliefe but shunning this dispute as endles only out of the vndeniable probability for the beliefe and the security therof I conuince the danger of the denial 40. But it may be replyed that at least the Disbelieuer by this Discourse iudging the beliefe but probable may also iudge his owne probable and consequently his danger also but probable I answer that notwithstanding the Disbelieuer thinke his opinion probable he cannot iudge his danger only probable For as probability in the Belieuer where no hurt appeares freeth him certainly from danger so the probability only which the Disbeliener supposeth leaueth him in certaine danger of disbelieuing what Christ hath reuealed first because his danger is certaine in the same degree as the beliefe is probable but the beliefe is certainly probable at the least in respect of the great authority of the belieuers therfore the Disbelieuers danger is also certaine though he conceiue a probability of his disbeliefe Secondly because the disbeliefe is as certainly daÌ„gerous as it is certainly not euident and more euidence is required to free the disbeliefe from danger then is necessary to free the beliefe this though it were too much contayning no hurt but the Dis-belieuers doctrine is certainly not euideÌ„t therefore it is certainly dangerous The first proposition is cleere for if there be not euidency for the disbeliefe the contrary â—hen may be true consequently obliâ—ing to beliefe The second Proposition â—hat the Disbelieuers doctrine is not eâ—ident appeareth by the nouelty inâ—onstancy disagreements and other circumstances incident to it as also by â—he ouerswaying authority of the Belieâ—ers who want not any thing necessariâ—y required to a probability at least as â—y reflexion any one may obserue neiâ—â—her can the want of euidency in the Articles denied warrant the Disbelieâ—ers els who could belieue or rather who could be charged of heresy WheÌ„ce â—he last Consequence of the Reply is â—alse for thogh to some their disbeliefe nay seeme probable out of a probable â—udgment that Christ deliuered not such words or in such a sense yet their â—anger is certaine because the contrary â—eliefe is certainly probable at least which may conuince them that they â—eaue the secure beliefe wherein there can be no danger and choose that pâ—â— whereon Christ's denunciation 〈◊〉 fall Nor may this argument be retortâ— against Belieuers though their doctriâ— be supposed but probable because their Beliefe there is contayned 〈◊〉 harme or danger as in the disbelieueâ— and danger knowne breedeth an obâ—â—gation of further inquiry remoueâ— all ignorance which only can excuse â—â—rour in beliefe 51. Againe it may be replyed that aâ— this hindereth not but that Disbelâ—uers may conceiue their disbeliefe prâ—bable consequently at least not impuâ—â—ble to sinne and therefore free froâ— danger I answere that if a man coâ—ceiue his disbeliefe probable he haâ—â— reason iustly to doubt especially if hâ—â— probability arise out of apprehensioâ— of probability in the contrary belieâ—â— which alone maketh the disbeliefe daâ—gerous in practice as if a man shouâ—â— probably thinke Baptisme not necessâ—â—ry for infants he may not neglect 〈◊〉 since in this the danger is apparent bâ— case inuincibly he conceiue his opiâ—on true I medle not as impertinent this purpose and a metaphysicall case â—mongst vnderstanding men 52. If it be asked what degree of proâ—ability Belieuers may be conceiued to â—aue I answer that as great as can be â—or any thing They haue Scripture Tradition Consent of Nations reason â—euer cleerely disproued as it is euident â—ince in numerable dayly answer all obâ—ections made against them or let any body set downe what is sufficient to make an opinion apparently probable that he shall cleerly finde in the doctrine of Belieuers 53. But Disbelieuers will say that they belieue in God's word and deny only what they find not contayned in it This is not in question and who will not belieue God's word The Diuels as S. Iames witnesseth belieue and tremble the question is whether they disbelieue nothing or by their denials put not themselues in danger of denying what is sufficiently deliuered as God's word forging or reiecting it accord 〈◊〉 to the Touchstone of their fancy Nâ—ther is it in question whether what 〈◊〉 mighty God hath reuealed in Scriptâ— ought to be belieued but what God haâ—â— reuealed and this is not only the wriâ—ten word but the sense