Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	apostle_n	holy_a	scripture_n	6,970	5	5.7262	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A71013	Origo protestantium, or, An answer to a popish manuscript (of N.N.'s.) that would fain make the Protestant Catholick religion bear date at the very time when the Roman popish commenced in the world wherein Protestancy is demonstrated to be elder than popery : to which is added, a Jesuits letter with the answer thereunto annexed / by John Shaw ...	Shaw, John, 1614-1689.; N. N.	1677 (1677)	Wing S3032C; ESTC R20039	119,193	138

he had been a Rebel and a Traitor and therefore deserved not the Honour of Martyrdom whereupon they procured the Kings Injunction to blot out his name out of all Publick Prayers Hours and Missals to demolish his Shrine and Picture Erected at Canterbury and strictly forbad any to call him (h) Hist Conc. Trent fol. 87. Saint and Martyr Other Pontificians there be who although they resolve the Pope may err in matters of Fact yet will not endure to hear that he can err in his Canonizations which is very strange because the inerrability of his Canonizations depends wholly or chiefly on matters of Fact but their Reason is remarkable which is this for (i) Particularly Catherinus advers nova dogm Cajet p. 125. say they if any one Saint Canonized by the Pope may be called in question then all the Saints which have been or shall be Canonized by the Pope may be doubted of and then no man can invocate or worship them without peril of Idolatry Then let Cajetan and Canus be taken at their words that the Popes Canonization is subject to Error and thank we Catherinus and Bell for their inference and conclude from both laid together that because many Canonized by the Pope have been doubted of as Tho. Becket St. Francis St. Dominick St. Ignatius Loiola and Father Henry Garnet c. therefore all the Pope hath Canonized may be doubted of and therefore none of them can be Invocated without peril of Idolatry But then how comes the Invocation of a doubted Saint to be Idolatry this cannot be unless the Invocation of all Saints be Latria for Doulia as it is by the Romanists contradistinguished to Latria is not contradictorily opposed to Idolatry Latria is for as Latria imports the Honour proper to God only so Idolatry consists in the exhibition of that Honour to that which is not God but Doulia according to them is not part of Religious Worship due only to God and therefore the erroneous Supplicant who pays this Homage of Doulia to a doubted Saint instead of an undoubted one which doubted Saint he believes a real one may fall under the censure of Folly Rashness or Errour but the well meaning Petitioner in this case who makes his addresses to a mistaken Advocate and with relative Worship only according to their Principles cannot lie under the guilt of Idolatry because in their account the conception and intention abates it and to attribute Doulia or Relative Worship is not Idolatry if it be the Sin lies at their doors who confessedly Practice it To Conclude It is therefore the most prudent and profitable course to follow the advice which the Holy Martyr St. (k) Ep. ad Philadelph Ignatius gave to the Virgins of his time and by consequence to all who profess the name of Christ viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O ye Virgins have Christ alone in your eyes and his Father in your Prayers being enlightned by the Spirit which in effect is an exhortation to all who are Baptized according to the form of the Institution for being enlightned and being Baptized are still Synonyma's both in Scripture and Primitive Antiquity and therefore the advice concerns all Christians as well as those Virgins and so Epiph. 79 Haeres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore Glory be to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost three Persons one God For thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory for ever and ever AMEN Lact. lib. 4. de Vir. Sap. c. 22. Quanquam apud bonos Judices satis habeant firmitatis vel Testimonia sine Argumentis vel Argumenta sine Testimoniis nos tamen non contenti alterutro sumus cum suppeditet nobis utrumque nè cui perversè ingenioso aut non intelligendi aut contra disserendi locum relinquamus Aug. de Trin. l. 4. c. 6 Contra rationem nemo sobrius contra Scripturas nemo Christianus contra Ecclesiam nemo pacificus senserit THE JESUITS LETTER Hon. c. THere have been many Discourses betwixt us for matter of Religion wherein little profit did accrue in regard of my inabilities having to deal with a person of your Knowledg and Parts so fully accomplished and fraught with Arguments But seeing the true Religion is the sole mark we ought to aim at the disquisition thereof cannot be too much searched and I am confident you wish and desire my eternal good and in the integrity of my heart I wish the same to you wherefore I shall only desire to receive solution to two Questions and I shall totally decline to scruple all others the Questions are these 1. To nominate the Professors of the Protestant Faith successively since the Apostles 2. To evidence that the English Clergy hath a lawful Mission for it is said No man taketh this Honour upon him but he that was called and Faith cometh by hearing The holy Scripture doth fully express that upon the Walls of Jerusalem Watch-men should be day and night for ever that the Word should not depart out of the mouth of his Seed for ever our Blessed Saviour saith Go tell the Church and that he would be with them to the end of the World which is not verified unless there were such persons in the World Answer to the first Question 1. IS it not sufficient Protestants prove their Faith Apostolical from the Monuments and Records of the Apostles were not the Apostles assisted by the HOLY SPIRIT in an higher manner and measure than any of their Successors can pretend to did not they deliver the whole will of GOD by their Preaching while they lived and by their Writings for ever and are not their Writings as clear and comprehensive and more authentical than any of those of the following Pastors and Doctors are not the Decrees of Councils and Works of the Fathers as liable if not more to fraud and forgery to misinterpretations and wrestings as the holy Scriptures Is there any Record or Writing extant which can equally pretend to Apostolical and Original Tradition or hath such an universal and constant attestation as the HOLY BIBLE I conceive the Apostolical Writings are the best evidences of Apostolical Doctrine and in causes of Religion judg them Criminals who decline a Trial by them but since this way of Probation will not please you a shrewd suspition all is not right with you I add further 2. Supposing not granting Protestants were not able to nominate the successive Professors of their Faith since the Apostles would this conclude them Hereticks and their Faith not Apostolical no sure for suppose we one Philosopher to hold all the opinions of Plato another those of Aristotle would you determine the one not to be a Platonist the other not an Aristotelian because neither of them could present you with a list and line of successive Academicks and Peripateticks this among Philosophers would be adjudged irrational But where hath Christ or his Apostles

distance that he would pray for him because he knows it is impossible he should hear him nor can it be supposed that any man though standing by can know the Heart of men when they utter nothing with their Tongue to interpret it In sum no man ever directed his mental Prayers to another nor his vocal to another as far distant from him as London is from Rome But to return then to acknowledg such an excellency in the Celestial Creatures as to apprehend the mental Prayers of mortal men or the sincerity of their vocal either by their original Power or by any derivative as it is an Irrational conceit in it self there being no reason to warrant it nor ground of reason to countenance it so it is injurious to God 1. It is Injurious to God in respect of his Omniscience for he even he only knoweth all the hearts of the Children of men 1 Reg. 3.39 and this both collectively and distributively and this also with reference to their Prayers and Supplications v. 38. both their publick and private Prayers both mental the cries of the Heart and vocal expressed in Words to which the truth of the Heart for God requireth truth in the inward Parts and will be Worshiped in Spirit and truth with activity and sincerity must be adjoyned to make it an holy acceptable reasonable service of God and then both kinds are only to be presented to him because he only knoweth the Heart when the mind is secretly elevated to God and the truth of the Heart when it is notified by Words because he only knoweth whether there be an Act of Conformity betwixt the Words and the Heart I the Lord search the Heart I try the Reins Jer. 17.10 challenging thereby this priviledg as a peculiar to himfelf neither will their futerfuge any way clear them viz. that God only naturally knoweth the Heart of the Petitioner but Angels and Saints departed by a derivative Power having it communicated to them either by way of Revelation from God looking upon him as a voluntary Glass who makes the Prayers of Supplicants known to them when he pleaseth or by the Vision of God looking upon him as a Natural Glass that reveals all that God knows without any choice or act of his Will for these are frivolous suggestions having neither Reason nor Revelation to support them for it without all ground limits a proposition which in the Scripture is delivered in universal terms and to admit such limitations of universal propositions without great evidence that the nature of the subject requires them or that such from other places of the Scripture may be deduced and inferred is Irrational because the proposition would not be absolutely true but true only with a restriction but the vanity of these speculations vvill further appear by these Considerations 1. The Romanists themselves cannot agree which of these ways they propose are to be taken and dispute them by multiplicity of Questions as whether God immediately by himself give the Blessed Spirits the knowledg of our Prayers or by the Ministry of others if by others then whether by the Angels that attend us or the Spirits of just men that go from hence and inform the Saints in Heaven what our Prayers are if immediately by himself then whether directly and formally seeing in him what is in the Creature and if so then whether instantly upon their Glorification and admission into Heaven or successively seeing by virtue of his Vision one thing after another in the Creature or only accidentally that is God lets them know our Prayers so far forth as it pleaseth him by his peculiar will to notify unto them because God is a free Agent respectu omnis actionis ad extra In respect of every external action And further they which pitch upon any of these ways take them only for the more probable and it is somewhat odd to found an Article of Faith and a Catholick profitable Duty upon such unprovable speculations and it is very hard to believe that the seeming Opinions of men brought in with Ifs and And 's and Metaphysical niceties can be of sufficient strength to support an Article of Faith or commend a Catholick profitable Practice 2. This is certain the one way destroys the other If by Vision then not by Revelation if By Revelation then not by Vision if the Natural Glass will serve the Voluntary is needless if the Voluntary be required then the Natural doth not do the work for God in their opinion doth not multiply forms without necessity nor doth any thing frustraneously but God doth not impart the knowledg of our Prayers either the one great way or the other 1. Not by Revelation for confessedly there is no Revelation unless a Legendary will pass currant or some ostensions as they call them may be allowed for this conceit that the Blessed Spirits know our Prayers and Hearts by Revelation 2. The poor Petitioner must be at a loss and stand if this way be supposed because he cannot be assured that God is pleased to reveal his Prayers to them and he is sure if God do not they can take no notice or cognisance of them and so their Prayers become fruitless and unprofitable because he knoweth not whether God will reveal his Prayers and if he do how far 3. How can they be proper Mediators for men who cannot know what men desire of them without the Mediation and interposition of another viz. God and why should we be perswaded to go thus about when we may go streight forward to God and his Son Jesus who needs no Mediator to inform him 4. What a strange circular motion must be observed in following this way first the Petitioner must make his suit to Angels and Saints then God must reveal them and their contents to the Angels or Saints if he please or else they are for ever ignorant of them then the Angels and Saints must back again and present them to God but if the Petitioner mistake his Angel Guardian or Tutelar Saint as very likely he may then it is to be doubted whether the Angel or Saint will own the Client though God should reveal his Prayer 2. Not by virtue of the Beatifical-Vision the other supposed way For 1. The Scripture saith No man knoweth the things of God the purposes and thoughts but the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2.11 which the Apostle inferreth from this reason and ground the secrets of the Heart of man no man knows but the Spirit of of man which is in him upon which he concludes therefore none knows the things of God but the Spirit of God and therefore neither Angels nor Saints though they enjoy the Beatifical Vision which doth not confer on them the knowledg of the things of God for this we know that the Angels did not know the Mysteries of the Gospel those great things of God till made known to them by the Church Eph. 2.10 1 Pet. 1.12 2. The Angels and Saints