Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	church_n	prove_v	truth_n	1,717	5	6.1955	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59903	A vindication of the Brief discourse concerning the notes of the church in answer to a late pamphlet entituled, The use and great moment of the notes of the church, as delivered by Cardinal Bellarmin, De notis ecclesiae, justified ...; De notis ecclesiae	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1687 (1687)	Wing S3374; ESTC R18869	41,299	72

like it They I confess will be in danger of a very fatal Stumble if they stumble either upon Scripture or Antiquity but we dare venture both Let them but grant that true Faith is the Note of a true Church and we will refer the Trial of our Faith to Scripture and Antiquity when they please Tho Cardinal Bellarmin had so much Wit as not to refer the Trial of the Churches Faith to Scripture I added That when we give Notes which belong to a whole Species as we must do when we give the Notes of a true Christian Church we must give such Notes as belong to the whole kind that is to all true Christian Churches And though these Notes are common indeed to all true Christian Churches yet they are proper and peculiar to a true Christian Church As the essential Properties of a Man are common to all Men but proper to Mankind and this is necessary to make them true Notes for such Notes of a Church as do not fit all true Churches cannot be true Notes But this which is the true Answer to Bellarmine's Argument he wisely drops As for what the Cardinal urges that all Sorts of Christians think themselves to have the True Faith and True Sacraments I answered I am apt to think they do but what then If they have not the True Faith and True Sacraments they are not True Churches whatever they think of it and yet the True Faith and True Sacraments are certain Notes of the True Church A Purchase upon a bad Title which a Man thinks a good one is not a good Estate but yet a Purchase upon a Title which is not only thought to be but is a good one is a good Estate To this he answers This is the same Error again for a good Title I hope is essential 't is no Note of a good Estate Oh the Wit of some Disputers What other Note is there of a good Estate but a good Title But he says there are other Notes which lead to the Discovery of a good Title what then they are the Notes of the Title not of the Estate they prove a good Title and a good Title makes a good Estate And yet that the Land be not praeengaged be free from all Incumbrances that there be no flaw in the Demise I take to be essential to a good Title and therefore according to our Authors Logick cannot be Notes neither But what is all this to the purpose Bellarmin proves That the true Faith cannot be the Note of a true Church because all Sects of Christians pretend to it I answer that though those who pretend to the true Faith and have it not are not true Churches yet those who have the true Faith are true Churches As a Purchase upon a bad Title which a Man thinks a good one is not a good Estate but yet a Purchase upon a good Title is a good Estate To this the Justifier of Bellarmin answers That a good Title is essential and therefore is no Note of a good Estate Whereas the Dispute here is not about essential or extra-essential Notes but whether the true Faith cannot be a Note of the true Church because some Men pretend to the true Faith who have it not But want of Understanding is necessary to make some Men Answerers of Books which Men of Understanding know they cannot answer The Cardinal 's second Objection against the Protestant Notes of a Church is That the Notes of any thing must be more known than the thing it self this I granted Now says he which is the true Church is more knowable than which is the true Faith and this I denied for this plain reason because the true Church cannot be known without knowing the true Faith For no Church is a true Church which does not profess the true Faith. Now says our Answerer This being denied we prove it thus c. Pag. 15. But methinks he should first have answered the Argument before he had gone to proving but that it seems is not his Talent Well but how does he prove that the true Church may be known before we know the true Faith Admirably I assure you If the Church be the Pillar of Truth raised up aloft that it may be conspicuous to all Men it must be more manifest than the Truth This Pillar raised aloft is a new Notion which I suppose he learnt from the Monument at London-Bridg which indeed is very visible but other wiser Writers by the Pillar and Ground of Truth prove that the Church is the Foundation whereon Truth is built but that would not serve his purpose to make the Church more visible than the Truth for he knows that the Foundation is not so visible as that which is built on it And in the next Page he honestly confesses that the true Faith is the Foundation of the Church and therefore proves that the true Church cannot be known by the true Faith for that is as if I should say I cannot know the House unless I see the Foundation the next way to overturn it So dangerous a thing are Metaphors which prove backward and forward as a Man fancies But let the Church be a Pillar raised aloft or a Foundation-Pillar or what Pillar he pleases must not we know the Church before we know it to be a Pillar of Truth Or can we know which Church is the Pillar of Truth before we know what Truth is Well! But let us now look to our selves for he undertakes to demonstrate it The Fruits of the Spirit the Graces are more known than the Spirit it self Ergo the true Church must be known before the true Faith. The outward profession of Faith more than the inward profession Ergo The true Church must be known before the outward profession of the true Faith which makes a true Church The Concrete more than the Abstract the Believer than the Belief I can know the Men before I know their Faith Ergo the true Church must be known before the true Faith. He is a very hard-hearted Man who will not allow this for Demonstration but he is a very good-natured Man who will allow it to be Sense Well! But he has a Distinction that will do the Business Aliud notius nobis aliud natura i. e. Some things are more knowable in themselves and some things are more knowable to us But we are enquiring which is most knowable to us the true Faith or the true Church He grants then that True Faith being a Constituent of or essential to the Church may be said to be Naturâ notior first known in the Order of Nature But we would not have these Methods confounded For if Faith be essential 't is the less known to us for that very reason because the first Constituents of a Compound are last known except to the Maker 'T is more manifest to us that we are Flesh and Blood though God knows that we are Dust and Ashes How happy is the

the Scripture If they be why cannot an honest and diligent Reader understand that which is intelligible That all men do not agree about the Sense of Scripture in all points is no better argument to prove that the Scriptures are not intelligible than that Reason it self is not intelligible for all men do not agree about that neither Well but he will allow That honest Readers may arrive to the understanding of that part of Scripture which the light of nature suggests That we must not steal defraud we must do as we will be done by p. 19. But he little thinks what he hath done in granting this for then if the Church should expound Scripture against the light of Nature honest Readers may understand the Scripture otherwise and if the Church should be found tripping in such matters honest Readers might be apt to question her Infallibility in other cases for those who once mistake can never be Insallible And yet this light of Nature teaches a great many shrewd things and the Scripture teaches them too and therefore in these matters honest and diligent Readers may understand the Scriptures tho it be against the Exposition of the Church as That Divine Worship must be given to none but God That God who is an invisible Spirit must not be worshipped by material and visible Images That publick Prayers ought to be in a Language which is understood by the People That Marriage is honourable among all Men That Faith is to be kept with all Men That every Soul must be subject to the higher Powers That none can judicially forgive Sins but only God That to forgive Sin is not to punish it and therefore God does not punish for those Sins which he has wholly pardoned And other such like things are taught by the light of Nature as well as Scripture and we thank him heartily that he will give us leave to understand these things But he proceeds 'T is the Revelation part the Mysterious part which is properly called the holy Scripture which is not so perspicuous What are not the words perspicuous and intelligible To what purpose then were they writ Or is it the thing which is above our Comprehension but that does not hinder but we may understand what the Scripture teaches tho we do not fully comprehend it For I would know whether they fully comprehend the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation the Natures and Person of Christ which were the Subject of the Arian Nestorian and Eutychian Heresies when the Church teaches these things I suppose they will not say they do and yet they will own that they can understand what the Church teaches about them And then tho they cannot comprehend these mysteries yet they may as well understand what the Scripture as what the Church teaches about them Now saies our Author to say the Scripture is plain to every honest private Reader in these Arcana is to deny and cassate all Church History make Oecumenical Councils ridiculous run down all Synods and Convocations that ever were or shall be Why so I pray Does Church-History or Oecumenical Councils all Convocations and Synods declare That the Scriptures are not intelligible in these matters Or that a private honest diligent Reader cannot understand them How came they then to determine them for Articles of Faith by their own Authority or by the Authority of Scripture Should Synods and Convocations and Oecumenical Councils determine that for an Article of Faith which is not plain and intelligible in Scripture they were ridiculous indeed and there were an end of their Authority And here he appeals to the Testimonies produced by the Cardinal out of Irenoeus Tertullian and St. Augustin which have been so often answered already that I do not think it worth the while to engage with this Answerer about them let the Reader if he pleases consult some late Books to this purpose as that Learned Vindication of the Answer to the Royal Papers about Church Authority and the Pillar and ground of Truth But I cannot pass on without taking notice of his unanswerable Argument to prove That the Church of Rome understands St. Paul ' s Epistie to the Romans and by consequence the Articles of Iustification whether by Faith alone or Works better than all the Lay-Readers of the Reformation viz. because he can never be perswaded that any private man should understand an Epistle of St Paul better than the Church to which it was written How unworthy is it to opine the contrary And how silly is it to think that those must necessarily understand an Epistle best to whom it was written But if those Christians at Rome to whom St. Paul wrote for he takes no notice of any formed and setled Church there at the writing of his Epistle and therefore does not direct it to the Church as he does in other Epistles but to the Saints that are at Rome I say if those Christians might be supposed at that time when the state of the Controversy among them was generally known to understand this Epistle better than we can now yet what is this to the Church of Rome at sixteen hundred years distance However by this Rule we may understand all St. Paul's other Epistles as well as the Church of Rome and that will serve our purpose And yet methinks if the Churches to which the Epistles were sent are the only Authentick Expositors of such Epistles all those Churches to whom St. Paul wrote should have been preserved to this day to have expounded those Epistles to us and yet not one of them is now in being excepting the Church of Rome and therefore at least we must make what shift we can to expound them our selves for the Church of Rome can pretend no greater right in them than the Church of England And thus I came in the second place to consider the Cardinals use of Notes and found several faults with them 1. That he gives Notes to find out which is the true Church before we know what a true Church is whereas there are two Inquiries in order of nature before this viz. Whether there be a true Church or not and what it is And though the Cardinal takes it for granted that there is a Church I demanded a proof of it that they would give me some Notes whereby to prove that there is a true Church This demand amazes our Answerer and makes him cross himself and fall to his Beads Hear O Heavens and give ear O earth But this is a Devil that wo'nt be conjured down let him either give me some Notes to prove that there is a Church or tell me how I shall know it Yes that he will do for it is self-evident he saies that there is a Church p. 20. as it is that there is a Sun in the Firmament or else the Heathens could never see it But what do the Heathens see a Christian Church Do they then believe the Holy Catholick Church why then

being peculiar to it But as for what he says That Succession of Doctrine without Succession of Office is a poor Plea. I must needs tell him I think it is a much better Plea then Succession of Office without Succession of Doctrine For I am sure that is not a safe Communion where there is not a Succession of Apostolical Doctine but whether the want of a Succession of Bishops will in all Cases Unchurch will admit of a greater Dispute I am sure a true Faith in Christ with a true Gospel Conversation will save men and some Learned Romanists defend that old Definition of the Church that it is Caetus Fidelium the company of the Faithful and will not admit Bishops or Pastors into the Definition of a Church His seventh Note I own is home to his purpose That that is the only true Church which is united to the Bishop of Rome as to its Head. If he could prove this it must do his Business without any other Notes But it is like the Confidence of a Iesuit to make that the Note of the Church which is the chief Subject of the Dispute Very well says our Answerer so Irenaeus so St. Cyprian St. Ambrose St. Hierom Optatus St. Austin are answered for none of these can turn the Scale Nor did any of these Fathers ever say That the Bishop of Rome is the Head of the Church This is the Dispute still and will be the Dispute till the Church of Rome quit her absurd claims to it But he says We of the Church of England should consider that not above 100 years ago we communicated with the Apostolick See. And does that make the Church of Rome the Head of the Church But have we grounds enough for such a Breach as we have made It is ground enough sure to Renounce our Subjection to the Bishop of Rome if he have no right to claim it But Transubstantiation and the Worship of Images and Addresses to Saints he thinks very harmless things But the mischief is we do no think them so But this is not a place to dispute these matters His first Note concerning the name Catholick I observed makes every Church a Catholick Church which will call it self so And here he learnedly disputes about some indelible names which the providence of God orders to be so for great Ends. St. Paul directs his Epistle to the Romans i. e. he hopes to the Roman Catholicks p. 34. But a Roman Catholick was an unknown name in those days and many Ages after But at that time the world in the Apostles phrase was in Communion with her Where has the Apostle any such Phrase And yet we are now a disputing not about Catholick Communion but about the name Roman Catholick Church Whereas it does not appear that the Romans had at that time so much as the Name of the Church as I observed before and the very Name of the Catholick Church cannot be proved so Ancient as that time And her Faith being spoken of which he interprets her being admired throughout the whole World whatever it proves does not prove that She had then the Name of the Catholick Church He adds It is not without something of God that She keeps the name still But how does She keep it She will call her self Catholick when no Body else will allow her to be so and thus any Church may keep this Name which did Originally belong to all true Orthodox Churches As for Hereticks they have challenged the Name and kept it too among themselves as the Church of Rome does tho it belonged no more to them than it does to her His other indelible names of Times and Places he may make the best of he can But let all concerned in Black-fryars and Austin-fryars and the House of Chartreux which has so miraculously preserved its Name look to it for he seems to hope that these indelible Names are preserved for some good purpose I added The name Catholick does not declare what a Church is but in what Communion it is and is no Note of a true Church unless it be first proved that they are true Churches which are in Communion with each other For if three parts in four of all the Churches in the World were very corrupt and degenerate in Faith and Worship and were in one Communion this would be the most Catholick Communion as Catholick signifies the most General and Universal but yet the fourth part which is sincere would be the best and truest Church and the Catholick Church as that signifies the Communion of all Orthodox and pure Churches This Distinction of Catholick our Answerer likes well and says it does not hurt them for that case is yet to come viz. that the most corrupt Communion should be most Catholick or Universal but that was not the force of the Argument nor any part of it tho it may be it is too true but the Argument was this That the bare Name of Catholick cannot prove a Church to be a true Church because that does not relate to its Nature and Essence but to its Communion Now Catholick Communion signifies either the most universal Communion or the Communion only of pure and Orthodox Churches be their number more or less If we take it in the first Sense the most Catholick Communion may be the most corrupt for it may so happen that the greater number of Churches which are in Communion with each other may be very corrupt If we take it in the second Sense we must first know whether those Churches are Pure and Orthodox before we can tell whether they be Catholick Churches and therefore in both Senses the bare Name of Catholick cannot prove a Church to be a true Church for we must first know whether they be true as that signifies Pure and Orthodox Churches before we can know whether they be Catholick But he says It is not probable that God would spread such a Temptation and Stumbling-block before his own People yet if he should for Example sake have suffered Lutheranism or Cranmerism to have spread to such a measure the palpableness of the Schism would have been security perhaps sufficient to keep all prudent Persons where they were This is nothing to the present Argument as indeed it would be surprising to find him say any thing to the purpose but yet if the most Catholick Communion as that signifies the most Universal tho the Notes does not refer to Catholick Communion but to the name Catholick were a Note of the true Church it is not sufficient to say That it is probable that God will not suffer a corrupt Communion to be the most Universal but he must prove that God has promised this shall not be And if according to this Supposition Lutheranism or Cranmerism had prevailed three parts in four over the Church how could the palpableness of the Schism secure his prudent Man from the Infection for if three parts of the Church were divided from the