Selected quad for the lemma: heart_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heart_n	believe_v	church_n	faith_n	2,796	5	5.5262	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15733	An ansvvere to a popish pamphlet, of late newly forbished, and the second time printed, entituled: Certaine articles, or forcible reasons discouering the palpable absurdities, and most notorious errors of the Protestants religion. By Anthony Wotton	Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626.; Wright, Thomas, d. 1624. Certaine articles or forcible reasons.	1605 (1605)	STC 26002; ESTC S120304	112,048	194

his substance of his father and it implyeth contradiction that the sonne receaueth his person of his father and not his substance and essence for the substance of God is essentiall to euery person in Trinity * 5. N. Finally they deny the Descension of Christ into Hell desperately defend that he suffered the paines of Hell vpon the crosse whereby they blaspheme most horribly that sacred humanitie as if christ had despaired of his saluation as if God had hated him and he hated God as if he had bin afflicted tormented with anguish of minde for his offences for which he was depriued of the sight of God eternally to be depriued all which horrible punishments a●● included in the paines of hel † Isai 66. v. 24. Mar. 9. 48. Mat. 25. v. 41. whosoeuer ascribeth them to Christ blasphemeth more horribly then Arrius who denied him to be God for lesse absurditie it were to deny him to be God then to make God the enemy of God Protestant How you haue proued that the ground of our beliefe is A. not the authority of the scripture of Councills of Doctors or of the Church let them iudge that haue weighed your accusation against my defence And yet for the last three wee neuer ment to striue For we build our faith vpon no authoririty but that of the scripture Councills Doctors we reuerence vse as special helpes for the vnderstanding of scripture but authority ouer our faith we giue to none but the holy Ghost the author of scripture Your reasō to proue we know not what we beleeue is this B. They that haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not know not what they beleeue But the Protestants haue no rule whereby to know what is matter of faith and what is not Ergo the Protestants know not what they beleeue He may truly be said not to know what he beleeues that To the Proposition either is ignorant of the particular points he holdes or at least vnderstands them not such as all vnlearned Papists are by th●ir fides implicitae their Colliers faith which teaches them to beleeue as the Church doth but neuer instructs them either in al the seuerall matters of beleefe or in the vnderstanding of those which they know the Church maintaines And therefore euery vnlearned Papist beleeues he knowes not what But there is no reason why a man should be said not to know what he beleeues because he hath no rule to know what is matter of faith it may come to passe hereby that he shal beleeue somthing that is not to be beleeued or not beleeue somthing that is to be beleeued but that he should not know what he beleeues by this reason it cannot be proued But the Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith No more then Lawyers haue to know what is Law I To the assumption maruaile to what vse these men thinke the Scriptures serue Dauid made accompt that the Scriptures which the Church then had were a perfect direction to al men both for beleife and practise And can we now want a rule when it hath pleased God to adde twice so much vnto the Scriptures as then was written Assuredly they that haue the Scriptures cannot want a Rule to know what is matter of faith though by abusing the Rule they may take that for matter of faith which is not C. They that extend the sphere of their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not But some Protestants extend the sphere of their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe c. Therefore the Protestants haue no rule to know c. Either your syllogisme is false if the conclusion be general or else it concludes only thus much that some Protestants haue no rule to know what is matter of faith what is not If you will make your Assumption generall it is false because you confesse afterwards that some Protestants limit their faith by the Creed as being a diuers rule from the scripture I deny your Proposition as iniurious to the scripture by laying vpon it an imputation of insufficiencie concerning matters of faith They that extend the sphere of their faith say you no further then all damned Heretikes that beleeue the scripture haue no rule to know what is matter of faith But they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God extend it no further then all damned Heretikes that beleeue the scripture Therfore they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know what is matter of faith The proposition is false for all such Heretikes haue the true rule to know what is matter of faith though ignorantly or maliciously they abuse it to the defence of heresie But some Protestants extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set down in holy writ Not only some but all Protestants acknowledg the sufficiency of the scripture in matter of faith holding themselues not bound to beleeue any point of religion that cannot be warranted out of the Scripture either expresly or by necessary consequence They that haue no rule say you to know that the song of Solomon is Gods word and that as such an one it ought to be beleeued by faith haue no rule to know what is matter of faith and what is not But they that extend their faith solely and wholly to the word of God set downe in holy writ haue no rule to know that the song of Solomon is Gods word Therefore they that extende their faith solely and wholly to the word of God haue no rule to know what is matter of Faith This Proposition may proue that they haue not a sufficient rule but not that they haue no rule I deny your assumption For they that rest onely vpon the scripture as the ground of faith are not barred of the testimony of the spirit in matters that must needes be held for the warranting of the scriptures The first motiue to the taking of that booke for the word of God is the constant iudgement of the Iewish church before Christ and the generall approbation thereof by the christian church since The certaine perswasion of this beleefe comes from the s●irit of God seconding this outward testimony of men by his owne witnesse in our hearts If this seeme an inconuenience to any man I intreat him to consider what rule the Papists haue in this case The authority of the Church they will say But what rule haue I to know whether it be a matter of faith or not to beleeue that whatsoeuer the church saith is a matter of faith is so indeed Wil you appeale to the scripture what rule haue you to know that this is scripture The voice of

part of the question that it may gaine-say the former Example If the Protestants haue any faith the world was without faith Art 1. par 1. 1500. yeares But the world was not without faith 1500. yeares Therefore the Protestants haue no faith This Papist affirmes that the Protestants haue no faith to proue it he brings this argument that the world was not without faith 1500. yeares The Syllogisme is of the later kind because the latter part of the proposition is gainesaid in the assumption and the former in the conclusion A Disiunctiue Syllogisme is when the Proposition is Disiunctiue whereof also there are two kinds The former gainsayes one and concludes the rest Example All Protestants build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition Art 2. par 1. of the scripture or vpon the Churches exposition But they build not vpon the Churches exposition Therefore they build vpon their owne priuate exposition The point is that the Protestants build their faith vpon their owne priuate exposition of scripture the proofe is that they build it not vpon the Churches exposition The Syllogisme is of the former kinde because in the proposition the one part is seuered from the other the one whereof is gainesaid in the assumption and the other affirmed in the conclusion The Latter when all parts of the Proposition being affirmatiue one is assumed and the rest gainesaid It is hard to finde examples of this latter kinde but I will frame one thus Example The Pope builds his faith either vpon his owne singular exposition or vpon the Churches But he doth build vpon his owne exposition Therefore not vpon the Churches To proue that the Pope builds not his faith vpon the Churches exposition I alledge this argument he builds vpon his owne My Syllogisme is of the second kinde because the proposition being wholy affirmatiue assumes the one and gainesayes the other It was very necessary that I should deliuer the Rules of a Syllogisme because without them my course of answering cannot be throughly vnderstood If they seeme hard to any man a little paines and vse will make them easye and pleasant His request of breuity I haue satisfied as neere as I could It is easier to tye a knot then to vntye it and one man hath greater dexterity in vttering shortly that which he hath conceiued then another For my part I had rather any man had answered that can do it with shortnesse then my selfe rather my selfe then no body but I hope this Papist will stand to his owne ground in his Preface and since he holds it hard or impossible to reply without prolixitie where there is no truth nor verity he will acknowledge truth where he cannot but acknowledge shortnesse His threatnings and reproches I doe willingly and wittingly passe ouer as the heate of an angry disputer and withall I protest to him and all men that I haue answered according to my small skill briefly orderly and seriously not least I should seeme ignorant by silence in saying nothing as he presumes in the end of his letter but as I thinke and beleeue in my conscience For what am I the meanest of many and most vnknowne not to the Papists only but to our owne Church also that I should feare the suspition of ignorance by silence when so many famous diuines sit still and say nothing If he that hath answered the first part had thought it worth his paines and found leasure to refute the second I cannot say I should haue wholie saued my labour for it is not vnknowne to some that I had finished all the 12. before his answere to the fiue first came forth but sure I should haue beene eased of some paines which I haue taken since especially in writing the abridgement and auoyded all danger of further trouble But the Lord who hath giuen me strength and will to dispatch this will I doubt not assist me in the defence of his trueth for euer To whose gracious blessing I commend the successe of this and all other my indeuours in Iesus Christ our Lord and onely Sauiour Amen THE FIRST ARTICLE concerning Knowledge and Faith THe Protestants haue no faith nor religion Answere For the better vnderstanding of this Article we are to know that the question is not Whether the Protestants haue any faith or Religion in their hearts but whether they make profession of any by their doctrine Papist The Protestants haue no faith no hope no charitie no A. Conclusion repentance no iustification no Church no Altar no Sacrifice no Priest no religion no Christ The reason is for if they haue then the world was without B. Proposition them for 1000. yeares as they themselues must needes confesse videl All that time their Church was eclipsed or for 1500. as we will proue by the testimony of all records of antiquity as Histories Councels monuments of ancient fathers Whereby it plainly appeareth that the Synagogue of C. Proofe of the Assumption Propositiō the Iewes was more constant in continuance and more ample for place then the Church of Christ for they haue had their synagogue visible in diuers countries euer since Christs death and passion euen vntill this day Which is the very path to lead men into Athiesme as D. Proofe of the Assumption a Isai 60. 11. b Mat. 16. 18. c Mat. 28. 20. though Christ were as yet not come into the world whose admirable promises are not accomplished whose assistance hath failed in preseruing his Church vnto the worldes end whose presence was absent many hundred yeares before the consummation and consequently they open the gap to all Machiuillians who say that our Sauiour was one of the deceiuers of the world promising so much concerning his Church and performing so little Protestant How can it be truely said that the Protestants haue no A. faith no hope no charitie no repentance no iustification no church no altar no sacrifice no Priest no religion no Christ when as they acknowledge Iesus Christ the naturall sonne of God and of the blessed Virgin Mary to be the Redeemer of mankind their Altar Sacrifice and Priest when as they beleeue in him for saluation both of soule and body If he meane we beleeue not these points truely and so haue them not in trueth true charitie should haue perswaded him to speake plainely and not to make no difference betweene Protestants Mahometans and Infidels It is at the best rather hyperbolicall Rhetorick then Logicall diuinitie whereof there is promise and shew made in this treatise To this figure belongs the heaping vp of all those particulars no faith no hope c. whereas the two points set downe in the title being proued all the rest must needs follow yet this shift is not the worst For besides this he mingles trueth and falshood together Altar Sacrifice propitiatorie and Priest except Christ himselfe we professe we haue none but what doth Chaffe with Wheate saue onely that

euen of as many as are indeed true Christians according to the practise of our doctrine But to come neerer to the point we are to vnderstand that the Protestants Doctrine of free wil is that no man hath power by nature either without the grace of Gods spirit to do any thing acceptable vnto God or to procure this grace to himselfe or to receaue it when it is offered For our present purpose it shal be ynough to speake a word or two of the last point not by way of proofe but declaration Whereas then we deny a man po●er to receaue the grace of God being offred we do not meane that this grace workes vpon him as on a stone or block but as on a reasonable creature No man beleeues but willingly onely the question is how it comes to pasle that when two men haue grace offred them the one beleeues the other doth n●t The Papist in this case fetcheth the difference fr● the good vse of his free will that beleeues we ascribe it to the diuers working of Gods spirit in his heart not denying that he vseth his free will to speake as they doe better then the other but acknowledging that therefore he so vseth it because the spirit of God teacheth and inclines and ineuitably brings him so to vse it that the difference may be from God and not from man To what end saith he tends this doctrine If it be possible that any man should be so blinde as not to see I will venture the losse of so much time and labour as may serue to shew him You aske vs why we say that men are saued by Gods grace not by their owne freewill Forsooth because we would haue God reape the glory of their saluation the pride of mans nature beaten down thē more beholding to God then to themselues None of which can be if a man by his owne free will make difference betwixt himselfe and another to the receauing of faith For he may truly say to God that he is no more beholding to him then many a one that is euerlastingly damned nay then euery one might haue bene if he would For what did God for him that he was not as ready to doe for another how many haue had as much grace offred them as he and yet are not iustified No more had he bene if he had not by his owne free-will helpt himselfe in speciall maner wheras God failed him leauing all to his choise to be saued or not to be saued Is this to teach carnall libertie you will say yea because it maketh a man negligent in disposing and preparing his soule How so for the difference is made by God What then to what purpose is it forme to prepare my selfe I maruell you aske not to what purpose it is for you to beleeue Are you yet to learne that although the cause of all goodnesse be grace yet God requires our endeuours as meanes to the receauing of this grace Did you neuer heare that we holde it for a monstrous absurditie to promise our selues any thing from God without vsing the meanes to obtaine it The same also I answere to the doing of good workes after sanctification the successe and euent proceeds onely and certainly from the spirit of God who Phil. 2. 13. workes in vs both to will and to doe Yet are we bound to vse all good meanes for the stirring our selues vp to holynesse and freely and willingly doe we whatsoeuer good worke we do by the grace of Gods spirit Therefore this similitude of the sicke Asse sheweth the Authors dangerous sicknesse eyther of ignorance if he know not the truth we holde or of malice if against this knowledge he wilfully peruert it They defend say you that men are iustified by faith alone That is we defend that God requireth nothing of man to his iustification but only that by faith he rest vpon Iesus Christ to be iustified by his suffrings The generall ground of this opinion is the end of all things created viz. the glory of God that man may haue nothing to boast of but simply ascribe the praise of his iustification to God that iustified him Neither doth this doctrine scorne God in reiecting it as much as you list eyther flatly ouerthrow or in any part diminish true repentance sorrowe for sinnes mortification of passions and all other vertues which will plainely appeare both before and after iustification for what though we be iustified onely by faith who knowes not that it is vnpossible for any man ordinarily to cast of this naturall and Popish confidence which he hath in his owne righteousnesse and to feele necessitie of being iustified by Christ If first he discerne not his damnable estate and being moued with horror thereof she from himselfe to Christ for iustification by pardon of sinne Now after a man is iustified can the knowledge of the meanes by which he is iustified kill these vertues in him Let the meanes and cause of his iustification be what you will If he may beleeue he is iustified and the Papists graunt some men haue knowne and more may know it at least by reuelation by your reason this effect must ensue So that it ariseth not from the doctrine of the meanes but from that of knowledge or assurance But how should these vertues be abolisht by iustification by faith only when as euerie man that is iustified is also sanctified Whosoeuer hath his sinnes forgiuen him hath withall the power of sinne abated in him How shall we that are dead Rom. 6. 2. to sinne liue any longer therein No man hath any incouragement by free iustification through faith to continue in sinne For if he be not sanctified he is not iustified If he be sanctified he is dead to sinne and aliue to righteousnesse True it is that prophane wretches will obiect against the Gospell now as they did in the Apostles time But this was not then nor is now any sufficient reason why the truth of God should be denyed or supprest for wicked mens abusing it to their owne damnation Yet perhaps you will reply that it is a more likly meanes to stir mē vp to repentance mortification and the practise of all vertues to teach them that they must deserue the first iustification of congruitie by their good preparation and fully make vp the measure of their second iustification by deseruing of condignitie for their good workes euerlasting life First let vs suppose it be likely in our corrupt iudgment yet may we not gratifie God with a lye nor doe euill that good may come of it And why should not we follow the practise of the Apostles whose course is in all their Epistles still to vrge grace in iustification and good workes for thankfulnesse not for merit yet we deny not but it is both warranted by the Scriptures and most conuenient to adde an edge to the workes of sanctification by threatning condemnation to sinners and promising reward to the