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	faith_n	righteousness_n	7,110	5	7.7520	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49714	A relation of the conference between William Laud, late Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite by the command of King James, of ever-blessed memory : with an answer to such exceptions as A.C. takes against it.	Laud, William, 1573-1645.; Fisher, John, 1569-1641.	1673 (1673)	Wing L594; ESTC R3539	402,023	294

that shall endeavour to shake the foundation it self upon which the whole Church is grounded Num. 11 Secondly If S. Augustine did mean by Founded and Foundation the definition of the Church because of these words This thing is founded this is made firm by full Authority of the Church and the words following these to shake the foundation of the Church yet it can never follow out of any or all these Circumstances and these are all That all points defined by the Church are fundamental in the Faith For first no man denies but the Church is a Foundation That things defined by it are founded upon it And yet hence it cannot follow That the thing that is so founded is Fundamental in the Faith For things may be founded upon Humane Authority and be very certain yet not Fundamental in the Faith Nor yet can it follow This thing is founded therefore every thing determined by the Church is founded Again that which follows That those things are not to be opposed which are made firm by full Authority of the Church cannot conclude they are therefore Fundamental in the Faith For full Church-Authority always the time that included the Holy Apostles being past by and not comprehended in it is but Church-Authority and Church-Authority when it is at Full Sea is not simply Divine therefore the Sentence of it not fundamental in the Faith And yet no erring Disputer may be indured to shake the foundation which the Church in Councel lays But plain Scripture with evident sense or a full demonstrative Argument must have room where a wrangling and erring Disputer may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these but may convince the Definition of the Councel if it be ill founded And the Articles of the Faith may easily prove it is not Fundamental if indeed and verily it be not so Num. 12 And I have read some-body that says is it not you That things are fundamental in the Faith two ways One in their Matter such as are all things which be so in themselves The other in the Manner such as are all things that the Church hath defined and determined to be of Faith And that so some things that are de modo of the manner of being are of Faith But in plain truth this is no more then if you should say Some things are fundamental in the Faith and some are not For wrangle while you will you shall never be able to prove that any thing which is but de modo a consideration of the manner of being only can possibly be fundamental in the Faith Num. 13 And since you make such a Foundation of this place I will a little view the Mortar with which it is laid by you It is a venture but I shall finde it untempered Your Assertion is All Points defined by the Church are fundamental Your proof this place Because that is not to be shaken which is setled by full Authority of the Church Then it seems your meaning is that this point there spoken of The remission of Original Sin in Baptism of Infants was defined when S. Augustine wrote this by a full Sentence of a General Councel First if you say it was Bellarmine will tell you it is false and that the Pelagian Heresie was never condemned in an Oecumenical Councel but only in Nationals But Bellarmine is deceived For while the Pelagians stood out impudently against National Councels some of them defended Nestorius which gave occasion to the first Ephesine Councel to Excommunicate and depose them And yet this will not serve your turn for this place For S. Augustine was then dead and therefore could not mean the Sentence of that Councel in this place Secondly if you say it was not then defined in an Oecumenical Synod Plena Authoritas Ecclesiae the full Authority of the Church there mentioned doth not stand properly for the Decree of an Oecumenical Councel but for some National as this was condemned in a National Councel And then the full Authority of the Church here is no more then the full Authority of the Church of Africk And I hope that Authority doth not make all Points defined by it to be fundamental You will say Yes if that Councel be confirmed by the Pope And then I must ever wonder why S. Augustine should say The full Authority of the Church and not bestow one word upon the Pope by whose Authority only that Councel as all other have their fulness of Authority in your Judgment An inexpiable Omission if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true Num. 14 But here A. C. steps in again to help the Jesuite and he tells us over and over again That all points made firm by full Authority of the Church are fundamental so firm he will have them and therefore fundamental But I must tell him That first 't is one thing in Nature and Religion too to be firm and another thing to be fundamental These two are not Convertible 'T is true that every thing that is fundamental is firm But it doth not follow that every thing that is firm is fundamental For many a Superstructure is exceeding firm being fast and close joyned to a sure foundation which yet no man will grant is fundamental Besides whatsoever is fundamental in the Faith is fundamental to the Church which is one by the unity of Faith Therefore if every thing defined by the Church be fundamental in the Faith then the Churches Desinition is the Churches foundation And so upon the matter the Church can lay her own foundation and then the Church must be in absolute and perfect Being before so much as her foundation is laid Now this is so absurd for any man of Learning to say that by and by after A. C. is content to affirm not only that the prima Credibilia the Articles of Faith but all which so pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Christian Faith as that thereby Christ doth dwell in our hearts c. is the foundation of the Church under Christ the Prime Foundation And here he 's out again For first all which pertains to Supernatural Divine and Infallible Christian Faith is not by and by fundamental in the Faith to all men And secondly the whole Discourse here is concerning Faith as it is taken Objectivè for the Object of Faith and thing to be believed but that Faith by which Christ is said to dwell in our hearts is taken Subjective for the Habit and Act of Faith Now to confound both these in one period of speech can have no other aim then to confound the Reader But to come closer both to the Jesuite and his Defender A. C. If all Points made firm by full Authority of the Church be fundamental then they must grant that every thing determined by the Councel of Trent is fundamental in the Faith For with them 't is firm and Catholike which that

whereas I said the Lady would far more easily be able to answer for her coming to Church than for her leaving the Church of England To this A. C. excepts and says That I neither prove nor can prove that it is lawful for one perswaded especially as the Lady was to go to the Protestant Church There 's a great deal of Cunning and as much Malice in this passage but I shall easily pluck the Sting out of the Tail of this Wisp And first I have proved it already through this whole Discourse and therefore can prove it That the Church of England is an Orthodox Church And therefore with the same labour it is proved that men may lawfully go unto it and communicate with it for so a man not onely may but ought to do with an Orthodox Church And a Romanist may communicate with the Church of England without any Offence in the Nature of the Thing thereby incurred But if his Conscience through mis-information check at it he should do well in that Case rather to inform his Conscience than forsake any Orthodox Church whatsoever Secondly A. C. tells me plainly That I cannot prove that a man so perswaded as the Lady was may go to the Protestant Church that is That a Romane Catholike may not go to the Protestant Church Why I never went about to prove that a Romane Catholike being and continuing such might against his Conscience go to the Protestant Church For these words A man perswaded as the Lady is are A. C's words they are not mine Mine are not simply that the Lady might or that she might not but Comparative they are That she might more easily answer to God for coming to than for going from the Church of England And that is every way most true For in this doubtful time of hers when upon my Reasons given she went again to Church when yet soon after as you say at least she was sorry for it I say at this time she was in heart and resolution a Romano Catholike or she was not If she were not as it seems by her doubting she was not then fully resolved then my speech is most true that she might more easily answer God for coming to Service in the Church of England than for leaving it For a Protestant she had been and for ought I knew at the end of this Conference so she was and then 't was no sin in it self to come to an Orthodox Church nor no sin against her Conscience she continuing a Protestant for ought which then appeared to me But if she then were a Romane Catholike as the Jesuite and A. C. seem confident she was yet my speech is true too For then she might more easily answer God for coming to the Church of England which is Orthodox and leaving the Church of Rome which is Superstitious than by leaving the Church of England communicate with all the Superstitions of Rome Now the cunning and the malignity of A. C. lies in this He would fain have the world think that I am so Indifferent in Religion as that I did maintain the Lady being conscientiously perswaded of the Truth of the Romish Doctrine might yet against both her conscience and against open and avowed profession come to the Protestant Church Num. 3 Nevertheless in hope his cunning Malice would not be discovered against this his own sence that is and not mine he brings divers Reasons As first 't is not lawful for one affected as that Lady was that is for one that is resolved of the Truth of the Romane Church to go to the Church of England there and in that manner to serve and worship God Because saith A. C. that were to halt on both sides to serve two Masters and to dissemble with God and the world Truly I say the same thing with him And that therefore neither may a Protestant that is resolved in Conscience that the profession of the true Faith is in the Church of England go to the Romish Church there and in that manner to serve and worship God Neither need I give other Answer because A. C. urges this against his own fiction not my assertion Yet since he will so do I shall give a particular Answer to each of them And to this first Reason of his I say thus That to Believe Religion after one sort and to practise it after another and that in the main points of worship the Sacrament and Invocation is to halt on both sides to serve two Masters and to dissemble with God and the world And other then this I never taught nor ever said that which might infer the Contrary But A. C. give me leave to tell you your fellow Jesuite Azorius affirms this in express terms And what do you think can he prove it Nay not Azorius onely but other Priests and Jesuites here in England either teach some of their Proselytes or else some of them learn it without teaching That though they be perswaded as this Lady was that is though they be Romane Catholikes yet either to gain honour or save their purse they may go to the Protestant Church just as the Jesuite here says The Lady did out of frailty and fear to offend the King Therefore I pray A. C. if this be gross dissimulation both with God and the world speak to your fellows to leave perswading or practising of it and leave men in the profession of Religion to be as they seem or to seem and appear as they are Let 's have no Mask worn here A. C's second Reason why one so perswaded as that Lady was might not go to the Protestant Church is Because that were outwardly to profess a Religion in Conscience known to be false To this I answer first that if this Reason be true it concerns all men as well as those that be perswaded as the Lady was For no man may outwardly profess a Religion in conscience known to be false For with the heart man believeth to righteousness and with the mouth he confesseth to salvation Rom. 10. Now to his own salvation no man can confess a known false Religion Secondly if the Religion of the Protestants be in conscience a known false Religion then the Romanists Religion is so too for their Religion is the same Nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set up a different Religion for the Christian Religion is the same to both but they differ in the same Religion And the difference is in certain gross corruptions to the very endangering of salvation which each side says the other is guilty of Thirdly the Reason given is most untrue for it may appear by all the former Discourse to any Indifferent Reader that Religion as it is professed in the Church of England is nearest of any Church now in being to the Primitive Church And therefore not a Religion known to be false And this I both do and can prove were not the deafness of the Asp upon the