Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	church_n	false_a	true_a	2,707	5	5.6928	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66243	A plain defence of the Protestant religion, fitted to the meanest capacity being a full confutation of the net for the fishers of men, published by two gentlemen lately gone over to the Church of Rome. Wherein is evidently made appear, that their departure from the Protestant religion was without cause of reason. Written for publick good by L. E. a son of the Church of England, as by law established.	L. Ė.; Wake, William, 1657-1737, attributed name.	1687 (1687)	Wing W251A; ESTC R221936	36,083	64

explain what you mean by those Terms if you mean as Bellarmine and the Catechism ad Parochos that to be called Universal is a Mark of the True Church or if you intend that to be existent every where be a Mark of it I answer it is not Pa. Why then does the Scripture say Matth. 28. 20. Go ye teach all Nations c. And behold I am with you even to the Consummation of the World. And again Ephes. 4. 12. He gave some Apostles c. to the Consummation of the Saints Pro. The Scripture says so because under the Gospel the Church was not limited to the Nation of the Jews but all Nations might be Members of it and there should be a Church to the end of the World but it doth not therefore say this Church should be in all Nations at all times much less doth it say that its being so is a Mark that it is the True Church Besides that Text of St. Paul Ephes. 4. 12 13. is spoken of the perfection of the Saints in Holiness not of the consummating their Number tho' if it were it says nothing of the Name Universal or the Churches existing every where being a Mark to know it by Pa. 11. The Church of God is either Universal or coexistent with all time or not Pro. It is John 14 15 16. The Comforter shall abide with you for ever Luke 1. 33. He shall Reign in the House of Jacob for ever and of his Kingdom there shall be no end Pa. If it be why do you deny Universality Pro. Before you took Universality in one Sense now in another That the Church shall abide for ever and this Universality we do not deny but we deny it to be a Mark of the true Church and that for this Reason because it cannot be known what Church shall endure for ever till the end of all things matter of Future Duration being impossible to be known till the time is finished for how can you know before-hand what will endure for ever the true Church will endure for ever but you must first know which of all the Pretenders to it is the true before you can know which shall endure for ever This therefore cannot be a Mark of the true Church For the Marks of a thing are always present but this Duration is not present but to come and therefore cannot be a Mark. Pa. 12. Christ's Church is Universal or co-existent with all places or it is not Pro. You seem here to mean that Christ's Church is dispersed over all the World in all places and if so I say it is not Pa. How then can it be true that their sound went over all the Earth or kow can all Nations be taught Pro. All Nations shall be taught but there is no necessity that they should be so at all times or that the Church should be always dispersed in all Nations So that this can be no Mark because a Mark must be always evident but it was not evident in the beginning of Christianity nor is not now in many places Pa. 13. The Church of Christ is either Universal or Catholick or it is not Pro. What mean you by its being Universal or Catholick If you mean as we do in the Creed that it comprehends all the true Professors of the Gospel I say it is Pa. Why then do you renounce Universality Pro. We do not renounce it we only say it is no Mark for seeing the Catholick Church is that Church which comprehends all true Christians we must first know who are true Christians before we can know what Church comprehends them Of Sanctity as a Mark of the true Church Pa. 14. The Church of Christ is eminent for Sanctity of Discipline and Dectrine or it is not Pro. It is Pa. Why then do you deny Sanctity in the Church Pro. We do not deny it we affirm it that is Holiness and Purity of Doctrine to be the mark of the true Church and we desire it may be tryed whether we are not of the true Church by that Rule Pa. 15. The Church of Christ is either Sanctified or She is not Pro. The Church of the Elect is Sanctified but the Church of visible Professors is not yet the Doctrine of it is indeed Holy as to the Foundation in which respect we do not deny Sanctity in the Church Pa. 16. The Church of Christ is manifested to be Holy by the Grace of Miracles or she is not Pro. The Grace of Miracles is a new Grace which I understand not and I believe neither do you but for the gift of Miracles I say that is not a Mark of the Sanctity of the Church Pa. Why then did Christ say Joh. 14. 12. c. He that believes in me the Works that I do he shall do and greater Pro. Christ said so because he gave the Holy Spirit to his Followers and a power of working Miracles as long as it was necessary but it doth not follow that it is so always much less doth it follow that they are a Mark to know the Holiness of the Church by seeing Antichrist is to do miracles and the Holy Fathers tell us Hereticks did many yet their miracles will not prove the Sanctity of their Church Pa. 17. Christ either granted true Believers the Grace of Casting out Devils or he did not Pro. Christ did not grant that Power to all true Believers Pa. Why then do you belye the Scriptures Mar. 16 17. Pro. We do not belye them that Text is not spoken of all at all times that do believe and this you must grant or else affirm that none are saved but them who work Miracles which is absurd and false That Power was given in the Beginning of the Church because it was necessary but you cannot prove it so now However we do not deny that God can work miracles by the Hands of his Faithful Servants when he pleases but we do deny that they either are or can be a mark to find the true Church or its Holiness by and you cannot prove that God ever intended or promised that they should be so The true way to find the Church is to examine the Holyness and Purity of its Doctrine and on this we rest our Cause that ours is Pure and Holy and therefore we are of the true Church Pa. 18. Your Church hath these abovementioned Marks or she hath not and if not she is false Pro. That doth not follow for they are not the marks of the true Church as I have proved Holiness indeed is a mark of the true Church that is Holiness of Doctrine and that we affirm we have which is a sufficient Answer to the rest of your Queries however let us hear them Pa. 19. Your Church hath been apparent or visible ever since Christ or it hath not and if not she is false Pro. Our Church hath been always visible to its Members though as a distinct Congregation not to those who were not Members of her

IMPRIMATUR Guil. Needham Jan. 26. 1686 7. A Plain DEFENCE OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGION Fitted to the Meanest Capacity Being a Full CONFUTATION OF THE NET FOR THE Fishers of Men Published by two Gentlemen lately gone over to the Church of Rome Wherein is evidently made appear that their departure from the Protestant Religion was without Cause or Reason Written for publick good by L. E. a Son of the Church of England as by Law Established Be not tossed too and fro with every Wind of Doctrine by the sleight of Men and cunning Craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive Eph. 4. 14. London Printed by S. L. and are to be sold by R. Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1687. To Mr. J. C. and Mr. J. M. C. The Authors of the Net for the Fishers of Men. Gentlemen I Hope that your design in publishing your little Treatise was a zealous desire to bring others of your Country-men into the same Church which you have made your selves Members of out of pure Love to their Souls which you I suppose think cannot be safe out of its Communion and I am the rather induced to believe it because you seem so confident of the strength of your Arguments that in the Epistle Dedicatory you reckon them unanswerable and in that to the Reader you express your Sence of them to be very high This I take to be an effect of your Zeal for I am sure it is not of your Knowledg and I would charitably perswade my self that you love the Truth too well to pretend a defence of what you know is Erroneous or endeavour to promote the Progress of delusions but out of a sincere Heart offer the Reasons which prevailed with you to a Change not seeing their weakness which is indeed so very notorious that I never thought to have seen them published though I have often known them vigorously pressed in private Discourses where heat and unwariness may let them pass without discovering that there is nothing of Force in them it being generally the Practice of the Romanists but especially the Jesuits to have a Set of Arguments for private unstudied Adversaries with which they catch too many who because they carry a specious Shew at first examine but little farther and without consulting others suffer themselves to be led Captive I have in the following Treatise according to your Desire in the Preface annexed my Answers to your Queries for which reason I have done it by way of Dialogue that so I might be the more brief and omit nothing of what you offered I don't doubt but I have shewn the weakness of every particular Argument but to save you and my self a great deal of Trouble if you reply I shall here take notice of several gross faults in your Arguing which if they be not remedied will create endless difficulties You never tell us what you mean by the word Church in some places you take it for the Congregation of the Faithful in others for a Council and in others for a particular Church In your Allegations out of Scripture you bring many Texts which indeed prove nothing to your purpose Thus in a question of the universal Church you bring a Text that speaks of a particular one or of every private Minister And in the question about Confirmation in defence of Oyl and Balm you cite places which mention only Imposition of Hands You suppose the Roman Church to be the only Church of Christ without any Proof which is plain begging the question and not arguing So in other places you beg the question And you take it for granted that Peter had the chief Charge over the Apostles committed to him that all oral Tradition is Apostolical that God hath commanded nothing concerning a Liturgy in an unknown Tongue and that because Reliques have been the Instruments by which Miracles were wrought therefore they must be Worshipped You mistake the Question and run on upon a Point not contested which is arguing to no purpose nothing but making a Puppet and knocking him down Thus when the Question is about Praying in an unknown Tongue you argue for the lawfullness of speaking with Tongues in the point of Free Will you plead for Free Will in Moral actions which we acknowledge when the question is about those Actions that are Spiritual again you argue against Faith without Works when the question is whether Faith alone justifies not whether Faith can be without Works for that we deny as well as you So in the point of Religious Vows you argue for the lawfullness of Vows in general when the Controversy is about those particular Vows which we Condemn You quote several Scriptures famous not only as to the particular references of which there are a Multitude so many that I am afraid you took them up upon Trust but also the very Texts Thus you make St. Paul call Marriage a Sacrament when he calls it only a Mystery so you have falsified Heb. 12 11. and several other places as I have proved in the Book it self I might add several Instances of these and other Particulars such as your taking the word Universal in three several Sences and yet applying all one way but these shall suffice and I am in hopes will let you see how wretchedly your Pretended Fathers have dealt with you by putting such Arguments upon you and founding your Faith upon such weak Grounds I desire you would not take it ill that I attribute this work to some of them and do so freely tax you with not seeing the Vanity of it for I suppose you are Gentlemen whose Education hath engrossed your time to other Matters and cannot therefore be reasonably supposed to have sufficient Experience in these Points to make you able to discern their Sophisms and unconcluding Arguments which they have shamm'd upon you for convincing Reasons If you are convinc'd by this answer I shall bless God for it if not I desire you would satisfy the World why you are not But don 't follow tht Methods of some late Writers who have wisely withdrawn from the main Business and only cavilled at a word or two as being Improper or something of that Nature when they could not answer the Reasons of their Adversaries nor defend their own I might easily have done so by you but as I have dealt seriously and plainly I expect the same and I pray God send us his Holy Spirit to lead us into all Truth I am Gentlemen Your very humble Servant L. E. TO THE Reader Courteous Reader A Serious Enquiry and search after Truth is the Duty of every rational Creature and he that hath an unfeigned desire to find it and happiness in it will not neglect any lawful means to arrive at the knowledge of it seeing by it the Mind is enlightened our Faith regulated and fixed and our actions guided to that true felicity which Crowns the Soul with