Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	authority_n	church_n	truth_n	2,214	5	6.2511	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61522	The Bishop of Worcester's answer to Mr. Locke's letter, concerning some passages relating to his Essay of humane understanding, mention'd in the late Discourse in vindication of the Trinity with a postscript in answer to some reflections made on that treatise in a late Socinian pamphlet.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1697 (1697)	Wing S5557; ESTC R18564	64,712	157

so much for the clearing of this both in the Preface and the Book it self that I need not to add one Word about it unless he had suggested some new demonstrative Reason to prove it Which he is far enough from All that he saith is That they must be called Fools as well as Sabellius if they asserted Relative Properties or any Properties that were in no Essence But the Author of the Discourse of Real and Nominal Trinitarians to whom he is no Stranger had said That the Sabellians held that the Father Son and Spirit are but only three Names of God given to him in Scripture by occasion of so many several Dispensations towards the Creature and so he is but one subsisting Person and three Relative Persons If this be true here are Relative Properties indeed relating to a Divine Essence but how not as to any Internal Relations of Father Son and Holy Ghost but as to External Dispensations which are another kind of Relative Properties This is all that I can find in this last Effort that relates to my self As to what concerns others they are very able to defend themselves and particularly as to Dr. S. and Dr. Sh. I must still say I think them much his Superiours as to Wit and Learning for of them I spake without the least Respect to my self however he makes it a Complement to my self and them I know not for what Reason unless it be that I speak of those against whom they had written with Insolence and Scorn But I hope they will shew themselves so much his Superiours too in Wisdom and Discretion as not to renew their Quarrels upon his Provocations for he doth what in him lies to inflame them and he thought it and I do not blame him for it the best service he could do to his sinking Cause WORCESTER April 26 1697. E. W. FINIS ERRATA Pag. 3.1 an Answer P. 42. l. 4. for Temerarian r. temerarious P. 63. l. 22. for diceret r. doceret P. 82. l. 17. for Preception r. Perception Books published by the Right Reverend Father in God Edw. L. Bishop of Worcester and sold by H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard A Rational account of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T. C. 2d Edit Fol. Origines Britannicae or the Antiquities of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in Vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph Fol. Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Churches Wounds 4 to Origines Sacrae or a Rational Account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scripture and the matters therein contained 4 to A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it 8 vo An Answer to several late Treatises occasion'd by a Book entituled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it Part I. 8 vo A Second Discourse in Vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church 8 vo An Answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle apologetical to a Person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet 8 vo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in answer to a Book entituled Catholicks no Idolaters 8 vo Several Conferences between a Roman Priest a Fanatick Chaplain and a Divine of the Church of England being a full Answer to the late Dialogues of T. G. 8 vo A Discourse concerning Bonds of Resignation of Benefices in Point of Law and Conscience 8 vo A Discourse concerning the Illegality of the Ecclesiastical Commission in Answer to the Vindication and Defence of it wherein the true notion of the Legal Supremacy is clear'd and an Account is given of the Nature Original and Mischief of the dispensing Power The Unreasonableness of Separation or an Impartial Account of the History Nature and Pleas of the present Separation from the Communion of the Church of England 4 to The Grand Question concerning the Bishops Right to vote in Parliament in Cases Capital stated and argued from the Parliament Rolls and the History of former times with an enquiry into their Peerage and the Three Estates in Parliament 8 vo A Discourse concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction or the true Reasons of his Sufferings with an Answer to the Socinian Objections To which is added A Sermon concerning the Mysteries of the Christian Faith Preached April 7. 1691. With a Preface concerning the true state of the Controversie about Christ's Satisfaction 8 vo Twelve Sermons preached on several Occasions by the Right Reverend Father in God Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester The first Volume 8 vo A Second Volume will speedily be publish'd The Effigies of the Right Reverend Father in God Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester Engraven on a Copper-plate by Robert White Price 6 d. P. 6. P. 7. P. 8. P. 9. Book 2. Ch. 13. Sect. 19. P. 14. Ch. 23. Sect. 2. P. 11. P. 12 P. 22. P. 35. P. 25. P. 38. P. 28 29. P. 32. Book 2. ch 23. Sect. 6. P. 32. P. 33. P 40. P. 18 23 24 36 37. P. 8. Essay B. 2. ch 8. Sect. 25. Ch. 9. Sect. 8 9 10. P. 7 8 10 30. P. 6. P. 8. B 2. ch 23. Sect. 1. Sect. 2 3 4. P. 22. P. 40. P. 40. B. 2. Ch. 24. Sect. 16. P. 43. P. 44. Voss. Etymol in V. Sto. Thucyd. l. 6. p. 392. Ed. Ox. l. 3. p. 184 Acad. l. 1.8 Cicer. in Lucul c. 6. C. 24. P. 57. P. 226. Book 4. Ch. 6. Sect. 3. Ch. 4. Sect. 18. Christianity not Myst. p. 10. P. 12. P. 13. B. 4. ch 3. Sect. 23. Sect. 24 c. Sect 28. Sect. 30. Book 4. Ch. 17. Sect. 1. Sect. 9. Sect. 10. Sect. 11. Sect. 12. B. 4. ch 17. 1. Sect. 23. B. 4. ch 18. Sect. 2. P. 59. P. 62. P. 65. P. 66. Id. p. 74.82 B. 2. Ch. 23. Sect. 15. Sect. 17. Sect. 22. Sect. 30. Sect. 31. P. 67. P. 68. Leviath ch 34. Leviath ch 38. Vindicat. of Leviath p. 90 91. P. 69 P. 71. P. 72. P. 73. P. 74. P. 75. P. 81. P. 81. Book 4. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. Book 2. ch 23. Sect. 6.14 Sect. 7. Sect. 8. Sect. 12. Book 4. Ch. 4. Sect. 18. B. 3. ch 10. Sect. 15. B 2. ch 23. Sect. 17. B. 2. ch 23. Sect. 15. B. 2 ch 21. Sect. 8. Sect. 13. B. 2. ch 8. Sect. 11. Sect 10. B. 2. ch 27. Sect 9. B. 2. ch 11. Sect. 9. Sect. 10. Letter p. 27. De Immort Animae c. 9. Let. p. 139. P. 73. P. 66. P. 87. P. 88. P. 101. P. 103. P. 106. P. 107. Ib. P. 107. P. 110 P. 113. P. 114. B. 1. Ch. 4 Sect 8. Ch. 4. Sect. 12. P. 119. P. 123. P. 125. P. 121. P. 120 P. 128. P. 127. P. 132. P. 145. P. 136. P. 137. Cum enim duo sint genera rerum quae sciuntur unum earum quae per sensus corporis percipit animus alterum earum quae per scipsum multa illi Philosophi garrierunt contra corporis sensus animi autem quasdam firmissimas per seipsum perceptiones rerum verarum quale est illud Scio me vivere nequaquam in dubium vocare potuerunt De Trin. l. 15. c. 12. P. 139. P. 142 P. 157. P. 165. P. 216. P. 217. ● 2. ch 1. Sect. 5. Ch. 2. Sect. 1. Sect. 2. Ch. 11. Sect. 9 Ch. 12. Sect. 1. Sect. 3. Sect. 6 Ch ●● Sect. 3. Sect. 6 14 Sect. 33. B 3. ch 3. Sect. 2. Sect. 6. Sect. 9. Sect. 11. Sect. 12. Sect. 14. Sect. 15. Sect. 16. Leviath ch 4. B. 2. ch 17. Sect. 1. P. 169 P. 170. P. 171. B. 2. ch 8. Sect. 10 15 17 23. Sect. 25. P. 174. P. 176. P. 178. P. 181. P. 190. P. 191. P. 193. P. 195. P. 197. P. 198. P. 199. P. 201. P. 20● P. 203. P. 210. P. 212. Book 4. Ch. 1. Sect. 1. Ch. 3. Sect. 23. Sect. 27. Sect. 24 Sect. 26. Sect. 27. Sect. 25. Sect. 28. B. 4. ch 2. Sect. 2. Sect. 7. Ch. 2. Sect. 14 ●●●● Sect. 1. Sect. 2.

your own Concessions For if the ground of Certainty be resolved into the Agreement and Disagreement of the Ideas as expressed in any Proposition is it not natural enough from hence to infer that from whencesoever this Proposition comes I must judge of it by the Agreement or Disagreement of the Ideas contained in it You make a Distinction between the Certainty of Truth and the Certainty of Knowledge The former you say Is when Words are so put together in Propositions as exactly to express the Agreement or Disagreement of the Ideas they stand for and the latter When we perceive the Agreement or Disagreement of Ideas as expressed in any Proposition But our question about Certainty must relate to what we perceive and the means we have to judge of the Truth and Falshood of Things as they are expressed to us which you tell us Is by the Agreement or Disagreement of the Ideas in the Proposition And in another place Where-ever we perceive the Agreement or Disagreement of any of our Ideas there is certain Knowledge and when-ever we are sure those Ideas agree with the Reality of Things there is certain real Knowledge and then conclude I think I have shewn wherein it is that Certainty real Certainty consists which what-ever it was to others was I confess to me heretofore one of those Desiderata which I found great want of So that here is plainly a new Method of Certainty owned and that placed in the Agreement and Disagreement of Ideas But the Author already mention'd professes to go upon the same grounds and therefore it was necessary for me to examine them He saith That the simple and distinct Ideas we receive by Sensation and Reflection are the sole Matter and Foundation of all our Reasoning and that our Knowledge is in Effect nothing else but the Perception of the Agreement or Disagreement of our Ideas And that where our Perception is not immediate our Certainty comes from the clear and visible Connexion of Ideas For he saith That if the Connexion of all the intermediate Ideas be not indubitable we can have no Certainty Wherein now do his grounds of Certainty differ from yours But he applies them to other Purposes I grant he doth so and that was it which I had said for your Vindication But the question now is whether your general expression had not given him too much occasion for it It is true that Ch 3. he distinguishes the means of Information from the ground of Perswasion and he reckons all Authority Divine as well as Human among the means of Information and the ground of Perswasion he makes to be nothing but Evidence and this Evidence he saith lies in our Ideas Ch. 4. in the Agreement or Disagreement of them p. 19. and he places Certainty in our clear Perceptions of this Agreement or Disagreement which you call clear and visible Connexion of Ideas And wherein then lies the difference as to the grounds of Certainty But his design is to overthrow the Mysteries of Faith This is too true But upon what grounds Is it not upon this Principle that our Certainty depends upon the clear Perception of the Agreement or Disagreement of Ideas in any Proposition Now let the Proposition come to us either by Human or Divine Authority If our Certainty depends upon this we can be no more certain than we have clear Perception of the Agreement or Disagreement of the Ideas contained in it and so he thought he had reason to reject all Mysteries of Faith which are contained in Propositions upon your grounds of Certainty But you say you own the infallible Truth of the Scriptures and that where you want the Evidence of Things there is ground enough for you to believe because God hath said it I do verily believe you because I have a far greater Opinion of your Sincerity and Integrity than I see reason for as to the other Person who pretends mightily to own the Authority of Scripture at the same time when he undermines it For his Words are The Authority of God or Divine Revelation is the Manifestation of Truth by Truth it self to whom it is impossible to lye p. 16. But when he comes to state the point how far we are to believe upon Divine Revelation he hath these Words Sect. 2. ch 1. n. 10. The natural Result of what hath been said is That to believe the Divinity of Scripture or the Sense of any Passage thereof without rational Proofs and an evident Consistency is a blameable Credulity and a temerarian Opinion ordinarily grounded upon an ignorant and wilfull Disposition And in the next Chapter he saith That Revelation is not a necessitating Motive but a mean of Information Not the bare Authority of him that speaks but the clear Conception I form of what he says is the ground of my Perswasion And again Whoever reveals any thing his words must be intelligible and the matter possible This rule holds good let God or Man be the Revealer As for unintelligible Relations we can no more believe them from the Revelation of God than from that of Man Sect. 2. ch 2. n. 16. p. 42. But what are all these things to you who own That where you want the Evidence of things the Authority of Revelation is ground enough for you to believe I do not impute them to you but I must say that he alledges no ground for his sayings but your ground of Certainty For in the same Page he saith That the conceived Ideas of things are the only subjects of Believing Denying Approving and every other act of the understanding All the difference we see is that he applies that to Propositions in Scripture which you affirm'd of Propositions in general viz. that our Certainty depends upon the clear Perception of the Agreement or Disagreement of the Ideas contained in them But I shall do you all the Right I can as to this matter by shewing what Reason I had to say that your Notions were turn'd to other purposes than you intended them and that I shall make appear from several passages in the same Book 1. You own the great Defects of Humane Knowledge notwithstanding the simple Ideas we have by Sensation or Reflection And from these things 1. The Paucity and Imperfection of our Ideas in general because our Sensation and Reflection goes so little a way in respect of the vast extent of the Universe and the infinite Power and Wisdom of the Creator of it So that what we see in the intellectual and sensible World holds no proportion to what we see not and whatever we can reach with our Eyes or our Thoughts of either of them is but a point almost nothing in comparison of the rest 2. The want of Ideas which we are capable of because although we have Ideas in general of Bulk Figure and Motion yet we are to seek as to the particulars of them in the greatest part of the Bodies of the Universe