Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	believe_v	divine_a	scripture_n	1,777	5	6.8603	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26615	Protestancy to be embrac'd, or, A new and infallible method to reduce Romanists from popery to Protestancy a treatise of great use to all His Majesties subjects, and necessary to prevent error and popery / by David Abercromby, D., lately converted, after he had profess'd near nineteen years Jesuitism and popery.	Abercromby, David, d. 1701 or 2.	1682 (1682)	Wing A86; ESTC R6382	30,832	174

in their intentions so sincere in their words and upright in all their procedures 10. How than can Romanists without the guilt of an extream uncharity impose so pitifully upon the ignorant sort causing them to believe on their bare word and authority without the least rational inducement imaginable that no Protestants are Elects that to be a Reprobate and a Protestant is one and the same thing Are they God's Counsellors Adviseth he with them who is to be saved and who not If a rash judgment be a sin as undoubtedly 't is they are not innocent when rashly and upon groundless grounds they condemn so unmercifully their Neighbours who are as good if not better than themselves 11. Believe they not all the Fundamental points whatever is contain'd in the Creeds and Scripture And if acts of Divine Love have been ever thought necessary and sufficient means to the attaining of our last end where shall we find a greater aptitude and better dispositions to such acts than amongst Protestants 12. As Ignoti nulla cupido There is no Love without Knowledge The more knowledge we have of and the greater perfections we discover in the object we tye our hearts to our love is ordinarily so much the more ardent The Reformed Churches have this advantage above all others They read the Scriptures and command them to be read by all their Subjects whereby they attain to a high knowledge of Gods infinite Power Clemency Wisdom Mercy and his other attributes Their understanding thus enlightned their will takes easily fire and burns with a flame of true Divine Love The Origine whereof is no other but that not ordinary knowledge of God they attain to by reading often and meditating frequently his infallible Word Which I know certainly to be wanting amongst Romanists because of their slight performance or rather intire neglect of such a Christian duty 13. Out of these foregoing reflexions the Charitable and Impartial Reader may easily gather they go streight on their Journey and not one step out of the way who forsaking Popery imbrace Protestancy and if any Romanist doubt yet of this self-evident truth I shall be at the pains to convince him once more by an argument beyond the reach either of a rational answer or flat denyal it runs hus ad hominem 14. The learnedest sort o Romanists teach it lawful and secure in Conscience to square our actions by the rule of a probable opinion yea the Jesuits hold it safe to stand to that opinion which is less sure and participates less of probability than the opposite though in reality surer and more probable their reason is because a man so doing acts prudently and consequently sins not 15. But the main and material point is to know what is understood by a probable opinion The Romanists generally and I think none can deny it mean by a probable opinion that which learned and pious men hold and follow For if they be pious godliness and piety will be their sole aim in all their practices if learned they will believe nothing without sufficient grounds and good reason this definition of a probable opinion laid as a confess'd Principle and immoveable ground-stone I build thereon this ensuing clear and short Discourse 16. Who-ever follows a probable opinion sins not does neither rashly nor imprudently but who holds that Protestants may be saved follows a probable opinion ergo he sins not he neither does rashly nor imprudently in so doing The second proposition I prove argumento ad hominem invincibly thus that opinion is probable which is believed and defended by learned and pious men that Protestants may be saved 't is believ'd and defended by learned and pious men ergo 't is a probable opinion and by a necessary inference may be followed and believ'd without the least appearance either of sin rashness or imprudence 17. The middle proposition is not unlike to a self-evident principle and on this account can be denyed by none as have their Wits about them or so much of common sence and understanding as to see through the terms 't is enounc'd in Dare they say Protestants are neither pious nor learned Auditum admissi risum teneatis amici I am perswaded they will be asham'd of such a childish and groundless answer For if they be neither pious nor learned they must then both be wicked and ignorant I know no middle this must be their inference which is so pitiful that the meer recital of such an extravagancy is a full and intire refutation thereof enarrasse refutasse est 18. But sure I am they will grant willingly their own Divines to be both pious and learned men yet they teach and I was taught by them that all Protestants are not Reprobates To understand this 't is observable they distinguish two sorts of Protestants the one they call material and th' other we may call for distinction's sake formal The Material Protestants are bred up in an invincible ignorance of what the Romanists think necessary to Salvation as the belief of Transubstantiation of Purgatory and the like In an Ignorance I say invincible because living in the midst of Protestants they are supposed to want all opportunity of instruction and so must rely on their Pastors authority To these they extend their charity and grant they may be saved they are not so merciful to th' others who live they say in a vincible ignorance of Catholick truths which they may easily dispel and overcome but will not through wilfulness and obstinacy 19. But to such also I shall cause them to be favourable and by a parity of reason paritate rationis force them to impart will they nill they a part of their Charity Because generals produce not such a clear knowledge as particulars do I shall take this particular the Transubstantiation for instance The belief of this mystery sayes the Romanist is necessary to Salvation yet confesseth a Material Protestant may be saved without it because he liveth in an invincible ignorance occasion'd by his want of opportunity to be instructed But the Formal Protestant upon another account liveth likewise in an invincible ignorance of this necessity because the Reasons he is convinc'd by are stronger in his opinion than yours and so you shall never influence him by your arguments to believe acknowledge or understand the contrary what then the want of instruction or understanding worketh in the Material Protestants this wit effectuates in those whom for method's sake we have called formal If those I mean the former be guiltless because hearing nothing of Transubstantiation they cannot assent to the existency thereof these are not to be blamed for though they hear of such a mystery yet their understanding is conquer'd by lights destructive to it which discovering to them clearly the truth of this Negative there is no Transubstantiation remove far from their intellective faculty the knowledge of this Positive there is a Transubstantiation 20. I say then they are not to be

blam'd because 't is not in the power of the will to force upon our understanding the belief of a known falshood or of what appears to us evidently false to conclude as I have begun paritate rationis by a parity of reason since the Romanists because of the foresaid invincible ignorance grant to some Protestants a capacity of being saved unless they belye themselves they will not refuse the same to those in whom we meet with a like invincible ignorance yea more and harder to be overcome as may appear by what I have said 21. I foresee the Romanist may reply that those Protestants he hath no charity for are such as resist the known truth for instance they are perswaded the arguments in favour of Transubstantiation are better grounded than these they oppose against it So they shall not be saved through their own misbelief wilfulness and obstinacy in error To which I make this short and satisfactory answer that such men are not true Protestants of whom only we speak but rather abominable Hypocrites professing outwardly a Doctrine they judge in their hearts false and erroneous This Objection than vanisheth as being de subjecto non supponente grounded on a false supposition SECT II. 1. I Have proved positively and I think to perswasion if preoccupation be laid aside the undeniable truth of my first Principle that Protestants may be saved For the Readers intire satisfaction I shall make out the same in a Negative way by showing to all not willfully blind there can be no let or hinderance to their Salvation what-ever Romanists can instance as inconsistent with their attaining to eternal happiness may be reduc'd either to Schism or Heresie and that either jointly or severally After an impartial scrutiny of their best grounds of such foul aspersions I found them all to be groundless unwarrantable and insufficient 2. Schism is a separation from the true Church of God Protestants are not separated from the true Church of God ergo they are not guilty of Schism they are not Schismaticks All generally confess the Christians of the three first Centuries to have been the constituent Members of Christ's true Church from these the Protestants are not separated either in belief manners or Ecclesiastical Discipline this I could prove to the conviction of the most obstinate had it not been perform'd abundantly and more than once by others The same cannot be said of the Romanists since they have admitted of many novelties never heard of in these Primitive times such are in invocation of Saints adoration of the consecrated Wafer Image-worship Popes Supremacy c. So if they stand to the same Fundamentals with the Church in her purest age 't is certain they have added thereunto and are guilty of divers Superstructures which the Protestants were never and cannot be accus'd of But 't is not so much my design in this place to charge Romanists as to justifie Protestants and those who embrace Protestancy 3. They will perhaps say we are Schismaticks because separated from the Church of Rome But 1. The Church of Rome is a particular one and a member only of the Universal Church 2. As it now stands 't is not our rule but that undoubted of Christian Church in the Primitive times without spot or blemish 3. This aspersion of Schism smites rather themselves For those only we call Schismaticks who are guilty of division and breach of unity by doing that which is the true cause thereof That the meanest capacities may understand this let them take notice of what follows If my body were united or closely joining to yours would ye not be judg'd the true cause of our separation if ye put any thing between you and me hindring this union so you are the true Separatist not I because you have thrust me from you by that middle Obstacle you have plac'd betwixt us both which unless first removed I cannot unite my body to yours again 4. This is downright our present case if well understood The Protestants and Romanists were once two united bodies in the pure age of the Church in these happy times when Superstition had not as yet gain'd a foot of ground amongst Christians they were one People anima una corunum one Soul and one Heart But at length the Romanists set up betwixt us and them murum aheneum an invincible obstacle a heap of errors destructive both to union and unity so if we be separated now who were formerly united 't is evidently by their fault we could not persevere in union with them because of this middle wall that did separate us let them throw it down as they are oblig'd in conscience to do and we shall draw up together and joyn them close again Since then they gave a just occasion yea and are the true causes of this separation they are the Separatists and true Schismaticks not we 5. As for Heresie let Romanists say what they please it can't with the least appearance of truth be laid to our charge He is not guilty of that crime who defends obstinately any opinion whatsomever else all School-men and Divines standing stifly to their own fancys in Doctrinal points would be reckon'd Hereticks Such be those only who deny flatly and with obstinacy Divine Truths or Articles of Faith which cannot be impos'd upon Protestants without injustice ignorance and calumny 6. They deny indeed General Councils to be infallible in their decisions but their infallibility is no Article of Faith else Austin was a Heretick asserting General Councils gathered out of all the Christian World are often corrected the former by the latter correction of a Council undoubtedly supposeth a precedent error and a Council to be errable as every one understands that knows any thing On the same account he speaks after this manner to Maximian an Arian Bishop Neither ought I to instance the Council of Nice nor thou the Council of Arimene to take advantage thereby for neither I am bound by the authority of this nor thou of that set matter with matter cause with cause reason with reason try the matter by the authority of Divine Scriptures 7. An Article of Faith must either be clearly contain'd in Scripture or according to the Romanists declared expresly by some of their General Councils But that General Councils are infallible in their Decisions is neither contain'd clearly in Scriptures let them tell us in what Part Book Chapter Verse nor is it determin'd in any of the eighteen General Councils they acknowledge as the rules of their Faith none can be instanc'd where this hath been decided Upon what grounds then hold they this as a Divine Truth which is nothing else but a fanciful opinion hindering them to follow Austin's advice to set matter with matter cause with cause reason with reason to try the matter by the authority of Divine Scriptures 8. The general Councils are so far from pretending to be infallible Judges of controversial Debates that in a set

the Marcionists denying he had ever a true and real body I shall say yet something more surprizing but no less true than what I have said before This Doctrine of Transubstantiation 1. Establisheth that old and odd fancy of some doting Philosophers who doubted of all things how evident soever 2. 'T is evidently destructive to the whole body of Christian Religion In order to prove apodictically these two Propositions I must suppose a Third one as a self-evident Principle and whence they both flow as from their only source That our Senses in the Eucharist are deceiv'd in and about their proper object which I think can be denyed by no Romanists since they confess though they see all the appearances of true Bread that nevertheless there is no such substance in the Eucharist but the Body and Blood of Christ under the veils of Bread and Wine I see nothing I tast nothing I touch nothing in a Consecrated Wafer but what my senses are sensible of in an unconsecrated one but saith the Romanist I must not stand in this case to the judgment of my senses what I see touch and tast after the Consecration is no more in reality Bread what-ever the constant and experimental knowledge of our Senses teach us to the contrary they will grant then I hope they are deceiv'd and mistake their own proper object but perhaps because they foresee the dangerous consequence of such a Concession some will be apt to run to a School-distinction in aim to defend with a show of reason this self-evident falshood that our Senses in the case here handled are not deceived as to their proper Object They may distinguish I fancy two sort of Objects a Mediate one and another Immediate the Immediate one is the colour shape quantity and other accidents or appearances of Bread the Mediate one is the substance it self our Senses say they mistake not the former because the accidents are the same both before and after the Consecration but sure I am they mistake the latter it being now by their Principles invisibly changed into the Body of Christ This distinction then cannot serve their turn Let them torture their discursive faculty never so much they shall never be able to prove that our Senses are not truly deceiv'd representing to us as Bread what really if we believe the Romanists is not Bread I come now to the Conclusions springing naturally from this granted Principle If I mind to play the Pyrrhonian and doubt of every thing I have from the Romish Transubstantiation a ground whereon to build this extravagancy whither-soever I direct my sight I can ascertain you of nothing that my eye sees I enter into a Garden and there I behold here Lillies and there Roses I smell them I touch them and yet I may question the truth of this and doubt if I see any such thing what if the red of the Roses and the white of the Lillies be now by an Eucharistick-like Miracle the covertures of some other substances that are neither Roses nor Lillies so perhaps 't is not a Rose that I smell a Lilly that I see Fire that I feel an Apple that I tast a Trumpet that I hear but some other substances in their shape and cloath'd with their Garments As 't is not Bread that I see in the Eucharist but another substance to wit Christ's Body and Blood under the accidental parts of Bread and Wine what do we know but the whole visible Mass of this World and all the Objects of our Senses are nothing else but meer accidents and Superficial Representations of things that perhaps were and now have no foundation in being or never were but have ever been supplied by God's infinite power Thus the Pyrrhonian Triumphs upon the same ground whereon the Romanist settles that strange Doctrine of Transubstantiation while the whole Body of Christian Religion is as it were a flote and carried too and fro by the wind of this uncertain Doctrine For if our Senses may mistake their own proper object as confessedly the Romanist sayes they do in the Eucharist our Faith is nothing else but fancy and uncertainty Comes it not by hearing Fides exauditu if than one sence may be deceiv'd why may not likewise the other What I see in the Eucharist is not Bread though it appears to be such perhaps what I hear is not the true Word of God though it shine with all the Characters thereof In fine since our Senses are capable of an errour relating to their proper object an eye-witness now can be no witness at all or at least no Conviction To what purpose then did our Saviour show himself after his Resurrection so often and to so many in the day of his glorious Ascension In promptu causa est the Answer is at hand to no purpose if our Senses could mistake their proper object and what so many eye-witnesses saw and judg'd to be Christ could have been his meer shape and figure as the Marcionist pretends with a clear advantage over and from the Romanists whose Doctrine he may easily make use of in defence of his error and Heresie To conclude if what appears to the eyes of all men to be Bread is no such thing what has been sounded in the ears of all the World from Father to Son as a truth may prove a falshood Our ears being no less apt to be impos'd upon than our eyes Which looks like a mortal blow to all tradition of equal authority with Divine Scriptures and I discover not yet how the Romanist can shun it For since he grants we may all and have been from the Cradle of the Church mistaken in what we see may not we likewise be deceiv'd in what we have heard from our Fathers and they in what they have heard from their Fore-runners c. And the rather that an ear-witness is not so much to be credited as he that has seen You judge by this discourse what extreams these are forc'd into who deny on so slight grounds the greatest and most sensible evidence which is that of our senses But Christ's Word sayes the Romanist is my security he assures us the Bread is chang'd into his body I enquire no more Who speaks so forgets or knows not what is said elsewhere litera occidit the letter killeth and the literal Sense is an occasion to several of gross errors and pitiful mistakes Christ is called a Door a Rock a Wine Tree a Lyon c. We would be look'd upon as besides our selves if we assented to all this as interpreted in the literal sence and according to the bare sound of the words For as the literal sence of such and the like expressions involves not only obvious implicancys and manifest absurdities but moreover was constantly contradicted by the experimental knowledge of such as were so happy as to see Christ even so in our case these words this is my Body if understood conformably to the mute Letter both represent to