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	faith_n	life_n	1,585	5	4.9703	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03944	An adioynder to the late Catholike new yeares gift, or explication of the oath of allegeance Wherein certaine principall difficulties, obiected by a very learned Roman-Catholike, against the sayd New-yeares gift, and explication of the oath, are very clearely explained. Published by E.I. the author of the New-yeares gift.	Preston, Thomas, 1563-1640.	1620 (1620)	STC 14050; ESTC S100127	50,683	158

but on the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Pope and Church when they shall declare or define any thing ex Cathedra for the whole Church to be lawfull or vnlawfull which declaration is indeed and in effect a definition in my conceit that declaration must binde for the assistance of the holy Ghost whatsoeuer the ground therof bee a formall Law or but onely an opinion and so if the Pope haue the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost in his definitions and declarations ex Cathedra as in Suarez opinion he hath though in yours not and that also probably and intended in his Breues to declare to the whole Church ex Cathedra that the Oath is vnlawfull I see not why it should not so bee thought and taken whether the ground of such declaration was his only opinion or no. And so wee see that if the whole Church should in a Councell declare any thing to bee lawfull or vnlawfull which before was in doubt as is now of this Oath when wee all agree that she hath the assistance of the Holy Ghost in her generall decrees as well as in her definitions wee ought to to take it for such whether the ground of her declaration be certaine or onely but probable The same I would think should bee thought of the declaratiue Breues of Popes at the least in the opinion of those who maintaine that the Pope cannot erre no more without a Councell then with it For if the declaration of any such thing to be lawfull or vnlawfull should binde vs no more then the ground of that declaration whether it were a formall Law or but onely an opinion such declaration were but idle and should not afford that certaintie and satisfaction which at the Church is required in time of doubt I know you answer this difficulty about the Popes Breues sufficiently in saying that the Pope may erre in declaring or defining without a Generall Councell and that there was no such Councell when these Breues were set forth but this difficultie I finde about your doctrine and much more about the doctrine of Suarez of Declaratiue Breues because you stand not vpon that answer onely Answer 1. BVt first it is manifest in my iudgement that in all declaratiue precepts especially belonging to manners or of things to bee done or omitted for onely of these precepts not of definitions declarations or precepts of faith or of things to bee beleeued Suarez speaketh the obligation of the precept dependeth vpon the fundamentall ground reason end of the precept and that therein also is implyed the intention and will of the Law-maker which is the soule and life of the Law who intendeth onely to binde by his declaratiue precept for as much onely as the thing he commandeth or forbiddeth is of it owne nature necessarie or repugnant to some former Law of God Nature or some other positiue Law which the declaratiue precept doth declare and suppose And therefore as Suarez well obserueth a pure declaratiue precept doth not make the thing which it forbiddeth to be vnlawfull but only supposeth and declareth it to bee vnlawfull as forbidden by some former Law Whereupon it followeth that if it bee but a probable opinion that there is such a former Law the declaratiue precept can binde no more then the probabilitie of the opinion which is the fundamentall ground and reason of the precept hath force to bind 2. Neither doth your obiection impugne this manifest doctrine For although in such generall precepts wherein the Church cannot erre to wit when shee commadeth the whole Church something which is necessary to saluation the certainty and obligation of the precept dependeth vpon the assistance of the Holy Ghost yet this doth not hinder but that it must also depend vpon the substantiall ground reason and end for which the Law was made But this onely at the most is proued by your obiection that because the assistance of the Holy Ghost is annexed to the precept it must consequently bee annexed to all those things whereon the precept doth necessarily depend But to affirme therefore that the precept doth depend on nothing else then vpon the assistance of the Holy Ghost were ridiculous 3. As also due diligence and examining of the cause is according to the doctrine of all Diuines necessarily required in a Generall Councell to define infallibly any doctrine of faith And because the assistance of the Holy Ghost is annexed to her definition it must consequently be also annexed to all that whereon her infallible definition doth necessarily depend And thereupon the Diuines affirme that if it be certaine that the Church did not erre in her definition it is also certain that she vsed due diligence and all other necessary conditions which by the institution of Christ are required to an infallible definition But to affirme that because the infallibilitie of her definition dependeth vpon the assistance of the Holy Ghost therefore neither due diligence nor examination of the cause nor any other thing is necessarily required to her infallible definition were absurd ridiculous 4. Wherefore you must distinguish betwixt fundamentall intrinsecall and necessary reasons or grounds and Extrinsecall or accidental as M. Widdrington hath often affirmed from the doctrine of Bellarm Canus to which also all other Diuines doe agree for these last may be false and yet the definition true As in the second Councell of Nice it was declared that Angels might bee painted because they haue bodies the declaration was true although this reason being extrinsecall and accidentall was false But if shee had declared that it is lawfull to paint Angels because it is not repugnant to faith or good manners which is a fundamentall ground and reason of that declaration the declaration can not be true if that fundamentall reason and ground be supposed to be false And thus much concerning the doctrine of Suarez in generall 5 And therefore secondly to apply it to the Popes Breues if it were certaine that the Pope in making his declaratiue prohibition of the Oath had the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost Mr. Widdrington would not sticke to affirme that as the prohibition is infallible so consequenly the fundamentall reason and ground for which the Oath is by the Popes Breues forbidden is also infallible and that therefore some thing is in the Oath repugnant to faith or saluation which is the fundamentall ground reason and end of the Popes forbidding the Oath for if there were nothing in the Oath against faith or saluation the Pope could not forbid it with such iniurie to his Maiestie and so great damage to English Catholikes 6 But thirdly this obiection of yours concerning the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost promised to the Church for the making of general precepts ex Cathedra either touching faith or manners doth not sufficiently confirme the infallibilitie of the Popes Breues forbidding English Catholikes to take the Oath for that Mr. Widdrington