Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	according_a	know_v	word_n	2,143	5	3.8658	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33222	Several captious queries concerning the English Reformation first proposed by Dean Manby (an Irish convert) in Latin, and afterwards by T.W. in English, briefly and fully answered by Dr. Clagett.	Clagett, William, 1646-1688.	1688 (1688)	Wing C4399; ESTC R27257	28,726	51

unless St. Paul was mistaken when he said The carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the Law of God neither indeed can be So then they that are in the Flesh cannot please God Rom. 8.7 8. The next is Dan. 4.24 where the Prophet speaks thus to King Nebuchadnezzar Quamobrem Rex consilium meum placeat tibi peccata tua Elecmosynis redime Iniquitates tuas misericordiis Pauperum Which Text the present English Translation thus renders vitiously enough Wherefore O King break off thy Sins by righteousness and thine Iniquities by shewing Mercy to the Poor Whereas it ought to have been translated Redeem thy Sins by Alms-deeds and thine Iniquities by shewing Mercy to the Poor But suppose it should have been translated Redeem rather than Break off Where is the material Error Where is the tendency to Schism or liberty of the Flesh Surely if Righteousness and Alms-deeds will Redeem Sins they are not further from doing it by Breaking them off I should rather think that our Translation if we consider the difference presses the necessity of Universal Reformation something more than the other because it will not suffer a Man to fancy that he may keep some of his Sins now he knows how to redeem them viz. by Alms-deeds and shewing Mercy to the Poor but teaches him that he has no other way to escape but by breaking off his former sins and doing all the good things that are contrary to the evils he has done which doubtless was the meaning of Daniel's Exhortation And now after all it was pitifully done of you to Examine our Translation by your Vulgar Latin the Authority whereof in these Critical Disputes you know we deny And it was done according to your Wisdom too for the truth of the Matter is that our Translation is right and yours is wrong for though the Caldee † word signifies to Redeem when 't is applied to Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Psal 136.4 Thou hast redeemed us yet when Things are spoken of it signifies to divide or to break them off So it is taken Gen 27.40 Thou shalt break his yoke from of thy neck and Exod. 32.2 24. and elsewhere In a Word The Vulgar Interpreter was so far from shewing his Skill here that he blunder'd manifestly and it must be a very favourable Construction of his Translation that can secure it from the Charge of False Doctrine viz. That a Man can Redeem himself from the Justice of God. Again You say How are St. Paul's Words to the Corinthians mis-render'd 1 Cor. 7.9 Quod si non se continent nubant But if they cannot contain let them marry where this Word cannot not being found in the Greek was devised in Favour of the Flesh That is to say in Favour of Marriage Now this Objection does but shew your want of Skill and the little honesty of those that helped you to it for assure yourself that although there is not a distinct Word in the Greek for cannot yet the force of it is discernible enough to those that understand these things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that one Greek † word of which our Translators made two English ones and were obliged so to do because we have not one that expresses it sufficiently It signifies to have the Command or Power over ones self which your * Se continere Latine does better express than if we had rendred your Latine word for word If they do not contain themselves For not to contain does in our Language and way of speaking fall short even of the Latin Phrase and much more of the Greek and therefore to make True Translation it was needful to say cannot contain And if the Force of the Word did not lead your Masters to this Construction yet at least the scope of the place might have done it For a very little consideration had been sufficient to have seen that the Apostle did not mean to give this counsel of Marrying to those only that had been guilty of actual Incontinence but to those also that could not due their own desires And that he speaks here of a Power that all have not is evident also from vers 7. For I would that all men were even as I my self but every one hath his proper Gift of God one after this manner and another after that The Truth is if there be a defect in any part of our Translation of these passages 't is in vers 5. where the Translators put Incontinency to answer the Greek word (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as Dr. Hammond has observed the English there does not reach the Original so well as the English cannot contain which you have learn't to Cavil at reaches it here But now Sir Why must this word cannot be said to be devised by us in favour of the Flesh For neither was it devised nor if it were does the sence which it gives the Place provide chiefly for Marriage but rather by that for the avoiding of heinous Sin as any one I think might see unless he believes Fornication to be more tolerable in sorce people than Matrimony The end of St. Paul's counsel in this place is visibly the same with that of his advice vers 5. for which he gives this Reason That Satan tempt you not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I would thus Paraphrase By the unruliness of your desires Get your Masters to do it better but mark what I say if this be well as I am reasonably assured it is it will be in vain any longer to cavil at the Translation of the place under debate And now let us go on Likewise the words of Christ Matth. 19.11 are corrupted in favour of the Flesh Non omnes capiunt verbum istud sed quibus datum est All men cannot receive this saying but such to whom it is given It ought to be All Men do not receive this saying But notwithstanding your vulgar Latin our Translation is already as it ought to be For the Greek word (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Capax sum does not only signifie to receive but as frequently to be capable of receiving And there is this reason for translating it so in this place because in the very next verse our Saviour speaking of the same Matter expresly says He that is able to receive it let him receive it Now I should think that this at least implies that some cannot receive it and yet as forward a Man as you are I suppose you will hardly say our Saviour put in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Able in favour of the Flesh Also the words of Job chap. 7. and many other Texts especially Exod. 20.4 in hatred of the Picture of our Saviour Non facies tibi sculptile which word sculptile is by the Seventy Interpreters Translated Idol as indeed it ought to be because God did not forbid Images but Idols As for Job 7.1 it is rendred

Body think himself Infallible when once they depended upon his Holiness no longer When you design a witty Query take care whilst you live that there be some Sence and a little Truth at the bottom and in one Word that it be not like this which is a meer Bubble and turns to nothing Sect. 27 Quer. By whose Authority did he Divorce his Virtuous Wife Queen Catharine His own or a Foreign If by his own why may not other Kings also put away their Wives at their pleasure If Mary his Daughter by Queen Catharine was Legimate Heiress of the Kingdom then Elizabeth was not because it was not lawful for King Henry to have two Wives at once Answ I doubt not but Queen Catharine was a Vertuous Wife but under favour since you will needs be medling with these Matters you should have put your Question either with more honesty or with more skill and instead of asking By whose Authority he divorced his Virtuous Wife you should have asked by what Authority he divorced his Brothers Wife For there lay the point and here I must tell you that after that Question whether the Pope had Power to dispense with that Marriage had been debated and determined in the Negative by the most famous Universities of Europe for you an unskilful Querist to ask by what Authority the King did as he did shews that you have spent your time to little purpose and are to be admonished to bestow it better for the future As for your other difficulty how Mary and Elizabeth could be both Legitimate I Answer that the Legitimacy of Elizabeth is plain supposing the Marriage of Queen Catharine to King Henry to be void but yet Mary the Child of that Marriage was not Illegitimate because the Marriage was made without Fraud But if one or other of them must necessarily be Illegitimate pray look you to the consequence who I suppose apprehend some great Matter to depend upon this Dispute For my own part these kind of Queries seem to be very impertinent for if Queen Mary was Illegitimate our Religion is not one jot the truer for it and if she was Legitimate neither is it the worse But there is a time to answer Questions that are none of the wisest Sect. 28 Quer. If that Religion be Sacred that is established by Law why did Queen Elizabeth destroy the Catholick Religion Established by so many Acts of Parliament Answ It seems then that what you call the Catholick Religion may be destroyed And yet these Queries are publish'd with Allowance Your Superiors surely can instruct you that to destroy the Legal Establishment of a Religion is one thing and to destroy the Religion is another But they saw that if you had expressed the former the Query had looked so ridiculously that it had been a shame to let it go For all the Sacredness that Human Law can give to a Religion is a legal Sacredness and no more or if you please a legal Establishment And so this is the English of your Quaere If that Religion has a legal Establishment that 's established by Law why did the Queen destroy the legal Establishment of the Catholick Religion which was of estalibshed by so many Laws In my opinion it had been much better to Query thus like a plain man If the Catholick Religion was established by so many Laws why did Queen Elizabeth unestablish it by Law again And now having brought your Query to this Form I Answer that yours is not the Catholick Religion and it was pity that it should have that Sacredness which the Law gave it because it had no Sacredness of its own to deserve it and therefore it was a very good Law that took away the other Sacredness from it If you think this Answer not to be full enough you may pick out somerhing more in Answ to Sect. 20. whither I refer you Sect. 29 Quer. Queen Elizabeth expelled fourteen Catholick Bishops from their Sees for refusing the Oath of Supremacy But how could they swear her to be Head or Supreme Governor of the Church when they could not swear she was Head of this Kingdom Answ I think truly Fourteen Bishops were deprived in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign and that for not taking the Oath of Supremacy But take this along with you too that most of these Bishops if not All had taken the very same Oath before and some of 'em assisted at the framing of it So that one would think that their refusing to take the same Oath under Elizabeth was as much as to deny her to be Head of the Kingdom as you say which all modest Men must grant to have been a sufficient cause for their Deprivation But yet as tender as Princes are of their Titles it is to be remembred to her immortal Credit that she did not serve them as her Predecessor did Cranmer Latimer Ridley and Hooper but used them in all other respects with great gentleness What their true reasons were for refusing the Oath of Supremacy I shall not go about to Divine But as for you who will needs have it to be this in part at least that they could not swear she was Head of the Kingdom Thus far you are to be commended that you have chosen a more modest expression of your Malice than that impudent Writer did who told us the other day that she was a known Bastard But in the Calumny I perceive you are both agreed And heark ye Gentlemen I do in behalf of the dead Queen and of that Age which universally acknowledge her Title defie you both to make good your teproach and fix the Title of Calumniators upon you both if you neither can justifie it nor will publickly retract it Sect. 30 Quer. Did not Cranmer and his Reforming Associates steal their Liturgy out of the Roman Missal Ritual and Breviary Answ Or rather did not you steal this Query from the Dissenters Sure I am that hitherto it has been theirs saving only the rudeness of the expression which you have added to it Go to them and they can furnish you with an abundant Answer to this terrible Objection But if something must be said here our Liturgy if it must be stolen looks as if it were stolen not out of your Roman but the Old Gallican Missal which once was ours and therefore it was not stolen but now every Body has his own again But if we had taken your Roman Missal Ritual and Breviary only and compiled our Liturgy out of them yet we took nothing of your peculiar Goods from them but only what every part of the Catholick Church has as much right to as your selves and as for that which is peculiarly and properly your own there we have left it entirely to you and much good may it do you Sect. 31 Quer. Are not Protestants bound by their Dath de Supremacy to obey the King as Supreme Governor as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes as Temporal