Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	believe_v	church_n	err_v	1,967	5	9.6697	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66414	Pulpit-popery, true popery being an answer to a book intituled, Pulpit-sayings, and in vindication of the Apology for the pulpits, and the stater of the controversie against the representer.	Williams, John, 1636?-1709.	1688 (1688)	Wing W2721; ESTC R38941	69,053	80

him that sent it and that the Letter and Bearer both affirm this small Stone which he now holds betwixt his fingers and knows by his Senses to be a Stone and not a Man is yet the great Mogul in person and so is every Diamond besides that comes over and yet that Prince is still in his own Country Must that person now because of their Authority and greater skill think himself bound to acquiesce in their judgment against the testimony of sense or must he not renounce his senses to do it 2. He supposes further that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is as plainly contained in Scripture as it is in the Letter that the Transparent Stone then sent is a Diamond But that he knows we deny and when he can find these or the like words This Bread is turn'd into my Natural Body or is upon Consecration my true Substantial Body it will be time enough to prepare a further Answer for him The Question being not whether what God teaches is not to be believed but whether he hath so taught So that it still remains true what the Preacher charged upon him that in believing Transubstantiation a man must renounce his five Senses at once even hearing it self which will not only teach us to distinguish betwixt the Host's and the Priest's falling into the water though we are blindfold but we must in their way renounce that Sense to believe it when we hear all Mankind concurring in it that the report of Sense is to be believed and that in our Author's words To frame a judgment of the nature or substance of a thing we must depend upon Sense 5. The Pope alone cannot err and all others without some of his Assistance cannot but err Here are two Propositions 1. The Pope cannot err This our Author now calls an Opinion of some School-Divines whereas the Apologist shewed it to be the prevailing Opinion of their Church whether in respect of number or authority It 's the most common opinion of almost all Catholicks as Bellarmin It 's the Catholick Truth and what all Catholick Doctors teach in these days saith Suarez But to this not a word 2. All others cannot but err Here our Author is guilty of a new Misrepresentation It is charged upon us saith he because we believe the members of our Church to be fallible that therefore they cannot but err Where he changes the Proposition into a Conclusion by foysting in the word Therefore and then running it down as a most Illogical and absurd consequence but let him answer for the faults of it whose conseqeunce it is The consequence then be to himself and let the Proposition be the Preacher's that all others without some of his assistance cannot but err This is absolutely false saith our Author and so say I too but it is true Popery Let their Catechism decide the Case to that I appeal which thus delivers the sense of their Church upon it But as this one Church which the Pope of Rome is at the Head of Sect. 15. cannot err in delivering the Doctrine of Faith and Manners seeing it 's governed by the Holy Ghost So all the rest which assume to themselves the name of a Church must of necessity be engaged in the most pernicious Errors of Doctrine and Manners as being led by the spirit of the Devil Now here is the whole Calummy at large If men submit to the Pope and are in his Church they have the benefit and assistance of his Infallibility and are under the Guidance of it as secure as in the Ark of Noah but if they leave it they are drown'd in error and perdition And surely while they are in actual Error they cannot but err according to the known Axiom Quicquid est quamdiu est necesse est esse Because the Apologist before was modest and having not seen the Sermon it self and so not fully understanding the sense of it would neither too hastily condemn or acquit but after he had said what he thought fit upon it concludes If the Preacher went beyond this what Author or Authors he had for it I know not they do not at present occur to me our Author begins to exult saying It 's such a Consequence as the Apologizer himself knows not how to justifie nor need not as a Consequence for that 's his own and yet he has not goodness enough to acquit us from so foul a Calumny The matter it seems is foul and is prov'd upon them let him now she his goodness in confessing the Charge or more of his strength to prove it a Calumny Eighth Character of a Pulpit-Papist He is professedly edified in ignorance by his Church Praying and Prophesying in an Vnknown Tongue They make no other use or account of Confession than what profest Drunkards do of Vomiting The first shall be considered in another place Char. 14. As to the second The Apologist shew'd what is the sense of the word Prophesie in the 1 Cor. 14. which the Preacher there refer'd to viz. that the Apostle there understands by it the expounding the Articles of the Christian Faith and of the Scriptures that contain it But here our Author grievously mistakes him when he adds and to be the same as Preaching For that he affirmed not as well knowing that the Apostle is to be otherwise understood than of Vulgar Preaching 1. Because the Apostle there distinguishes it from Doctrine v. 6. 2. Because of the way it was exercised in when one spoke after another agreeably to the custom of the Jewish Doctors in their Synagogues of whom Philo saith that one read the Bible and another of the more skilful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passing through places not understood exp●und●d them 3. Because it was an extraordinary gift by Revelation v. 29 30 31 32. and reckoned as such amongst them c. 12.10 13.2.9 2. The Apologist shew'd farther it was not reasonable to fix this sence upon the Preacher because he must needs know it to be otherwise To this our Author briskly returns Marry if they never Preached contrary to what they knew this would be a good Rule And he has found it by woful experience to be a hard task to discover it though it has been plainly made out that some write contrary to what they know 3. He shew'd farther that the Preacher was speaking about Worship and so consequently it must be what is so accounted and therefore that this must be rather the Reading of Lessons out of Scripture and Hymns which are sometimes call'd Prophesie 1 Chron. 25.1 and which are in their Church-Service in an Vnknown Tongue This our Author passes by as also the Challenge following it But yet he will have it a Calumny whilst he asserts a thing of the Papists which in the common acceptation of the word is absolutely false But what if it was the common acceptation of the word if not the acceptation the Apostle takes it in in that place which the Preacher