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
A73451	Bels trial examined that is a refutation of his late treatise, intituled. The triall of the nevve religion By B.C. student in diuinitie. VVherein his many & grosse vntruthes, with diuers contradictions are discouered: together with an examination of the principal partes of that vaine pamphlet: and the antiquitie & veritie of sundry Catholike articles, which he calleth rotten ragges of the newe religion, are defended against the newe ragmaster of rascal. In the preface likewise, a short viewe of one Thomas Rogers vntruthes is sett downe, taken out of his booke called. The faith doctrine and religion, professed and protected in the realme of England, &c. with a short memorandum for T.V. otherwise called Th. Vdal.	Woodward, Philip, ca. 1557-1610.	1608 (1608)	STC 25972.2; ESTC S125583	118,782	210

a man of his profession charge vs with so strange paradoxicall and blasphemous an assertion and so iniurious to the sacred bloud of the Redeemer of the whole world and that both of men and women without recoilinge of Conscience we denye what he saith how doth he proue what so boldly he affirmeth Postellus the Iesuit quoth he teacheth this execrable dnctrine which he proueth out of the Iesuits Cathechisme That Postellus was one of that order is more then I doe knowe or more then I list yet to beleue vntill I see better prooffes but yf he were he was no other then such a religious man as Luther was that ranne out of his cloister to lay the foundation of the Gospell I finde him in the Indice of the Councell of Trent commonly annexed thereunto enrolde for an heretike and so discharged from vs albeit I can hardly beleue that euer he could be so madde as to broach any such ridiculous sensles and blasphemous doctrine To iustify this of Postellus Mr. Rogers voucheth the Iesuits Catachisme that is a most scandalous and slaunderous libel made by one Pasquiere a French heretike in disgrace of that renowmed order as he knoweth full well when he citeth out of the same Catachisme two infamous verses tendinge deepely to the Pag. 187. touch of their liues which none so simple to thinke that they would publishe of themselues They are so far from being the authors of that filthie and hereticall booke that one Richeome a learned man of that Society hath sette forth a confutation thereof Should a Catholike compose a like treatise bearinge title The Church of Englands Catechisme fraught with abhominable and most odious opinions and such in truth as they vtterly detest and should I produce out of it most loathsom stuffe against them in disgracè of their religion would he not condemne both the author for a monster of the world and me for an extreame malitious slaunderer to presse them with any such damnable testimony I leaue the application to himself Pag. 17. He condemneth it in vs as an error and dreame that Christ descended downe into hell to deliuer the Soules of our forefathers and that most iniuriously for to omitte what may be brought out of sacred scripture we can not be condemned herein but the auncient fathers must beare vs company and that by the testimony of our aduersaries The fable quoth Casuin of a place vnder the 2. Instit. cap. 16. §. 9. ground called Limbus albeit it hath greate authors yet it is nothing els then a fable Sutcliffe confesseth that S. Hierom and other fathers beleued that Lib. 1. de Purgato cap. 4. there was a simbus patrum before the comming of Christ But he addeth that they affirmed it rather scholasticaliy then dogmatically which yet he neither doth nor can proue we take what he graunteth of their beleuinge the other we deny Willet also can not gainesay the same We confesse In his s●nopsis of the editiō 1600. pag. 353. quoth he that the fathers for the most part of them to haue bene in this error To conclude this doctrine is taught by the church of Englande when as in the Geneua Psalms allowed and authorized by receiued custome amongest them this article of the Crede He descended into hell is turned thus into meeter His soule did after this discende into the lower parts To them that longe in darkenes were the true light of their harts By what warrant therfore Mr. Rogers expoundeth them here to the contrary I know not him selfe can best tell Pag. 23. many Papistes quoth he and namely the Franciscans blushe not to say that S. Francis is the Holy Ghost Mr. Rogers blusheth not notoriously to iniury vs with the imputation of so blasphemous an assertion He quoteth in the margent for prooffe the Alcaron of the Franciscans a most shamelesse and scurrilous booke sett out by modern heretikes against that worthy and religious order It seemeth he bestoweth much of his tyme in such spirituall books as these and willingly entertaineth such witnes against vs as the Scribes and Phariseis did against Christ vntill he dischargeth himself better this iniurious and blasphemous vntruth must ly vpon him self Pag. 29. Speaking of our behauiour to the scriptures he Antidot euang in Luc. 16. p. 528. saith To the same purpose but more blasphemously Stapleton saith as the Iewes were to beleue Christ so are we simply and in euery thinge to beleue the Church of Rome whether it teacheth truth or errors He fathereth a grosse vntruth vpon Stapleton his words be these Certum est c. It is certayne that the Iewes ought to haue obe●ed Christ so far forth as he gaue testimony to the truth but whether he did that or no belonged not to the Iewes to make any doubt of but simply to beleue Wherefore as the Iewes ought to haue beleued Christ so ought we simply to beleue the Churche not verily whether Note these wordes against Mr. Rogers it teacheth true thinges or not but whether that be certayne to vs or not We ought not to doubt but as the father sending Christ cōmaunding him to be heard so Christ sending his church and commaunding that to be heard hath by his wisdom disposed that without all daunger of errour as well the Churche should be heard of vs as Christ of the Iewes True therefore it is not that Stapleton saith we are simply and in euery thinge to beleue the Church whether it teacheth truth or errors for he affirmeth the contrary and his words contayne not any impious or absurd doctrine though Mr. Rogers by ouerlashing and not reciting his wordes truly would make him to speake both impiously and falsely Pag. 49. He taxeth vs for teachinge free will and these words he citeth as out of the Councell of Trent Man Ses 6. cap. 1. hath free will to performe euen spirituall and heauenly thinges VVhat error can this be when straight after Mr. Rogers setteth downe this proposition Man may performe and do good works when he is preuented by the grace of Christ and renued by the Holy Ghost But he will say that the Councell of Trent teacheth that good workes may be done without the grace of Christ and therefore he citeth this doctrine of ours as erroneous and contrary to a former proposition of his which is this Man can not do any good worke that good is and godly being not yet regenerate But herein he doth slaunder the Councell of Trent In the very place by him quoted it rather hath the contrary and in the first Canon of that Session most plainely which is this Yfany shall say that a man is iustified before Ses 6. can 1. God by his workes which are done either by the force of humane nature or the doctrine of the lawe without diuine grace by Iesus Christ be he accursed Iudge nowe gentle Reader whether Mr. Rogers hath dealt truly with vs and the Councell of Trent or

the Euangelist no lesse then fiftye yeares by Bels owne computation for S. Peter was crucified as he sayth Suruey pag. 172. at Rome vnder Nero the fourtith and fourth yeare after Christe Nay the same Eusebius noteth though breifely how Simon Magus was ouercome by S. Peter Cerinthus also the heretike was in the Lib. 2. hist cap. 1. Apostles time for Ireneus maketh mention how S. Iohn the Euangelist comming to wash him selfe Lib. 3. cap. 3. in the bath finding there Cerinthus suddainly departed saying that he feared least the bath would fall for as much as the enemye of truth was then in it But what doe I dispute further in a matter so euident for certaine it is out of sacred scripture that heresies were taught long before the death of S. Iohn S. Paule who was beheaded Suruey pag. 172. at Rome the same day and yeare with S. Peter as Bell confesseth writing that Hymenaeus and Philetus erred from the truth saying the resurrection is done 2. Tim. 2. v. 18. already and had subuerted the fayth of some which conuinceth playenly that their doctrine was hereticall otherwise it could not haue subuerted faith Doth not S. Iohn also him selfe speake of the damnable Nicolaites This being so could Egesippus or Eusebius men of greate learninge and conuersant Apoc. 2. in the scriptures be ignorant of this or knowing it can it enter into any mans imagination that they would write as Bell alleadgeth them directly contrary to the truth and opposit to their owne knowledge will not any soner beleeue that the minister hath grosly slaundered them and coyned this f●ction in the forge of his owne braines imployed about nothing more then the hammering of lyes cauils and corruptions against the Catholicke fayth The minister proceding forward laboureth to shew how errors crept in after the death of S. Iohn and telleth out of Eusebius that Papias and Ireneus were Chiliastes which I willingly graunt but withall deny that they were therefore heretikes as before hath bene sayd and so they helpe his cause nothinge at all for he speaketh of such errors as be ioyned with heresie from which they wer free Melchior Canus also quoth he opposeth him selfe against all the Thomists and Scotists both the old and latter Papists and this he bringeth to proue that hereticall errors haue crept into the Church He slandreth that great learned man and professor of diuinity when he woulde make him of his owne opinion what he thought of the Churches infallibility in not erring he deliuereth in these conclusions The first The fayth Lib. 4. de locu cap. 4. os the Church can not faile The second conclusion The Church can not err in beleeuing The third conclusion Not only the old Church could not err in fayth but neyther the church which now is and which shall be to the end of the world eyther can or shall err in fayth And yet the minister produceth him as I sayd to proue that heresies crept into the church after the time of the Apostles how truly let the reader iudge The question then wherof Canus speaketh concerneth not any poynt of faith as in expresse termes he there affirmeth but a matter debatable in scholes True it is that Bell maketh him to say that he doth oppose him selfe against all the Thomists and Scotists both the old and latter Papistes but the worde Papistes is foisted in by him selfe by which he would haue the reader to thinck that he spake of auncient fathers when as he talketh only of old and new Scholemen as he might learne out of the very title of that chapter which is Of the authoritye of the Schole Doctors The like may be sayd of Caietanus Nauarrus and Roffensis alledged for the same purpose by Bell all which liued in our age and were well known not to haue swarued from any thinge defined by the Catholicke church as I could shew and in particular demonstrat how he abuseth them were it not to be tedious especially about the Epistle wherof I was once determined to haue sayd nothinge at all Yet must I not omitt S. Augustin cited by Bell What sayth he any thinge perhapps to proue that the Church straight after S. Iohn was infected with hereticall error Mary quoth Bell he reputed Epist ad Hierō 19. no mans writings wholy free from errors saue only the writers of the holy scriptures This serueth not the turne S. Augustin must speake of hereticall errors or else he nothinge helpeth Bell but I trowe he will not make all others beside the writers of the scriptures to haue runn into any such errors No nor it is not be imagined that he will graunt that the Communion booke or the late Prouinciall councell of England confirmed by roiall assent and least of all his owne bookes to be stayned with any such errors yea or any errors at all and yet if S. Austens words be true as Bell alledgeth them how these will be excused I know not vnlesse he will tell vs that S. Austens spake of his owne former times not of those which shold follow after and so attribute more prerogatiue to moderne writers then to the venerable learned fathers of the Primitiue church which were a desperate shift meete for a man of his shifting conditions But where I beseche him hath S. Augustin these wordes He quoteth epis ad Hierom. ep 19. Where no such thinge will be founde only he faith that no bookes are comparable for truthe with the bookes of the Prophetes and Apostle which is not to censure all writers for erroneou● but not to match them with the Prophetes al● Apostles That holy doctor was far ynoughe fro● thincking that the church could err Speaking the church of Rome and that blessed successi● he saith Number the Priestes yea euen from the ve● In Psal cont partē Donati seate of Peter and in that order of fathers see who succded whom that is the rocke which the proude gates of h● doe not ouercome And to generall councels I● which the church is represented he did attribu● so much that he excuseth Cyprian from here● Lib. 1. de Baptismo cap. 18. because in his time there was no generall Counc● which had defined that question of rebaptization which sheweth euidently that he thought the could not err And the custome and authorit● of the church he reputed so infallible that h● saith To dispute against that which the vniuersall chur● Epist. 118. holdeth is most insolent madnes Colde comfort dot● S. Augustin afforde Bell to proue that heretica errors haue crept into the churche An other sentence alleadged out of S. Austi● where that holy Father saith that he doth not repute Cōt Crescon lib. 2. cap. 32. S. Cyprians writings as canonicall but iudge them ● the canonicall and whatsoeuer doth not agree with t● scriptures that by his leaue he doth refuse might ver well haue bene spared for who taketh them fo● canonicall nay

because marriage is so honourable in all sorts of men Thus writeth Cassiodorus thus writeth Socrates thus writeth Sozomenus And thus lieth the minister for none of these there speake any one worde that Paphnutius shoulde tell them that according to Gods worde to forbid marriage to Priests was too seuere a lawe he speaketh not one syllable of such as were Priests already as though he woulde haue them permitted to marry as Bell falsely reporteth in the fore alledged words and more plainely in the page following where he saith that Paphnutius motion was approued of the whole Councell and therevpon the matter was left as indifferent for euery Priest either to marry or not to marry at his owne choice False I say it is that either Cassiodorus Socrates or Sozomenus speake any one worde of the marriage of Priests or haue any such thinge that the matter was left indifferent for euery Priest to marry or not to marry at his owne choyce Why did he not quote the places where his reader might haue tried the truth of his relation what meaneth this flying of the light what els but that he had rather haue his bare worde taken then the matter examined It will not sorue his turne that in the ende of his Chapter he referreth the reader to his Suruay where those places be cited for that booke is not alwayes at hand and beside no such speciall place is there named that without difficulty what is desired can not be founde But view the places who please and the fidelity and sincere conscience of the minister will soone appeare for as much as the contrary of that Bell affirmeth remayneth there vpon recorde Cassiodorus the author of the tripartite history in the place quoted By Bell citeth Sozomenus from whom he receiueth that which he there reporteth which is this speaking of the Nicene Councell that it did seeme good to some to bring in a lawe that Bishoppes and Priests Deacons and Subdeacons shoulde not sleepe with their wiues which they had married before consecration But Paphnutius the confessor rising yp in the midst withstode it consessing marriage to be honourable and sayinge that the comapny of a mans owne wife was chastity and he aduised the Councell not to make any such lawe affirminge that it was a greate cause which might be to them or their wiues the occasion of fornication This doth he alleadge out of Sozomenus leauing yet something out which that author hath the cause as I suppose yf any place be left for coniecture why Bell rather quoted Cassiodorus then Sozomenus For Sozomenus addeth also these words of Paphnutius immediatly following And that the old tradition of the church was that those which were made Priests being not yet married should not afterwarde marry wiues but they which were called to that order being married shoulde not be separated from their wiues which they had The very same thinge hath Socrates By which the good reader may iudge what a conscience the minister hath when he blusheth not to say that the Councell left it indifferent for euery Priest to marry or not to marry at his owne choyce when as there is no one worde spoken of those that married after taking of holy orders but only of those that were ordered after they were married as both Cassiodorus out of Sozomenus and Sozomenus him selfe together with Socrates ioyntly asfirme nay when as Sozomenus and Socrates both say that the olde tradition of the Church was that those which tooke holy orders vnmarried might not marry at all This being so who will deny that the minister had not great reason neither to cite their wordes nor quote their places fathering so grosse an vntruth vpon them But some will say yet at least it appeareth out of the former authors that those which were married folke and afterwarde became Priests might still vse the company of their wiues which is agaynst the practise of the Romayne Church To this I say first that our question is not now about that pointe but whether Bell hath not slaundered these authors when he maketh them to say that thinge which they say not but haue the cleane contrary Secondly notwithstanding I answere that this may seme to make for the custome of the Grecians who retayne still those wiues which they had married before entring into holy orders but it helpeth nothinge at all our late Apostates that after their consecration and vowe of chastity without all scruple nay yf we list to belieue them with the testimony of a good conscience prouided them selues of younge yoake fellowes for the comfort of their declining yeares and spirituall begetting the liberty of the newe gospell yet in truth doth it neither releue the cause of the Grecians for so much as neither any such thinge is extant in the Nicene Councell and pregnant proffes to shewe that no such thing was euer there decreed for Sozomenus and Socrates being knowne heretiks deserue no credit especially the first of them being noted by blessed S. Gregory for Lib. 6. ep 31. one that hath many lyes and Socrates knowne for a man of like quality as I coulde easily shewe were it not that I desire all conuenient breuity but principally for that S. Hierom and S. Epiphanius who liued more nere to the time of the Nicene Councell then the other twayne did affirme so much of the custome of the Eastern church as can not stande with their former testimonies as straight after shall be handled Wherefore seing it must nedes be that either Sozomenus and Socrates erre from the truth or S. Hierome and S. Epiphanius none I thinke of indifferēcy but will preferre Catholikes before heretikes and those that liued nearer to the tyme of the Nicene Councell then those that were farther of and this is so certayne that I durst remitt the matter to Bell him selfe and such like did it not concerne so much their owne freholde and that the ponderous passion of wiuing without all respect of reason did beare downe the ballance to the wronge side But howsoeuer this shall fall out whereof by and by I shall haue more occasion to speake Bell the Ragmaster remaineth conuicte of a Notorious vntruth notwitstanding his often protestation of sincerity and plaine dealinge THE XII VNTRVTHE IN the same third Chapter pursuing still his former subiecte he vttereth two vntruthes with one breath in these wordes For this respecte was it that Priests were euer marryed in the Easte Churche vntill these our daies and in the west churche generallye for the space of three hundred eightie and fiue yeares at which tyme Pope Siricius excited by Satan prohibited mariage as an vnlawfull thinge Heer I say be two rouzinge vntruthes The first is Priests were euer maryed in the Easte churche For S. Epiphanius an auncient father and one of the Greeke church testifieth the cleane contrary Sanctum sacerdotium c. The holie Ad finem operis cōtra hereses Preishoode quoth he is for the most

following cited by Bell in his Suruay Scotus doth as wel establishe confession for the word auricular he hath not though Bell doth forst it in by the lawe of God foūded in the God spell as by traditiō comming from Christ as before hath been noted out of Scotus and this may passe for a notorious vntruth The third is that to conceale this his abusing both of Scotus and also of the The third good reader he cited Scotus his wordes in latin only not vouchsasing to putt them into Englishe but he is to be pardoned for that were not only to ly but also to hould the candle for other to viewe his treachery What sweete stuffe doth he preach to his auditors out of the pulpitt where he is free from all controulment that publisheth such vntruthes and playeth such cunnicatching trickes in the viewe of the whole realme THE XXV VNTRVTH AT the heeles of the former vntruth follow in the same chapter diuers others his wordes be these The Popish Glosse of great credit with the Papists telleth them roundly that auricular confession can no way be desended bnt by tradition of the church he runneth on lying very roundly in this manner Panormitanus Richardus Durandus Bonauentura Hugo and all the Popishe Canonists generally approue and followe the same Glosse In which fewe words be contayned at least three vntruthes of that quality that they may iustly deserue the whetstone The first is that Richardus ioyneth in opinion with the glosse and thinketh sacramentall confession to com from the institution and tradition of the Church for he teacheth the flatt opposite doctrine Respondeo quod omnes c. I aunsweare 4. Sē dist 17. ar 1. ques 1. quoth Richardus that all are bound of necessity to confesse their sinnes to the Priest because Christ hath commaunded this c. and he proueth it both otherwise and specially out of these wordes of our Sauiour Ioan. 20. Receiue you the holy Ghoste VVhose sinnes you shal forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose you shall retaine they are retained There is one notable vntruth for the minister to tyer vpon THE XXVI VNTRVTH THe second vntruth and that a chopper is that Durandus is also of the same opinion with the glosse when as he doth directly maintayne the contrary his wordes be these De consessione 4. Sē 1. dist 17. quait 8. autem stricte accepta c. But of confession taken strictly which is a manisestation of our sinnes before a Priest with hope of obtayning pardon it is to be sayd that it is not of the lawe of nature nor of any lawe that is pure humane but of the lawe of God deliuered in the Gospell And after he hath proued that it cometh no● from any law that is meere humane he concludeth thus Propter quod relinquitur c. VVherefore remayneth that sacramental confession of which 〈◊〉 speake is only by the law of God and straight after h● inueigheth very earnestly against the glosse fo● houlding the contrary What may not this Minister proue out of any authour and quickel● conuince vs by our owne doctors if when the● say one thinge he can without all scruple mayntayne them to teache the cleane contrary THE XXVII VNTRVTH THe third vntruth followeth no lesse shal melesse then the former so that it seemeth that he was now in the right vaine of lying fo● how doth he proue that against Richardus and D●randus which so bouldly he affirmeth For proof● straight after he voucheth his Suruay with quotation in the margent and also his Motiues but without any quotation at all Comming to his Suruey there he telleth the same tale against Richardus and Durandus referring him self for th● Suruey pag. 502. credit of that he sayeth to Iosephus Angles whom he quoteth in the margent thus Vide Ioseph Angle 4. S. pag. prim I haue not missed it one letter o● tittle and yet viewe that place he that will nothing shall be there found it may be he would or at least should haue sayd pag. 209. for I make some doubt whether euer he meant to cite the place truly seing there is in my conceipt some difference betwixt the number of one and the number of 209. and suppose that this booke weare in quarto which is a larger size yet must it much exceede the number of an hundred Perhapps he would haue sayd quest 1. de confessione for the syllables pag. quest resemble one an other so liuely that he might easilye mistake the one for an other The truth is this good reader if any probable coniecture may be admitted that he willingly peruerted the quotation Whether I haue reason to iudg so or no I leaue it to thy censure vpon the examination of the matter not to vrge therefore how in his pamphlet he vsually omitteth all citations of the authors them selues which ministreth iust cause of ielousy nor to speake how vnlikely it is that he could so grosly mistake it I stand only vpon this whether Iosephus Angles hath any such sentence by him alleadged or no if he hath then equity willeth vs to interpret all the the best but if Iosephus hath no such thinge neither doth so much as name Richardus or Durandus then can it not be denyed but that he hath not only belyed those two but also slaundered and corrupted Iosephus by foisting in those two names not founde in him for the concealing of this his treachery quoted him not at all in this pamphlet and gaue a false quotation in his Suruay but the truth is that Iosephus maketh not any mention of Richardus or Durandus In 4. sent quest de consess ar 1. pag. 209. Editionis 1584. apud Bellerum his words be these Confessio sacramentalis is c. Sacramental consession is instituted of Christ Iesus and confequently by the luwe of God c There haue bene six errors which are confuted in this first conclusion The first is of the Glosse of the decret in the begining of the fift distinction Panormitan vpon the chapter omnis vtriusque sexus c. S. Bonauenture and he citeth the authority of Hugo all which affirme that this sacrament was instituted by the Church Howe sayest thou goode reader is not Bell a trusty gospeller for a man to rely his soule vpon God grauntall good people to take heed of such an inward wolfe roabed outwardly with shepes clothing that is protestation of truth and sincerity Yf any obiect here and say that at least the Glosse and Panormitan were of that opinion I willingly graunt them to haue been in an error S. Ciprian erred about rebaptization and yet dyed a glorious martyr yf wefollow not the fathers though otherwise neuer so auncient or learned when they swarue from the common opinion and tradition of the Catholicke Churche doth he thinck that the erroneous conceipt of a moderne doctor or two shal ouersway the Church to the following of their particular and priuat opinions We acknowledge