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	faith_n	fundamental_a	1,746	5	10.1277	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44394	Four tracts by the ever memorable Mr. John Hales of Eaton College. Viz. I. Of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. II. Of the power of the keyes. III. Of schism and schismaticks. IV. Missellanies.	Hales, John, 1584-1656.	1677 (1677)	Wing H268A; ESTC R223741	37,038	64

unto me But thus much will I say that the benefit of that sacred Influence is confined to those happy Souls in whom it is and cannot extend it self to the Church in publick And if any Catholick except against you for saying so warrant your self and me out of Aquinas whose words are these Innititur fidei natura revelationi Apostolis Prophetis factae qui Canonicos Libros scripserunt non autem Revelationi siqua fuit aliis Doctoribus factae It being granted then that Churches can err it remains then in the second place to consider how far they may err I answer for Churches as I did before for private Persons Churches may err in Fundamentals if they list for they may be heretical for Churches may be wicked they may be Idolaters and why then not heretical Is Heresy a more dangerous thing than Idolatry For whereas it is pleaded that Churches cannot fall into Heresie because of that promise of our Saviour That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church is but out of mistake of the meaning of that place and indeed I have often mused how so plain a place could so long and so generally be misconstrued To secure you therefore that you be not abused with these words hereafter for they are often quoted to prove the Church's Infallibility I shall endeavour to give you the natural meaning of them For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gates of Hell is an Hebraism for in the Hebrew Expression the Gates of a thing signifies the thing it self as the gates of Sion Sion it self and by the same proportion the gates of Hell signifies Hell it self Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we English Hell as in no place of Scripture it signifies Heresie so very frequently in Scripture it signifies Death or rather the state of the dead and indifferently aplied to good and bad Let us then take the Word in that meaning for what greater means can we have to warrant the signification of a Scripture-word than the general meaning of it in Scripture So that when our Saviour spake these words he made no promise to the Church of persevering in the Truth but to those that did persevere in the Truth he made a promise of Victory against Death and hell And what he there says sounds to no other purpose but this That those who shall continue his although they dye yet Death shall not have the Dominion over them but the time shall come that the bands of Death shall be broken and as Christ is risen so shall they that are his rise again to Immortality For any help therefore that this Text affords Churches may err in Fundamentals But to speak the Truth I much wonder not only how any Churches but how any private Man that is careful to know and follow the Truth can err in Fundamentals For since it is most certain That the Scripture contains at least the Fundamental Parts of Christian Faith how is it possible that any Man that is careful to study and believe the Scripture should be ignorant of any necessary part of his Faith Now whether the Chucrh of Rome err in Fundamentals yea or no To answer this I must crave leave to use this Distinction To err in Fundamentals is either to be ignorant of or deny something to be Fundamental that is or to entertain something for Fundamental which is not In the first sense the Church of Rome entertaining the Scriptures as she doth cannot possibly be ignorant of any principal part of Christian Faith all her error is in entertaining in her self and obtruding upon others a multitude of things for Fundamentals which no way concern our Faith at all Now how dangerous it is thus to do except I know whether she did this willingly or wittingly yea or no is not easy to define If willingly she doth it it is certainly high and damnable presumption if ignorantly I know not what mercies God hath in store for them that sin not out of malicious wickedness Now concerning the merriment newly started I mean the requiring of a Catalogue of Fundamentals I need no answer no more but what Abraham tells the rich Man in Hell Habent Mosen Prophetas They have Moses and the Prophets the Apostles and the Evangelists let them seek them there for if they find them not there in vain shall they seek them in all the World besides But yet come a little nearer to the Particulars If the Church of Rome would needs know what is Fundamental in our conceit and what not the Answer as far as my self in Person am concerned in the Business shall be no other than this Let her observe what Points they are wherein we agree with her and let her think if she please that we account of them as Fundamentals especially if they be in the Scriptures and on the other hand let her mark in what Points we refuse Communion with her and let her assure her self we esteem those as no Fundamentals If she desire a List and Catalogue made of all those she is at leisure enough for ought I know to do it her self Last of all Concerning the imputation of Rebellion and Schism against Church-Authority with which your Catholick Disputant meant to affright you all that is but meerly Powder without Shot and can never hurt you For since it hath been sufficiently evidenced unto us That the Church of Rome hath adulterated the Truth of God by mixing with it sundry Inventions of her own it was the Conscience of our duty to God that made us to separate For where the Truth of God doth once suffer there Union is Conspiracy Authority is but Tyranny and Churches are but Routs And suppose we that we mistook and made our Separation upon Error the Church of Rome being right in all her Ways though we think otherwise yet could not this much prejudice us For it is Schism upon wilfulness that brings danger with it Schism upon mistake and Schism upon just occasion hath in it self little hurt if any at all SIR I Return you more than I thought or you expected yet less than the Argument requir'd If you shall favour me so much as carefully to read what I have carefully written you shall find at least in those points you occasioned me to touch upon sufficient ground to plant your self strongly against all Discourse of the Romish Corner-creepers which they use for the Seducing of unstable Souls Be it much or little that I have done I require no other reward than the continuance of your good Affection to Your SERVANT whom you know A TRACT Concerning the Power of the KEYS AND Auricular Confession IN opening the Point concerning the Doctrine of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven I will follow those Lines that Tract which your self hath been pleased to set me Yet first ere I come to your particulars I will discover as far as generality will give me leave what it is which we intend when we use

many formalities and ceremonial circumstances upon no warrant but their own which circumstances by long use begat in the minds of Men a conceit That they were essential parts of that to which indeed they were but appendant and that only by the device of some who practised a power in the Church more than was convenient Thus much for the first common mistake The Second is worse than it You see that both Parties agree in the acknowledgement of the real presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist though they differ in the manner of his Presence and application of himself to the receiver though the Protestant Disputant seems to have gone a little beyond his Leader Had he express'd himself in the point of Bread and Wine what became of it whether it remain'd in its proper nature yea or no I could the better have fathom'd him Now these words of his That the Bread and Wine after consecration are truly and really the Body of Christ howsoever they are suppled and allayed with that clause not after a carnal but after a spiritual manner yet still remain too crude and raw and betray the speaker for a Lutheran at least if not for a favourer of the Church of Rome for as for that Phrase of a spiritual manner which seems to give season and moderation to his conclusion it can yield him but small relief For first To say the flesh of Christ is in the Bread but not after a carnal manner is but the same nonsense which the Divines of Rome put upon us on the like occasion when telling us That the Blood of Christ is really sacrificed and shed in the Sacrament they add by way of Gloss that it is done incruentè unbloodily by the like Analogy they may tell us if they please That the body of Christ is there incorporated unbodily Flesh not carnally may pass the Press jointly the next Edition of the Book of Bulls Again in another respect That clause of a spiritual manner doth your Protestant Disputer but little service if any at all for the Catholick Disputant contriving with himself how to seat the Body of God in the Eucharist as may be most for his ease tells us That he is there as Spirits and glorified Bodies which St. Paul calls spiritual are in the places they possess so then the one tells you the Body of Christ is there really but spiritually the other That he is there really but as a Spirit in a place and what now I pray you is the difference between them By the way in the passage you may see what account to make of your Catholick Disputer Aristotle and with him common sense tells us thus much That he that compares two Bodies together must know them both Doth this Gentleman know any thing concerning the site and locality of Spirits and Bodies glorified if he doth let him do us the courtesy as to shew us at what price he purchased that degree of knowledge that so we may try our Credit and see if we can buy it at the same rate Tertius è Coelo cecidit Cato Is he like a second Paul lately descended out of the third Heavens and there hath made us the discovery for by what other means he could attain to that knowledge my dulness cannot suggest But if he doth not know as indeed he neither doth nor can for there is no means left to make discovery that way then with what congruity can he tell us That the Body of Christ is in the Bread as Spirits and glorified Bodies are in their places if he know not what manner of location and site Spirits and glorified Bodies have I shall not need to prompt your discretion thus far as that you ought not to make dainties of such fruitless and desperate Disputers who as the Apostle notes thrust themselves into things they have not seen and upon a false shew of knowledge abuse easie Hearers and of things they know not adventure to speak they know not what To return then and consider a little more of this second mistake common to both your Disputants I will deal as favourably as I can with your Protestant Disputer for though I think he mistakes himself for I know no Protestant that teacheth that the common Bread after the word spoken is really made the Body of Christ yet he might well take occasion thus to err out of some Protestant Writings For generally the reformed Divines do falsly report that Holy Action whether you regard the Essence or Use thereof For first if in regard of the Essence some Protestants and that of chief note stick not to say That the words of Consecration are not a meer Trope and from hence it must needs follow that in some sense they must needs be taken literally which is enough to plead authority for the Gentleman's Error But that which they preach concerning a real presence and participation of Christ's Body in the Sacrament they expound not by a supposal that the Bread becomes God's Body but that togegether with the Sacramental Elements there is conveyed into the Soul of the worthy Receiver the very Body and Blood of God but after a secret ineffable and wonderfull manner From hence as I take it have proceeded these crude speeches of the Learned of the Reformed Parts some dead some living wherein they take upon them to assure the Divines of Rome That we acknowledge a Real Presence as well as they but for the manner how con or trans or sub or in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we play the Secpticks and determine not This conceit besides the falshood of it is a meer novelty neither is it to be found in the Books of any of the Ancients till Martin Bucer rose He out of an unseasonable bashfulness and fear to seem to recede too far from the Church of Rome taught to the purpose now related concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament and from him it descended into the Writings of Calvin and Beza whose Authority have well-near spread it over the face of the Reformed Churches This is an Error which as I said touches the Essence of that holy Action but there are many now which touch the end and use of it which are practised by the Reformed Parts for out of an extravagant fancy they have of it they abuse it to many ends of which we may think the first Instituter save that he was God and knew all things never thought of For we make it an Arbitrator of Civil businesses and imploy it in ending Controversies and for Confirmation of what we say or do we commonly promise to take the Sacrament upon it we teach That it confirms our Faith in Christ whereas indeed the receiving of it is a sign of Faith confirmed and Men come to it to testifie that they do believe not to procure that they may believe For if a Man doubt of the truth of Christianity think you that his scruples would be removed