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 revelation_n 2,202 5 9.5251 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A93670 Questions propounded for resolution of unlearned Protestants in matter of religion, to the doctours of the prelaticall pretended reformed church of England. Spencer, John, 1601-1671. 1657 (1657) Wing S4957; ESTC R230353 15,605 57

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

be obscure in points not necessarie to salvation by what means can they ever think to convince the Roman Church of errour in these points of difference betwixt them and her Quest 19. Seeing also that every point of faith is a divine truth proceeding from the Revelation of God and to be believed as I suppose for the present with the common consent of Protestants with an infallible assent of faith if the universall visible Church may erre and the Scriptures may be obscure as is generally affirmed by our adversaries in points of faith not fundamentall how shall such points as are in controversie betwixt us and are accounted by Protestants not fundamentall or not necessarie to salvation be discerned to be points of faith or how agreed this modern Protestant doctrine of no difference betwixt us in points necessary to salvation with that of their beginners and more ancient Predecessours who taught that the Scriptures were clear only in all points necessary to salvation and upon that pretext both affirmed that our doctrin's against them were clearly convinced of falshood by the authority of sole Scripture and allowed all lay people promiscuously to read them as being clear to them in all the points controversed betwixt us for this manifestly supses that they were held by those beginners to be points of faith necessary to salvation or fundamentalls or what means is there to believe them as points of faith seeing they can never be believed infallibly upon the Churches authoritie by reason of her pretended fallibilitie in them nor expresly for the authoritie of Scripture by reason of its obscurity in the delivery of them according to the principles of Protestants Quest 20. I demand further if the whole visible Church may erre in the definition of any point of faith whatsoever that errour must either proceed from ignorance want of light or from malice and want of vertue or goodness not the second for then the whole visible Church of Christ should not be Sancta Holy as it is believed to be in our Creed and described in the Scriptures but should become a Harlot abominable willfull deceiver of the world and a seducer of Nations in teaching contrarie to the known truth not the first for if she could erre out of ignorance to what purpose do Protestants appeal to her determination in a lawfull generall Councell in any of the points in difference betwixt them and those of the Roman Church seeing she may through ignorance erre in the determination of them as being not fundamentall according to them Neither can it be said that notwithstanding the whole visible Churches fallibility in points not fundamentall nay though it should actually erre and that errour should be evidently discovered yet even those who had thus evidently discovered the said errours were to conform themselves to those erroneous definitions of a generall Councell For if this conformity be understood of an internall conformity in judgement it is wholly impossible seeing that were to judge the same thing to be true and not true at the same time and to judge against an evident knowledge and if it be understood of an externall conformity and profession only it were manifestly impious and high hipocrisie in resisting the known truth and professing to believe that as a divine Truth revealed by Almighty God which they evidently know to be a most false errour in faith Secondly if one were to subscribe externally to conform himself to the definitions of lawfull generall Councells which one perswades himself he evidently knows to be erroneous till another Councell be assembled to correct them why did not Protestants afford this externall conformity to the definitions of the Generall Councell of Florence of Lateran and to the second Councell of Nice to omit others till some other lawfull generall Councell came to correct their pretended errours they having no other reason to reject the authority of the said Councells then that they define many things against the Protestant doctrine Thirdly seeing it was never yet seen nor can be ever made manifest that any lawfull generall Councell revoked any definition in matter of faith of any former lawfull generall Councell what hope is there that they shall now begin to do what was never done before them Fourthly if it were supposed that any such revocatorie definition should issue from them that party whose doctrine should be condemned by such revocations would accuse that Councell of errour as much as the contrary party accused the former Councell of errour in defining against them and so the controversie would remain as indetermined as it was before neither would it be possible ever to determine it fully by a generall Councell for the party condemned would still expect another Councell to revoke that definition which seems to him evidently erroneous and so there would be no end of new determinations and revocations in infinitum Yet further seeing lawfull generall Councells do not only oblige even under pain of Anathema or being accursed and excommunicated all Christians to believe and profess the doctrine which they teach them not only to be true and free from errour but to be divine Truth revealed by God himself if they should erre in any such definition they must make God the Authour of errour and untruth which quite destroyes the veracity of God and consequently overthrows the main and primary foundation of Christian faith and therefore must necessarily be held to include a fundamentall errour so impossible and implicatorie a thing it is for them to erre in matter of faith and not to erre fundamentally For either that erring Councell must define some positive errour or that which God never revealed to be revealed from God or that some true revelation of God is an errour both which contain no less malice then this to make God a lyar Quest 21. Seeing S. Paul Ephes. 4. v. 14. affirms that our Saviour had appointed Pastours and Teachers till the day of judgement as a means to preserve Christian people from being carried about with every wind of doctrine these words every wind of doctrine cannot be understood disjunctively for then if those Pastours preserved them from being seduced in one only point of Christian doctrine it would not be true that they preserved them from being carried about with every wind of doctrine but they must be understood conjunctively that is that they preserve them from being carried away with any wind of doctrine whatsoever which should chance to be buzzed into their ears by false Teachers Now seeing such winds of erroneous doctrine are raised as well in points which Protestants account not fundamentall as in fundamentalls the meaning of the Apostle must be that by means of those Pastours Christians be preserved from following any errour in faith whither it be fundamentall or not fundamentall and consequently that they can ass●redly direct them to eschew all errours in faith which they could not do if they themselves were subject to teach them