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	word_n	14,132	5	4.8692	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33224	The summ of a conference on Feb. 21, 1686, between Dr. Clagett, and Father Gooden, about the point of transubstantiation	Clagett, William, 1646-1688.; Gooden, Peter, d. 1695.	1689 (1689)	Wing C4401; ESTC R7092	13,374	33

are accounted Fallible Nor Councels because they also are accounted Fallible Nor Scriptures sensed by a Fallible Authority because all such Interpretations may be False And therefore Faith cannot be Obtained by any such means For that which is Doubtfull can only Create Opinion which is also Doubtful And He that doubts in Faith the Apostle says is Infidelis And a Company of Doubters are not a Church of Faithful but a Society of such as the Apostle calls Infidels Signed Peter Gooden The Answer Pap. Articles of Christian Faith are Truths Ans The Design of the Disputer is to prove that we are Doubters and therefore Infidels But never did any man begin a business more unluckily for at the very first dash he takes it for granted that we do undoubtedly believe Articles of Christian Faith to be Truths for otherwise he ought to have proved that they are so But there is another Misfortune he is faln into no less than that for his Argument to prove that we must needs be Doubters is that we want an Infallible Rule Now if he is sure that we want an Infallible Rule and that without such a Rule there can be no Faith I am sure he does notoriously contradict himself by supposing that we b●lieve all Articles of Christian Faith to be Truths though we have no such Rule This is a very hopeful Paper and like to make wise Converts which ends in making us Infidels and begins to prove it by an Argument that manifestly supposes Us to be Believers which also pretends that we have no Infallible Rule and therefore can be sure of no Point of Faith but yet manifestly supposes Us to be Assured of Some without it which shews the Paper to be a trifling Paper and worth no more Consideration But because the Disputer is said to boast so much of the Argument Contained in it I will go on with every Clause of it to Convince him if he does not already know it that there is not a Line in it but is either false or nothing to the purpose Pap. Truths are Impossible to be False Ans By Truths the Disputer means the Truth of Things or of Propositions and therefore this is a vain and fulsome saying which does not Advance his Reasoning one jot farther than it was before For this is no more than to say That which is true is true and it cannot possibly be but truths must be truths I think he applies himself to us as if we wanted not only Christian Faith but Common sence Pap. Therefore Articles of Christian Faith are Impossible to be False Ans There is no doubt of this supposing that they are Truths So that the Argument he begins with being put into the right order and into other words is this It is Impossible but truths must be truths but Articles of Christian Faith are Truths Therefore it is Impossible but they must be Truths The Ancient Fathers had made wise work with Christianity if they had gone this way to work to Convert Infidels Pap. Therefore those who obtain the Articles of the Christian Faith must have some Rule to acquire them by which cannot deceive them Ans This is an obscure saying and I must make the best of it By obtaining Articles of the Christian Faith I suppose he means believing them and by a Rule by which to acquire them He must understand a Rule or means whereby to know what the Articles of the Christian Faith are and then his meaning is That those who believe the Articles of the Christian Faith must be provided of some such Rule or Means to know what they are as cannot deceive them Now whether this be in it self true or false it does not at all follow from what he had laid down before For though the Truth of Things or Propositions is so sure that as he wisely says 't is Impossible they should be false yet it does by no means follow that the Reasons upon which I believe these things must necessarily be as sure as the Truth of the Things themselves And this I make no doubt the Disputer was well aware of But because I am sensible who they are whom he designs to pervert by this Paper and for whose sake I Answer it I will explain this matter by an Instance that will bring it down to all Capacities If there was such a man as Henry the 8th It is certainly Impossible that there should be no such man but my Belief that there was such a Man is grounded upon such Reasons as do not imply an absolute Impossibility of the Contrary because it is grounded upon the Testimony of Fallible men And yet I should be very little better then a mad-man if I should entertain the least doubt that there was such a man which plainly shews that I may have sufficient Reason to believe a thing without any Evidence of the Impossibility of the contrary and this is enough to overthrow his Consequence I shall now inquire what truth there is in the Conclusion it self To which end I observe That there are two things which may be understood by those words cannot deceive them either first that the Rule it self is so plain and certain that no man who uses it can be deceived by the Rule or secondly that 't is Impossible any man should be mistaken in the Vse of it If he means the former then I shall shew him presently that we have such a Rule as he speaks of and that he hath said nothing to make us ashamed of it If he means the latter then I say it is absolutely false That those who without doubting believe the Articles of the Christian Faith must have such a Rule to know what they are as that they cannot possibly mistake in the Vse of it To make which plain to every bodies understanding I shall add another Instance easy to be Applyed If a man skilful in Arithmetick hath a great many Numbers before him and desires to know what Sum they make when they are put together he has the Rule of Addition to do it by which Rule cannot deceive him Now there are these two things to be observed farther which I think the Disputer himself will not deny first that it is in the Nature of the thing Possible that this man may be mistaken every time that he puts these several Numbers together to bring them all into one Sum but secondly that notwithstanding this Possibility of being mistaken yet after he has tryed it over and over again he may be sure without the least doubt that he has done his work right Even so we may have a Rule of Faith that cannot deceive us and though it is not Absolutely Impossible that we should be mistaken in the use of it yet we may for all that be Assured and believe without the least doubting that we have learn'd what the true Faith is by that Rule For all the World knows that it is no sufficient Reason to Doubt of any thing that

given to say that the Nature of Bread is not there and consequently could not be broken For the Bread there spoken of is not meant of Natural Bread but of Bread which came down from Heaven and which is the flesh of Christ John 6.41 I am the bread which came down from Heaven John 6.48 I am the bread of Life Ver. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 58. From whence I infer my Answer to be good that though the H. Eucharist be called Bread and broken as to the Species of Bread yet it is not natural Bread but only in appearance of which St. Paul spoke for the same St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. speaking of the same bread saith He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself not discerning the body of our Lord. Christ also speaking of the same bread saith Take eat this is my Body Matt. 26.26 Also Luk. 22.19 speaking of the same Eucharist This is my Body which is given for you Dr. The Answerer forgetting the Part of a Disputant has pretended to prove largely by the sixth Chap. of St. John and other places of Scripture That St. Paul in the aforementioned places did not speak of Bread properly so called although he spoke of Bread that was to be broken All which places when it is my turn to Answer I will consider particularly But if that which is here said is to go for an Answer the force of it lies in this That by the Bread which St. Paul spoke of we are to understand the Bread which St. John spoke of namely the bread which came down from Heaven by which the Answerer understands the Natural and ●roper flesh of Christ But that the Bread which St. Paul ●peaks of cannot be the natural flesh of Christ I prove thus The Bread which St. Paul speaks of was broken But the Natural Body of Christ cannot be broken Ergo. The Bread which St. Paul speaks of cannot be the Natural body of Christ Fath. As to the Species and Appearance of Bread it was broken I grant it as to any Nature contained under those Species of Bread I deny it Dr. This Distinction does not avoid the Argument because if the Bread in St. Paul and the Bread in St. John are really and properly the same and the Bread in St. John be really and properly the flesh of Christ then what is affirmed of the one must be true of the other and therefore if the Bread be broken in St. Paul then the Natural body of Christ must be broken too which cannot be I add further That if by breaking of Bread St. Paul means breaking the Accidents of Bread only and if the Bread that is broken be really that which is spoken of in St. John as aforesaid it follows also that the Accidents of Bread are properly the body of Christ Fath. That which St. Paul calls Bread had in it both the Accidents of Bread and the substance of Christ's body As to the Accidents of Bread it might be broken as to the substance of Christ's body which is mentioned in St. John it is not broken unless you mean as Christ's Body was broken upon the Cross And if the bread which is broken be really that which is spoken of in St. John as aforesaid both as to the Accidents and nature of Bread I grant that the Accidents of Bread would be the Body of Christ and if it be not the same both as to the Nature and Accidents I deny it This I profess not to understand Fath. As to the Doctor 's Argument it includes a Sophism as will appear when brought into form because it involves 4 Terms because he supposes in one Proposition for the Accidents of Bread and in the other for the Nature Dr. In the Argument I used I went upon this Supposition That the Accidents of Bread were onely to be understood as the Answerer supposes and therefore I have not confounded the Nature and the Accidents of Bread together Besides the Distinction between the Nature of Bread and the Accidents of Bread was not to be remembred any more by the Answerer because I proceed upon his Supposition That the Accidents onely are broken Now if St. Paul speaks of nothing but what is broken and Accidents onely are broken and yet if he speaks of the very flesh of Christ too then the Accidents of the Bread are the very flesh of Christ And whereas the Answerer by his last Answer means the Nature of Christ's Body as he says I understood him of the Nature of Bread. And now once more I desire him to shew me where the four Terms are Fath. The Text of St. Paul the Dr. takes for his Medium and argues from a double Supposition as first taking it for the Accidents of Bread which were broken and afterwards for the substance of Christ's Body under the Accidents in which latter sense it signifies the same that is meant by our Saviour in St. John. Dr. I observe the Answerer will allow nothing to be broken but Accidents I observe also that nothing is said to be the Body of Christ or the Communion of the Body of Christ but what is broken If therefore nothing is broken but Accidents then Accidents are either according to the Answerer's long proof the very Body of Christ or according to the Apostle the Communion of the Body of Christ But neither are the Accidents of Bread the Body of Christ nor the Communion of the Body of Christ And this I say is not answered and believe will not be answered by any man that maintains that St. Paul does not here speak properly of Bread. Fath. All along in my Discourse I have supposed that when St. Paul speaks of this bread he spoke of the H. Eucharist in which were contained both the Accidents of Bread and the true body of Christ How the Dr. has disproved this Doctrine so clearly as to justifie the Reformation I understand not Because I conceive no private Persons or particular Church ought to pretend a Reformation without clear evidence whether the Dr. has given such I leave to the consideration of the Readers And whether having broken off from the great body of the Vniversal Church and its testimony he can possibly have any certain Rule to arrive at Christian Faith If Scripture be pretended interpreted by a fallible Authority how Certainty can be obtained or why a Socinian following Scripture for his Rule of Faith is not to be believed as well as any other Reformer following the same Rule I see not Signed W. Clagett Peter Gooden Dr. CLAGETT's Answer TO A PAPER Delivered to Him by Father GOODEN The Paper ARticles of Christian Faith are Truths Truths are Impossible to be False Therefore Articles of Christian Faith are Impossible to be False Therefore those who obtain Articles of the Christian Faith must have some Rule to Acquire them by which cannot deceive them To a Parliamentary Protestant the Ancient Fathers cannot be such a Rule because they