Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	church_n	faith_n	matter_n	4,045	5	5.7347	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

THE SUMM OF A CONFERENCE On Feb. 21. 1686. BETWEEN Dr. Clagett and Father Gooden About the Point of TRANSVBSTANTIATION LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over-against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCLXXXIX ERRATA PAge vi l. 4. for me r. us ib. l. 6. for me r. us p. viii l. 4. r. a greater thing than the Representers answering c. p. 2. after l. 13. add Now against This I thus argue p. 2. l. 14. add in the beginning Dr. The SUM of a CONFERENCE On Feb. 21. 1686. BETWEEN Dr. Clagett and Father Gooden About the POINT of TRANSUBSTANTIATION Introduction IT will perhaps appear to some a little strange that I do not say almost Incredible that there should have pass'd a Conference above two years since in which Mr. Gooden was concern'd and the World yet to learn the Substance of it The Vanity of that Gentleman to thrust himself upon all Occasions into Disputes with the most Learned Men of our Church first and then to boast of his own Performances in them was so great that there is scarce a Coffee-house in the Town that has not been filled with the Noise of his Impertinent Vapours And if those of the Other Communion have been always remarkable for an Assurance becoming the pretended Infallibility of their Church I may venture to say that next to Father P the Jesuit and his friend Mr. M I scarce know any among them that have ever talk'd so loud or made such Heroical Defiances of the Champions and Armies of our Israel in all Places and upon all Occasions as Mr. Gooden these late Years has done am ng us But thus shallow Waters always run with the Greatest Noise and Violence and little Sophisters who either want Capacity to see into their own Fallacies or think they have forehead enough to c●rry that off with Clamour and Confidence which they cannot do by Reason and Argument delight to expose themselves and their Religi n to the most dangerous Tryals whilst Men of Learning and Judgment are modest and ingenuous and know it to be neither for the Honour of their Church nor their own Reputation to challenge all Mankind to answer Paradoxes and to shew that not to be Demonstration which when brought to the Tryal is hardly sence See Mr. G's Pap. I hope will this not be thought too severe a Reflection on the late Pretenders of this kind among us which I speak out of a just respect to the more Learned and Charitable Persons of the Church of Rome who have been no less Scandalized at these f●rward Zealots than our selves and to whom I ought to give this Testimony That during a long acquaintance with many of them I never met with any thing of the Vanity of those I have before mentioned Our Differences in matters of Religion made no Disturbance either in our Friendship or Conversation with One Another If the discourse at any time led to a Controversie of Faith we argu'd it upon the same Principles and with the s●●e Calmness that we did any other Subject whatsoever by Arguments drawn from the Authority of the Holy Scriptures or from the Testim●n●es of the Ancient Fathers as the Nature of the thing required us to do I● these did not Convince they never flew off to the Common Place Topic's of the Authority and Infallibility of the Church m●ch less to that Exploded refuge of Oral Tradition but the Controversie Ended And when all was done they were content to h●pe well of those of our Church who being sincere in their Enquiries and willing to be led by Truth whereever it was still continued to differ from them Instead of calling Me a Heretick or Schismatick or Thundring out Damnation against Me as such a mutual Charity concluded the discourse We hoped and prayed for the Conviction of the Erring Party which ever it was but made no question but that the same Heaven might receive us All tho we should continue to disagree to the last But this was not the Temper of Mr. Gooden and the rest of the little Herd of that Church who gave so much Trouble and Disturbance to their own and the Nations repose and have contributed what in them lies by their Heat and Folly to ruine both themselves and u● As for the Occasion of the present Conference it was this A Gentlewoman of a Good Estate and intimately acquainted with divers R. Cs. was by a frequent Conversation with them wrought up by degrees into an Extraordinary Opinion of the advantages of a Recluse Life for the better performing the Exercises of Religion Ins●much that the desire she began to have for such a sort of retirement made her almost willing to leave our Church and go over to the Roman Communion but that she still look'd upon their Doctrine in those points wherein they differ from us to be False and Dangerous and to one so persuaded as she was Destructive of Salvation Being thus prepared for their Seduction they let slip no Opportunity to finish their work and gain their Proselyte For which purpose care was taken first by one of Her Acquaintance to represent to Her all the Popular Pretences of that Church by which many are Prejudiced in Favour of it and the Advantages it Had in point of Antiquity Unity Universality Infallibility and what not beyond Ours and then in the next place to get Father Gooden brought to Her as one that would give Her a fuller satisfaction in all these matters if she would but afford him the Opportunity of Discoursing with Her. And to the End his Arguments might make the deeper Impression upon Her it was thought fit to set forth the Priest to Her not in the Glorious Idea of the Great Master of Demonstration one who had devoured all Mr. I. Ss. Principles and was thereby become such a Mighty Man of Controversy that none of our Divines durst Cope with him He in whose hands the Dean of Pauls himself was nothing who had a certain Paper that in a few lines baffled all that could be said or written in favour of the Reformation which was a greater thing answering in a few sheets all the Books and Sermons that had ever been publish'd or preach'd against them But in the humble Character of a Countrey Priest a little inconsiderable man amongst them and his Dress was accommodated to his Character that so under this disguise he might talk with the greater Advantage to her But Mr. Gooden forgetting the person he had put on presently fell into his usual strain He began to talk of nothing but Infallibility Antiquity Demonstration That all the Fathers and Councils were on their side That he had baffled our most considerable Divines and particularly the Dean of Pauls who had in truth all of them so little to say for themselves when he came amongst them that he desired nothing more to convince her of the Truth of their Doctrines than that she would pitch upon some Point and bring