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 scripture_n 9,703 5 6.2087 4 true
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
A59219 A discovery of the groundlesness and insincerity of my Ld. of Down's Dissuasive being The fourth appendix to Svre-footing : with a letter to Dr. Casaubon, and another to his answerer / by J.S. Sergeant, John, 1622-1707. 1665 (1665) Wing S2564; ESTC R18151 61,479 125

There are 4 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Catholick which was greedily catcht at by such as leapt for joy to find any licks thing to bespatter the Church with and startling some unattentive and too credulous Catholikes drive them zealous of defending the Council to an unwarrantable position which Tenet and its practice my Ld. himself knows well the Generality of Catholikes hate and detest as much as himself Eighth Way 27. THe eighth and last Way is to pick out as well as I can those Propositions or Principles my Ld relies on and show their Weakness which is sufficiently performed by singling them out and then naming them PRINCIPLES they are so quite unlike what they 're call'd Now his Principles he layes in his first Section I mean his main and Fundamental Propositions which because he relies on yet never proves we are from his carriage to take for Principles and Self evident to him though he himself calls them not so for 't is dangerous to them who have not Truth on their side even to mention the word Principle Evidence or Demonstration His First concerning Scripture I shall speak to anon A second seems to be this p. 6. We all acknowledge that the whole Church of God kept the Faith entire and transmitted faithfully to the After-ages the whole Faith that is to the Ages next after the Apostles as he expresses a little before call'd by him p. 7. the first and best Antiquily and signify'd to mean the First three Ages Now the Positive part of this Principle is good and Assertive of Tradition but withall unapt to stead him The Negative part of it or that the third Age transmitted it not to the fourth and so forwards imply'd in his Discourse would onely stead him but 't is left unproov'd and so is a Voluntary Assertion and strangely ridiculous For if the first two Ages kept the Faith entire and transmitted it to the third 't is Evident the Third was able to transmit it to the fourth and so forwards wherefore it being Evident from the Concern of the Thing it was also willing to do so 't is demonstrable it did so This Principle then on which he so much builds is either not for him or else highly against him 28. Another main and Fundamental Proposition or Principle is found p. 7. and as the former concern'd the Tradition of the Church so this and the three following ones concern the Authorities of Fathers The present Roman Doctrins saith he which are in difference were Invisible and unbeard of in the first and best Antiquity That is no Heretick had arisen in those dayes or in the first three hundred years denying those points and so the Fathers set not themselves to write Expresly for them but occasionally onely and yet by his leave our Controv●●●●●● are frequent in citing them for diverse points especially for the Ground of our Faith the Churches voice or Tradition to the utter overthrow of the Protestant Cause So far this improov'd and main position disannulling all use of the Fathers of the first 300 years in our Controversies is from not needing proof or being Self evident 29. It may be his respect and value for the Fathers of the next Ages will make amends for this rashness He tells us immediately after that in the Succeeding Ages secular Interest did more prevail and the Writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous full of Controversy and ambiguous Sences fitted to their own times and questions full of proper Opinions and such variety of sayings that both sides eternally and Inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively Now if they be so qualify'd that both sides may eternally dispute out of them and neither be ever able to confute the other or conclude then let him speak out and say all the Fathers after the first 300 years are not worth a straw in order to decision or Controversy nor yet the Fathers of the first 300 years because they spoke not of our points in difference and so there is a fair end of all the Fathers and of his own Dissuasive too for that part which relies on them which looks like the most authoritative piece of it The Reader will easily judge now whether we as he charges us p. 18. have many gripes of Conscience concerning the Fathers that they are not right on our side or the Dissuader Our constant and avow'd Doctrin is that the Testimony of Fathers speaking of them properly as such is Iufallible that in two Cases they speak as Fathers that is when they declare it the doctrin of the present Church of their time or when they write against any man as an Heretick or his Tenet as Heresy Some complexions of Circumstances also may be found out by much reading and comparing several considerations which make it Evident they speak as Witnesses though it be more laborious and tedious to compass a Satisfaction this way Whereas as appears by our Dissuader the Protestants neither acknowledge them Infallible nor indeed Useful And this is my Ld's FOURTH PRINCIPLE which with the former destroyes the Efficaciousness of all the Fathers invalidates all that part of his own Book which should seem weightiest 30. Notwithstanding the two former Principles to invalidate the Fathers it may still be said by the Catholicks in behalf of their validity as was by me now that the Sayings of Fathers as Witnesses are Convictive and therefore it should seem sit my Ld did lay another Principle to provide against that He is not unmindful of it but hath taken order about it For though p. 9. he tells us the Fathers are good Testimony of the Doctrin deliver'd from their Forefathers down to them of what the Church esteem'd the way of Salvation yet that is to be understood according to the Rule premised p. 8. thus Things being thus it will be Impossible for them the Catholicks to conclude from the sayings of a number of Fathers that the Doctrin they would prove thence was the Catholick doctrin of the Church because any number that is less than all does not proove a Catholik Consent So that unless each single Father affirm each single point to be of Faith or the Doctrin of the Catholick Church which morally speaking is Impossible to happen it follows by his words that 't is Impossible to conclude thence the Catholick Doctrin of the Church which amounts to this that 't is Impossible to conclude any thing in Controversy from the Fathers even taken as Witnesses And this is his FIFTH PRINCIPLE A strange conceit that it should be Impossible to know the Consent of all England in a matter of Fact for example the late war without speaking with each single man in the whole Nation Yet this is his Discourse when he sayes that no number less than all can prove a Catholick consent 31. Yet some use certainly he allows of the Fathers for all this else why does he quote them Yes and the Principle which I reckon his SIXTH by virtue of which he enforces them is this
London and in your chamber there upon occasion of reading a book writ by a certain Protestant Bishop against the Real presence I observ'd and acquainted you with my observation that to my Judgment the Fathers spoke more favourably for the Papists tenet than the Protestants Hereupon you took me by the hand and told me they were mad who read the Ancient Fathers and saw not they meant Christ was as really in the Sacrament as in Heaven The other was yet more remarkable and this that either your Grandfather or Father I know not which but I think your Grandfather was intimate with Mr. Calvin and when he had put out his Explication of Christ's presencein the Sacrament which dodg'd and shuffled between really and notreally that is between is and is-not he challeng'd Mr. Calvin with it and laid open to him the non-Sence and indefensibleness of it asking him why he put out so strange an Opinion which he was never able to make good at which Mr. Calvin took hold of his own finger and said See you this I would willingly cut it off on condition I had never put it out so To which your Grandfather reply'd You should then explain it some other way Mr. Calvin answer'd My Institutions are so spread all over France that 't is now too late Thus you letting me see by a Testimony very immediate that the late Authour of this Tenet which now so reigns all over England wish't his finger cut off when he writ it How you will reconcile this with the late new piece of the Rubrick in the Common-Prayer-book absolutely renouncing all real presence in which point the Church of of England formerly exprest her self abstractedly do you consider Sir I beseech you let this be a fair warning to you how you deal disingenuously for the future and pardon some of my expressions to my high provocation and exceeding great hast I am sure the worst of them is a Civility compar'd to the harsh carriage you have us'd towards your self in openly falsifying both my words and sence and causlesly wresting to an ill construction every passage you touch't yet not doing me the right to go about to answer any one in the least that so I might see by your Reasons you had Grounds to think as you writ Had you argu'd against me I know too well the right of a Writer to take it ill if you laid open and nam'd my conceived Faults though the names of them had been harsh Words but not even to attempt to confute them yet to flie into such Expressions is the very definition of railing I was extreme sorry to lay open the Fault of a Friend though my own Concern made it Fitting and your demerit Just and do assure you that onely the Injury to my Cause which went along in that action oblig'd me to this Vindication Setting aside the duty I owe to That I am still as ever Your true Friend and humble Servant J. S. A LETTER from The Authour of Sure-footing to his Answerer SIR I Am certainly inform'd there is an Answer to my Book intended and a Person chosen out for that Employment whose Name I am unconcern'd to know it being only his Quality as a Writer I have to do with I receive the Alarum with great chearfulness knowing that if my Adversary behaves himself well it will exceedingly conduce to the clearing and settling the main point there controverted But because there is difference between being call'd an Answer and being an Answer and that 't is extremely opposit to my Genius to be task't in laying open mens Faults even as Writers though it has been my unhappiness formerly to meet with Adversaries whose way of winning made that carriage my only duty wherefore to prevent as much as I am able all occasion of such unsavory oppositions and to make way to the clearing the point that so our Discourse may redound to the profit and satisfaction of our Readers I make bold to offer you these few Reflexions which in effect contain no more but a Request you would speak to the point and in such a way as is apt to bring the matter nearer a clearing This if you please to do you will very much credit your self and your endeavours in the opinion of all ingenuous persons If you refuse and rather chuse to run into Rhetorical Excursions and such Discourses as are apt to breed new Controversies not pertinent to the present one under hand you will extreamly disparage both your self your party and your Cause and give me an exceeding advantage against them all I shall also have the Satisfaction to have manifested before-hand by means of this Letter that I have contributed as much as in me lies to make you avoid those Faults which I must then be forc't to lay open and severely press upon you little to your Credit nor your Causes neither You being as I am informd and Reason gives it signally chosen out as held most able to maintain it 2. That there may be no more distance between us than what our Cause enforces I heartily assure you that though I highly dislike your Tenets negatively opposit to what we hold Faith and the Way of Writing I foresee you must take unless you resolve to love Candour better than your Cause as being Inconclusive and so apt to continue not finish debates yet I have not the least pique against yours or any mans Person Nor have I any particular aversion against the Protestant party rather I look upon it with a better eye than on any other Company whatever which has broke Communion with the Catholick Church It preserves still unrenounc't the form of Episcopacy the Church-Government instituted by Christ and many grave Solemnities and Ceremonies which make our Union less difficult Many of their soberest Writers acknowledge divers of the renounc't Tenets to be Truths some of them also profess to hold Tradition especially for Scripture's Letter and even for those Points or Faith-Tenets in which they and we agree that is where their Interest is not touch't I wish they would as heartily hold to it in all other Points which descended by it and look into the Virtue it has of ascertaining and declare in what that Virtue consists I am confident a little candour of confessing truly what they finde joyn'd with an endeavour of looking into Things rather than Words would easily make way to a fair Correspondence I esteem and even honour the Protestants from my heart for their firm Allegiance to his Sacred Majesty and his Royal Father This uniting them already with all sober Catholiks under that excellent notion of good Subjects and in the same point of Faith the Indispensableness of the duty of Allegiance we owe our Prince by Divine Law Lastly I declare that for this as well as for Charitable Considerations I have a very particular zeal for their reconcilement to their Mother-Church and that 't is out of this love of Union I endeavour so earnestly
p. 8. The clear saying of one or two of those Fathers truely alledg'd by us to the Contrary will certainly prove that what many of them suppose it do affirm and which but two or three as good Catholicks do deny was not then a matter of Faith or a Doctrin of the Church I wish my Ld. had been so Ingenuous as to have made use of this Principle when he charg'd our Church it self with the mistakes of a few Writers contradicted not by one or two but sometimes by a whole Nation But this Principle shows 't was not Reason in him but Will and Interest which made him so hot As for his Principle it self it subsists not at all For is it not known that more than one or two that is S. Cyprian and the African Fathers deny'd the Baptism of Hereticks Valid yet the Contrary was notwithstanding found and defin'd to be Faith and the Sence of the Church Let him consider how perfectly he engages himself in the very Sphere of Contingency and recedes from Universality the Sphere of Certainty when he comes to rely on one or two unless he can show those one or two strangely supported and upheld by Universal Nature or concurring Circumstances 'T is possible even one or two Lawyers may hap to be ignorant of two or three Acts of Parliament But my Ld is still the best confuter of himself as appears lately by this present Principle apply'd to his former carriage against our Church To himself then let him answer I conceive that if one or two's not denying it to be of Faith or affirming expresly 't is not-of-Faith he engages not so far but bare denying a point argues what many do affirm to be not-of-Faith à fortiori one or two's affirming positively that to be of Faith and the Doctrin of the Catholick Church which many others barely deny argues 't is of Faith 'T was of Faith then what Gennadius cited by himself p. 59. affirms that After Christs Ascension the Souls of all Saints go from the body to Christ This being so let him reflect what himself asserts p. 49. that Justin Mariyr Tertullian Victorinus Martyr Prudentius S. Chrysostom Arethas Euthimius and S. Bernard affirm none go to Heaven till the last day Either then Gennadius his Testimony delivering the doctrin of the Catholick Church is Inefficacious and yet 't is incomparably the best nay the onely Efficacious one in my Lds. whole book or else according to him many Fathers and not one or two onely denying a point is no argument but that point may be of Faith Whether all those Fathers held so or no is another Question and requires a longer discussion 32. Fathers then are useless to the Dissuader as having according to him no virtue at all of setling the Understanding Yet he must make a show of them else all 's lost and so he tells his Readers p. 8. as if all were well two things both very remarkable The one that notwithstanding In the prime and purest Antiquity the Protestants are indubitably more than Conquerours in the Fathers A high Expression but compar'd with what he sayes p. 7. that in those times our present differences were unheard-of it signifies that they miraculously more then conquer where if his words be true no mortals else could either conquer or even attacque For how should one fight against such points in difference from those Fathers who never heard of those points The other is that even in the Fathers of the succeeding Ages the Protestants have the advantage both numero pondere mensurà in number weight and measure which joyn'd to his words at the bottome of p. 7. that each side may eternally and inconfutably bring sayings for themselves out of those Fathers which signifies that 't is to no end or purpose to alledge them amounts very fairly to this that he brags Protestants have a far greater number of Citations which are to no purpose than Catholicks have that those Citations which have no possible force of concluding or no weight at all do weigh more strongly for them than for us and lastly that they have a greater measure than we of proofs not worth a rush with which they can bubble up their books to a voluminous bigness And we willingly yield them the honour of having a very great advantage in all three in case they be such as his own words qualifie them to wit that each side may Eternally and Inconfutably alledge them 33. We come now to his main and most Fundamental and in comparison his onely Principle p. 9. laid out thus We do wholly rely upon Scriptures as the Foundation and final resort of all our Persuasions but we also admit the Fathers c. To finish our Discourse about the Fathers will make way to the Scripture What means admitting as contradistinguisht to relying on Not relying on that 's certain for 't is contradistinguisht to it And yet to alledge any thing for a Proof as they do Fathers and not to rely on it is to confess plainly for Truth will out that they alledge them meerly for a show He sayes they admit them as admirable Helps for the Understanding the Scriptures and good Testimony of the Doctrin deliver'd from their Forefathers Have a care my Ld. This supposes the Certainty of Tradition For if there be no Certainty of delivery there is no doctrin delivered nor consequently any thing for them to testify and so the words good Testimony unless our Ground of Continual Tradition stands mean directly that they are good for nothing as your former Discourses or Principles made them But I ask is their Interpretation of Scripture or Testimony Certain If not why should they even be admitted Or how can Vncertain Interpreters and Witnessers be admirable Helps to interpret right and good Testimony I fear my Ld. can onely mean they are Admirable Helps as Dictionaries and Books of Criticisms are to assist his Human Skill about the outward Letter which is a rare Office for a Father and not to give him the inward Sence of it or the deliver'd Doctrin of the Catholick Church for unless All conspire to speak to the same point if any one be silent concerning it it argues not according to my Ld. p. 8. a Catholick Consent and so is far beneath an admirable help And this is what we reprehend exceedingly in the Protestants that they love to talk gaily in common of any Sacred or Grave Authority for an affected form or show but not at all value the Virtue or Power of such an Authority not judge interiorly they have any worth valuing They would credit themselves by pretending Fathers yet at the same time lay wayes to elude them at pleasure or which is their very temper springing from their renouncing Living and determinate Sence and adhering to dead unsenc't words they study to speak Indeterminately and confusedly not particularly and closely 34. Do I wrong them Let my Ld. clear me His First Principle is by him
Scripture as they take the word a Principle nor consequently Fathers or Councils whose Certainty is resolvable into It. They 'l say that Letter is a Certain Way to arrive at a determinate Sence and consequently that they have determinate Sence by means of it I ask is the Letter alone such Then in case it alone be absolutely sufficient to such an Effect it will perform it in every one as if Fire be alone sufficient to burn all the world and so overpower all the resistence of the matter do but apply it 't will do that effect or burn it Is there requisit some Schollership in the Subject Scripture's Letter is to work upon or desire to see Truth in their Will Then if this be the onely requisit it will work its Certifying or determining Effect upon all Schollers and well-meaners and so no Schollers and well meaners can disagree in the Sence of it The contrary to which all sober men acknowledge daily Experience teaches us as much as we can be sure of any Human Action The like Discourse holds whatever requisits they desire for still it will follow they must say that in whomsoever they place that requisit they cannot differ in the since of Scripture which Common Experience will confute Nor will it avail them to run to Fundamentals unless it be said the Trinity is no Fundamental which the Dissuader makes the onely one p. 12. for the Socinians deny this amongst whom 't is a strange Immodesty in the Protestants to say there is nonc well-meaning Learned or unapply'd to Scripture Adding then to this most Evident Proposition that a Cause proper to produce such an Effect if we put the Patient dispos'd and the Application alwayes produces its Effect on the Truth of which all Nature depends adding this I say to the obvious and common Experience of Differers about Scriptures sence in all whom 't is Impossible to judge either Disposition of the Patient or Application is wanting for all read it and strive with all the wit and skill they have to find the sence of it it will follow most Evidently that the Fault is in the Agent or Cause that is that Scriptures Letter is unsit to Certify or bring us to a determinate sence of it and therefore since till we know the Sence of that Letter 't is to us but meer Words I am forc't by my reason to judge they have no Principles Those being Sence but that their whole way is wordish and not out of disrespect to them for this touches not them more than it does all others who have lest off the way of conveying down determinate Sence by Living voice and Practise or Tradition but I am oblig'd by Conscience and my duty to my Cause to declare that their whole Ground of their Faith is thus hollow and empty Whence I contest out of the nature of the thing that their Cause can bear no way of Sence or Principles but must forcibly be upheld by Wordishness as by quoting Texts without any Certain Interpreter Citations of Fathers not brought to Grounds not held by themselves Certain fine Scripture phras'd flourishes of piety and such like In which the Dissuader is Excellent Or else if the Objecter be very witty and have taken a great deal of pains in the way of Scepticism to be too hard for himself by bringing all into Uncertainty which is the acutest way of Wordishness and most proper to oppose any Discourse that tends to Establish and Settle because most opposit to it and so I am to expect Necessity will force them to take this way when any replies to SURE-FOOTING I know some will expect I should have answer'd the Dissuasive particularly but I know no reason why I should be sollicitous to stand cutting of each single Branch of Errour or be careful to hinder their growth after I have once pluck't the Tree that bore them up by the Roots POSTSCRIPT IF my Ld. please to reply which I fear will be too troublesome a task because of the illnaturedness and Inflexibleness of Principles or if he resolve to write hereaster against our Church his LP is intreated he would please to go to work like a Man that is orderly not confounding and jumbling all together Let him first define then what makes a Thing obligatory to be held by Catholiks a Doctrin of our Church or point of Faith then put down the very words of the Council in case it be difin'd next acquaint us with the nature of his objections vouch them Conclusive and let his Reader know in what their virtue or force of Concluding is plae't for this will strengthen them exceedingly and then let him fall to work when he will Above all I beg of him not to go about to forestall the sincere verdict of Reason by corrupting first the Will of weak people by pious Talk but first speak smart and home to their understandings with solid Reasons and then at the end of the Book preach as much as he pleases against the wickedness of a Point when he hath once demonstrated its Falshood Otherwise the Sermon so expands and ratifies the Proof and his Godly Rhetorick so evaporates his Reasons that it reflects no light at all and so no mortal eye though straining its optick nerves is able to discern it A Letter To Dr. Casaubon Honoured Sir AFter I had printed Sure-Footing I heard accidentally that you had been pleas'd to take notice of my Way and some signal Passages in Schisms Dispatcht I was glad to hear that so ancient a Friend of mine had offer'd me a fair occasion to renew our acquaintance resolving to take an account of his Exceptions and requite them with a due Satisfaction assoon as I could find a season proper Wherefore when the last sheet of my Appendix against the Dissuader was under the press finding both leasure and Opportunity to second my Intentions I took your Book perus'd diverse chief passages in it and particularly what concern'd my self p. 87. The first glance of it put me in some Wonderment at the difference I found between you in your Book and the character of you in my Thoughts long ago imprinted there For in these I found you a solid sober man a good Schollar as also ingenuous and candid but in your Book particularly in those passages I saw plainly and was troubled to see it you had either none of those Qualities I imagin'd in you or to a very small degree But I began straight to reflect with my self that as when I was a child I fancy'd rooms very spacious and streets very long which coming to the state of a Man I found very strangely diminisht so my riper and more Judicious Thoughts saw now the measure of your virtues in their true demensions which my younger and unexperienc't years had so strangely magnify'd and enhanc't I doubt not but your outward appearance will make it thought by those that know you I have said too much let 's see how