Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	devil_n	father_n	lie_n	3,415	5	9.0726	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A05202	The pedegrewe of heretiques Wherein is truely and plainely set out, the first roote of heretiques begon in the Church, since the time and passage of the Gospell, together with an example of the ofspring of the same. Perused and alowed according to the order appoynted in the Queenes Maiesties iniunctions.	Barthlet, John.	1566 (1566)	STC 1534; ESTC S101557	103,046	188

liued and died with him For immediatly vpon his death puffed vp with pride of his eloquence he broke credite wyth the Church became an Archeheretique and father of the secte called Encratitôn that is Abstayners a poyson Irenaeus sayth drawen partly from the Valentinians partly from the Gnostiques partly from the Martionistes The Heresie of the Encratistes after the death of their first founder Tatianus was by one Seuerus well settled and so furthered that after him also they are called as Hierom sayth Seueriani A part of the Heresie was this as Eusebius recounteth oute of Irenaeus Vitandas nuptias praedicarunt antiquam Dei formationem reprobantes sensim eum repraehendentes qui maris foemellae generationem fecit that is They taught the shunning or eschewing of mariages dysalowing Gods auncient fashioning of man and priuyly therein rebuking him that appoynted the generatiō of man and woman Augustine addeth Nec recipiunt in suorum numerum comugio vtentem siue marem siue foeminā They admitted none to be of their number that vsed mariage be he man or woman Nuptias damnant omnino eas pares fornicationibus aliisque corruptionibus faciunt For they slaunder Mariage making it equall with fornication and other fylthynesse Hierome noteth that to confirme this their doctrine Omnem coniunctionem maris foeminae immundam esse All copulation of man and woman vncleane they vsed to alleage these wordes out of Paule He that soweth in the fleshe shall thereof reape corruption This doctrine of Tatiane which in effecte is that they are cleaner holier and perfecter that abstayne from mariage than the reste that vse the same and therefore commende the vowed and single life aboue the natural couplement teaching as I noted oute of Hierome Omnem maris foeminae coniunctionem immundam esse That al copulation of man and woman is vncleane is by the Church of Christ for two speciall causes that follow and depend of the same doctrine condemned Firste for that they that so blame and discommend that holy institution of Matrimony which God alone hath ordayned and commaunded in Paradice before mans fall and Christ hath in Cana of Galile honoured with his fyrst miracle and presence doe set God to schole Sensim cum repraehendentes qui maris c. Secretely finding fault with him that appoynted the copulation of man and woman Secondly bycause they make God not the author thereof but the Diuell which they do plainely but on this wise Whatsoeuer God commaundeth yea if it be to kyll man woman and childe yea if to robbe the Egyptians of their proper goodes yet he that perfourmeth his wyll and order doth not sinne or commit vncleanenesse but worketh vertue and holynesse for that our vertue and holynesse consisteth in obeying of him and whatsoeuer we doe contrary or besides is no vertue But syth they say to marry and man and woman therein to ioyne is to cōmit vncleanenesse which if it were vnpure in nature yet for that God hath instituted the same it is then sanctified therefore the fathers conclude that the Tatianists deny God whose wil can not be vncleane to be the authour therof and say it is of the Diuell who is the roote of all impurenesse For Clemens Alexandrinus taketh it so who aunswering to a parte of Tatians worke entituled De perfectione secundum seruatorem writeth thus Nam cum rursus permisit simul conuenire propter Satanam intemperantiam pronunciat eum qui pariturus erit seruiturum duobus Dominis per consensum quidem Deo per dissentionem autem intemperantiae fornicationi Diabolo For when he that is Paule licenceth man and woman after seperation for Prayer eftsones to méete together for feare of Sathan and incontinēcie he therein declareth that they whiche shall so obey his doctrine and counsell shall serue two masters By their consent in the same seperation and continence God by the breaking of that consent intemperance and the Diuell Thus far Tatian To the which Clemens Haec autem dicit Apostolū exponens sophisticè autem eludit veritatem per verum falsū confirmans intemperantiam enim fornicationem diabolica vitia affectionē quoque nos confitemur These things Tatian writeth expounding the Apostle but he doth subtilely scoffe the truth and confirmeth by a lie that which is sounde For we graunt that intemperaunce and fornication are Diabolicall vices and naughty affections c. In this discourse of Clement and Tatian it is euident that the fathers when they say that Tatian teacheth that matrimonie is of the Diuell meane it bycause he sayth that therein incontinency and fornication is commaunded which are the wil of the Diuell for else I think Clemens hauing so good occasion agaynst him woulde haue reasoned more strictely as touching these wordes per dissentionem autem intēperantiae fornicationi Diabolo c. By breaking their consent of continencie they serue intemperance fornication and the Diuell For he had therein great occasion to note that they thereby obey God not the Diuell that therfore matrimonie differeth from fornication which is the institution of the Diuel It ensueth now to consider whether the Popishe Donatists are infected also with this heresie of Tatian or no which I will briefly in one worde as it were declare The Popes angelical doctor if the additions in the supplement of his third part be gathered out of his owne works as it is noted Thomas Aquinas canonized for his good demerites a Sainct teacheth that Matrimonie is vncleane that for the vnpurenesse thereof the minister in holy orders ought by abstayning from a wife to kepe him holy cleane These are his wordes Sacer ordo de sui ratione habet ex quadam congruētia quod matrimonium impedire debeat quia in sacris ordinibus constituti sacra vasa sacramenta tractant Et ideo decens est vt munditiem corporalem per continentiam seruent c. that is There is in holy orders that of their speciall nature and requisitenesse therevnto due ought to hinder and forbidde matrimonie bycause that they which bene in the same orders doe handle the consecrated vessels and holy Sacramentes And it is therefore behoueable that they should kepe bodyly cleanelinesse thorow a single lyfe and abstayning from mariage c. Much after the same sorte Pope Innocent sayth Neque eos ad sacra officia fas sit admitti qui exercent etiam cum vxore carnale consortium quia scriptum est Sancti estote quoniam ego sanctus sum dicit Dominus Deus vester Nor let it be lawfull for them to be admitted to holy offices or roumes which vse carnal company with their wiues bycause it is writtē Be you holy for I am holy sayth your Lorde God In the which doctrine it is euident howe Mariage is discommended and counted vnpure Wherefore their holy greaselings muste not

he be contrary to his conclusion Nulla lege posse paruulos obligari Fol. 8. or to any other of his conclusions in the first .31 leaues which if he be or else vnderstand not himselfe as it is most like then must some take the payne as a good Constable to agrée that eluishe skull with their braynes That muste not be Biell although otherwise he hath taken great trauayle For Peter Lombard one of the soundest of all the reste who sayth and that well that originall sinne is a disease of our nature gotten from Adam c. Also for Anselmus whose opinion is that it is wante of originall righteousnesse c. To accorde them eche with others as also D. Alexandr Scotus Thomas Bonauenture and diuers other agaynst whome that godly Pighius wor Goliath standeth Otherwise thinking as wel of them selues as Pighius did of himselfe they must deuise something of their owne braynes as he did bycause their Church hath not determined the same As Albert Pighius sayth in these wordes Quid verò sit ipsum peccatum orìginis in quo consistat eius propria ratio ecclesiastica definitione certum non est c. that is Our Church hath not yet determined what originall sinne it selfe is or wherein the proper reason therof cōsisteth God woteth there must néedes be small knowledge of our iustification in Christ when their Church preacheth not a certayne doctrine of the first growing and arysing of our accompt nor teacheth what or how much therby it is For as they acknowledge not y e bondage of mans will ne yet the impairment of his whole nature sithens the fall so likewise they both erre in the doctrine of iustification But first the olde Pelagians thus as I can briefly gather out of S. Augustine Dicimus inquit sanctos veteris testamenti perfecta hinc Iustitia ad aeternam transisse vitam id est studio obseruatione virtutum transiisse We saye quoth the Pelagians that all the Prophetes Apostles and Sainctes of the time of the olde Testamente haue departed hence and entred into the euerlasting lyfe by perfecte righteousnesse that is by the endeuor and keping of vertue In sūme therfore this is their doctrine as I may gather the same out of sainct Augustine in both those places alleaged that Iustification is a certayne vertue or qualitie in our selues by the which we are in our selues iustified and not all onely in Christ To the which verye well the Popes Church doctors agrée especially the generall councell of Trent holden Anno. 1547. As Ruarde Tapper the Deane of Louaine of whome before we spake testifieth thus Quare rectissime definitum est in concilio Tridentino sessione quinta capite 7. Quod cum iustificamur non modo reputamur sed verè iusti sumus nominamur Anathema eū censit qui inhaerentē iusticiā negat Aliquanto post Ex quibus patet quod nullā habet probabilitatem doctrina Alberti Pighij qua dicit quod in Christo iustificamur coram deo non in nobis non nostra sed illius iustitia quae nobis iam cū illo cōmunicantibus imputatur That is Wherfore the generall coūcell of Trent hath most perfectely determined in .5 session the .7 chapter that when as we are iustified we are not so onely reputed but we are truely iust and so called The same generall councell holdeth him accursed which shall deny that righteousnesse stickerh not in vs. And somewhat after he sayth Whereout it appeareth that the doctrine of Albertus Pighius hath no probabilitie therein In which he sayth that we are before God iustified in Christ and not in our selues nor by our owne but his righteousnesse the which is now imputed and reckened to vs that holde in communion thereof in him Also the sayde Lyriensis the Popes Achilles before spoken of assaulteth the same Pighius in the same his worke before mentioned defending the same error of the Pelagians against Pighius as Soto for originall sinne and as Ruarde last before for the point of Iustification was After this sort Hunc errorem ex parte secutus est Albertus Pighius qui sicut prius docuerat omnes homines peccatores nasci in Adam non quasi aliquod proprium peccatum seu culpā contrahant in seipsis sed ex sola imputatione peccati Adae Ita posterius docuit homines iustificari in Christo formaliter à peccatis non per aliquam iustitiam quam in seipsis accipiant realiter sed per solam imputationem Iustitiae Christi Id ergo asserit Pighius simul docens cum Caluino quod in Christo iustificamur in deo non in nobis non nostra sed illius Iustitia quae nobis cum illo iam communicantibus imputatur quod propriae iustitiae inopes extra nos in illo doceamur iustitiā quaerere à cuius iustitia per imputationem sumus iusti c. That is Albertus Pighius foloweth this error after a sorte Who as before he taught that all men are borne transgressors in Adam not as though they did worke any fault or speciall offence in themselues but onely by the accompting of Adams sinne to them Euen so last of all he hath also taught that men are in Christ formallie iustified from their sinnes and not by anye righteousnesse which they in thēselues really receiue but by the only accompting of Christes righteousnesse vnto them That is the same which Pighius ascerteyneth and togither with Caluin teacheth that in Christ we are iustified in God not in our selues by hys not by our righteousnesse y e which is accōpted ours partaking therof in him that we lacking righteousnesse of our owne are taught to seke the same without our selues in him by whose imputed to vs we are made righteous c. In which fray that Lusitanus Ruarde haue against Pighius it is euident what they defende namely that man is iustified in himselfe by himselfe and not by Christ in Christ as Pighius sayth Wherefore by al likelihode they holde him accursed by y e same councell of Trentes authoritie But of what force their cursse is they being Pelagians Pighius as I gesse foreseing spared not to speake the truth in this point as in the same his foresayde worke in secunda controuersia may appeare If thou arte minded to sée more of their discorde reade M. Sententiarum distinct 19. Li. 3.19 Tho super 6.2 ad Cor. suꝑ 11. super 1. Cor. 1. supꝑ 3. c. ad Titū lect 1. c. ad Timoth. c. 1. lect 3. super Iacob 2. In the which places the sayde maister of the sentences and S. Thomas proue that Sola fides fayth alone iustifieth Such a mightie God is our God that openeth sometime the Diuels mouth in those whome he doth possesse to cōfesse the truth yea if Balaam be blinde with the affections the mouth of his Asse Coluthians EPiphanius