Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	divine_a	reveal_v	revelation_n	1,705	5	9.2853	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15734	A dangerous plot discovered By a discourse, wherein is proved, that, Mr: Richard Mountague, in his two bookes; the one, called A new gagg; the other, A iust appeale: laboureth to bring in the faith of Rome, and Arminius: vnder the name and pretence of the doctrine and faith of the Church of England. A worke very necessary for all them which haue received the truth of God in loue, and desire to escape errour. The reader shall finde: 1. A catalogue of his erroneous poynts annexed to the epistle to the reader. 2. A demonstration of the danger of them. cap. 21. num. 7. &c. pag. 178. 3. A list of the heads of all the chapters contained in this booke.	Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626.	1626 (1626)	STC 26003; ESTC S120313	151,161	289

Church hath determined whom when wherefore how viz. some out of mankinde before the Creation of his will by his secret Councell As the Reader may see in the 17. Article and I haue shewed no. 5. 6. If our Church hath not determined thus and all hers ought to follow her example then Master Mountagu is much to blame For He hath determined whom when wherefore how viz. some of mankinde being in perdition finall grace 1 willing them saluation 2 prouiding a Mediator 3 taking them out which layd hold of him As the reader may finde plainely laid downe in the former part of this Chap. no 3. 4. 14. 15. His choyce was ill that bringeth falshood for truth against himselfe and such is his condition in this place Now for as much as hee cannot discourage you by the force of these arguments therefore hee doth summon vnto the disputation in these words I must confesse my dissent thorough and sincere in no one point more then in this their Doctrine of Predestination Appeale page 60. I answer the Dice are now cast Caesar must be all or nothing the combat is offered to all commers the Gantlet is cast downe take it vp who dares But let him know he must proue his owne Predestination or leaue the field The first weapon he appeares withall is made of this fashion God is not the Author of sinne or death Appeale page 64. This weapon is strengthened with some authorities of Scriptures and Fathers from that place to page 69. But this weapon serueth not for this battell The question is whether first God found the Predestinate in perdition secondly whether Predestination be with relation vnto finall grace thirdly whether Predestination doth not appoint to giue grace for so you teach and these we deny But whether God be the Author of sinne and death is not thought vpon at this time Those three you must proue or say nothing for them you haue offered no proofe It is a safe war where there is no enemy and a cowardly attempter that refuseth the field where the enemie abideth It may be he will say the refutation of this sentence doth refute the latter branch of Caluins opinion of Predestination propounded page 50. and reiected page 60. because this sentence followes thereupon p. 54. I answer this helpes not the matter for the question now on foot is whether Gods decree to saue Peter be absolute and doth proceed from Gods will onely page 53. which is denied by your selfe the Church of England as you pretend the Lutherans and Arminians Against Caluin and the Synode of Dort p. 38. 53. 56. There is not a word of that second branch which concerneth reprobation obiected against you but it is foysted in by your selfe onely and that vpon good reason too for you knew full well that no man would defend this but euery man could defend that against you It was good policy to vndertake to proue a confessed truth for so you went with the streame and to bee silent in the prouing of a manifest falshood for then you had beene found guilty You tell vs your resolution this way in these words I neuer held it wisedome to tire my selfe with haling and tugging vp against the streame when with ease enough I might and with better discretion should sayle with the flood Appeale p. 12. Now although the case had beene as you pretend yet you had beene abundantly faulty for disputing against one branch when there was two in the question and for opposing a consequent letting passe the antecedent and consequence which is indeed to deny the conclusion when you durst not meddle with the premisses Hee keepes the field still and presenteth himselfe in this manner The Church of Geneua dissenteth from the priuate opinions of Caluin and Beza Appeale p. 71. I answer by priuate opinion of Caluin hee must meane this of Predestination and from it hee must conclude Therefore his Doctrine of Predestination is not true Otherwise he misses the present businesse That being supposed he commeth on the backe where hee ought to come vnto the face of his enemie hee ought to proue that his Doctrine is true not disproue ours but be it as he will if you aske him how hee doth know that the Church of Geneua doth so dissent hee doth answer Deodate did tell him so If you doubt of his testimony he tels you he is a Minister and a Professor in that Church and sent to the Synode from his Country well let him goe for a witnesse without exception the chiefest doubt is how it may appeare Deodate did say so Hee putteth that out of doubt also by auouching he told him so euen Mr. Mountagu being the man that Deodate was withall at Eaton which proofe cannot be auoided for hee should neuer haue had the company of Deodate in Eaton vnlesse he had beene such a man whose word is as true as steele yet neuerthelesse his word is of small authority for I haue found it deceitfull no 11. 12. therefore I dare not trust it but let vs yeeld him that Deodate did tell him so and that therefore our Predestination is not true Then hee must be conceiued thus to dispute Your Doctrine of Predestination is not true therefore mine is true A substantiall dispute and well worthy a rich Diuine and old learning mine is because yours is not he telleth vs of some that haue whirligigs in their heads Appeale page 81. I am sure he is one of them in this argument He ends not with this but goes on still with these words This sentence God did decree to glorifie Peter without any consideration had of his faith c. is a priuate fancy of some particular men Appeale page 58. neuer heard of till of late page 31. From hence he must inferre Therefore this sentence God did decree to glorifie Peter c. is not true I answer The Inference is naught truth in Diuinity standeth in a conformity vnto the diuine reuelation not vnto the sooner or later apprehension and report of men If you meane it is not reuealed then your termes of Priuate fancy and yesterdayes heare-say are but toyes for Children How dare you say our doctrine of Predestination is a priuate fancie and a Nouell opinion seeing King Iames of famous memory for learning and knowledge hath expresly auowed it in these words Predestination depends not vpon any qualities or worke of man but vpon Gods decree and purpose As I haue shewed no 12. This testimonie doth giue vs sufficient odds aboue you for Our sentence hath royall confirmation and yours hath none herewith also I would content my selfe were it not that he vrgeth with great vehemency That This sentence aboue said is the doctrine of Nouellizing Puritans Appeale p. 60. For the remouing hereof and to giue full satisfaction in the point I will adde somewhat more thereunto and shew that the doctrine of Predestination which we defend is neither new nor the inuention of Nouellizing Puritanes And

and doctrine goe together we agree So that the question is not what may bee giuen them Gagg p. 319. These words as they lye be voyd of sense they containe neither affirmation nor negation they bring nothing that is affirmed of or denied vnto to speak formally they haue neither subiect predicate nor vinculum If this word your be added vnto the words practice and doctrine and the word then bee put before the words we agree then that sentence may bee vnderstood but he will not abide him that shall doe so for he rageth against him that shall doe so Appeale p. 256. c. Whether those words be added or no his agreement with the Church of Rome doth sufficiently shew it selfe in them for 1. these words are spoken vnto the Church of Rome with whom he hath this present disputation for in the former part of this discourse he saith vnto them Whatsoeuer you say c. In your practice c. So that it is all one as if he had said Let your practice and doctrine goe together c. 2. By doctrine hee meaneth all the doctrine of their Church for he speaketh of doctrine without limitation and thereby extendeth his agreement with them in their whole doctrine touching Images which is further confirmed by saying the question betweene him and them is not what may be giuen them Which is as much as if he said I consent vnto their whole doctrine 3. By the doctrine of their Church he must vnderstand the decree of the Councell of Trent for their Church hath no other doctrine but that the rest is opinions of singular men so that his sentence now set downe is as if he had said I agree with the Councell of Trent in the point of Images Now the Councell of Trent hath decreed in the place alledged that The honour to bee giuen to Images is kissing of them vncouering the head and bowing downe before them Which must be vnderstood to be Mr Mountagu his sentence also Notwithstanding all this plaine euidence yet I presume he will deny his agreement with the Church of Rome because The ignorant amongst them giue them honour due vnto God and the learned amongst them as Thomas by name and others with him perswade that as much honour is to bee giuen to a woodden Crucifix as to Christ himselfe in heauen For thus he writeth and in this hee putteth the difference betweene himselfe and them Gagge page 299. and 319. I answer this is not sufficient to excuse him from agreeing with the Church of Rome for the one instance alleadged is matter of fact and hath not to doe in this businesse which concernes onely the faith of their Church the other which is the sentence of Thomas is matter of opinion which the Councell hath not decreed and Bellarmine saith de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 20. there be three opinions in their Church touching this thing whereof this of Thomas is but one so that we may conclude hee differeth from them in one opinion held by some amongst them and this is all hee saith and therefore for all this hee consenteth with them in matter of faith which is the thing wee seeke for I answer further It doth not appeare that hee doth dissent from them in this opinion neither For he yeeldeth honour vnto Images Gagge page 318. but doth not shew vs what is the nature thereof whereby wee might bee able to discerne the difference of that honour which he giues from that which they giue If it be replyed the Councell giueth little honour to Images and that which Thomas giueth is the main and chiefe thing to be blamed I answer that honour which the Councell giueth is falsely giuen and is a matter of faith which we may not receiue for euery false faith is an addition to the diuine reuelation If you aske whether hee agreeth with the Church of England or not Hee will answer he doth agree with it and doth affirme so much in effect Gagge page 318. 319. but it is a meere pretence without shew of truth hee can alleadge no one passage in the Doctrine of the Church of England which appointeth that any Images of Christ and the Saints should be set vp in Churches or that any kinde of honour should be done vnto them being set vp there or which assigneth vnto them any vse in religion much lesse that they should be helpes of piety c. The case being such it was a face without a face that said wee and Protestants doe them all Gagge page 318. The very truth is he doth contradict the Doctrine of the Church of England in some of these positions directly and in other some by necessary consequence and I proue it thus The Doctrine concluded and vrged in the Homilies is the Doctrine of the Church of England For The Booke it selfe and the vse thereof is established by publike authority and the subscription of all Ministers Artic. 35. But he doth contradict the Doctrine concluded and vrged in the Homilies Therefore he doth contradict c. The assumption or second part will bee apparent to him that readeth the words on both sides set downe in the former Chapter It saith Idoll and Image is the same thing and alleadgeth the vse of Scripture for it He saith Image and Idoll may be two things that is are not one It saith Images may not be brought into Churches and that being there they bee vnlawfull and intollerable He saith they may bee brought into Churches they are not vnlawfull and are sometimes profitable all which are direct contradictions affirming what it denieth and denying what it affirmeth Lastly if Images may not be brought into Churches then may they not be imployed in religion for helpes of piety the instruction of the ignorant and the stirring vp of deuotion c. for these are more then that because Images in Churches may bee for ornament or for no vse The Homilie doth deny the placing of Images in Churches therefore it must also deny them to be helpes vnto piety c. now he teacheth contradictory to this in making Images helpes vnto piety therefore hee doth contradict that which followeth vpon the words of the Homilie by necessary consequence Let vs see how he will auoid this obiection and for that end thus he saith Appeale page 260. I admit the Homilies to containe godly exhortations but not as the publike dogmaticall resolutions of our Church or Doctrine to bee propugned and subscribed in all and euery point I answer in the 12. Chapter no 8. hee extold the Doctrine of the Homilie as an authenticall record of the Doctrine of the Church of England In this place he denies them to containe the dogmaticall resolutions of our Church so constant is hee and so settled in his iudgement Let vs take what he will admit which we finde to be three things first they are exhortations secondly godly thirdly To bee propugned and subscribed in some things I require no more Exhortations they are that