Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	faith_n	reason_n	reveal_v	2,166	5	8.9320	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03944	An adioynder to the late Catholike new yeares gift, or explication of the oath of allegeance Wherein certaine principall difficulties, obiected by a very learned Roman-Catholike, against the sayd New-yeares gift, and explication of the oath, are very clearely explained. Published by E.I. the author of the New-yeares gift.	Preston, Thomas, 1563-1640.	1620 (1620)	STC 14050; ESTC S100127	50,683	158

their great shame and confusion ere it belong be publikly accused and in my iudgement most cleerely conuicted vnless they speedely change their vncharitable courses cease to make a Schisme and disunion among Catholikes in regard onely of opinions which as witnesseth Cardinall Peron ought not to hinder the reunion of those who are not Catholikes and should desire to be reconciled to the Catholike Church 9 And lastly for my owne part I protest vnfaignedly that as I haue not beene affraid in regard of the dutie obligation wherein I stand bound to God and Caesar to my Prince and Countrey and to the Catholike Religion which I professe to defend with my pen this manifest truth concerning the indissoluble bond g of temporall Allegiance See the Protestants Apologie for the Roman Church tract ' 3. sect 5. due to our Soueraign Prince by the law of God and Nature although I foresaw the great disgraces which both in the Court of Rome and also here in England among our Catholike brethren would come to me thereby so I will God willing be euer readie to confirme and seale the same truth if need shal require with my blood vntill the Catholike Church which is the pillar ground of truth h 1. Tim. 3. to whose censure I most humbly submit my self and whatsoeuer hath or shall be written by me shall infallibly define the contrarie which as I am fully perswaded she neuer will not to say can not i See Card. Caiet in opasc de concept B. virginis cap. 5. Canus lib. 7. de locis cap. 3 who vpon the like grounds thinke assuredly that the Church neuer will though Canus saith expresly she can not define that the B. Virgin was preserued from original sin define for that in my priuate iudgement speaking with all submission she hath no sufficient grounds either from the holy Scriptures as they are expounded by the ancient Fathers or from any other vndoubted rule of faith so to define but that if she will determine either part she will declare and define according to the true and vniuersall doctrine of the ancient Fathers k See the ancient Fathers in M. Widdringt discouerie of Schulkenius slanders § 17 that absolute Princes are supreme in temporals therein subiect to none but God alone and also that the Ecclesiasticall power by the institution of Christ doth extend to the giuing of spirituall graces not earthly kingdomes to the remitting of sinnes not of debts to the loosing of spirituall not corporall bonds to the inflicting of spirituall not temporall punishments and to the disposing of spirituall not temporall goods This 27 of December 1620. Yours in all loue and dutie E. I. The Author of the New-yeeres gift A briefe SUMMARIE OF THE CHIEFEST things contained in this ADIOYNDER IN the first Section is shewed that to proue the Oath of Allegiance to bee vnlawfull euident demonstrations are required but to proue it to be lawfull only probable arguments and answers are sufficient In the second Section is shewed First that the immediate obiect of an Oath must bee morally certaine to the iudgement of the Swearer and that it neede not to be morally certaine to all others Secondly that in the second Branch of the Oath is denyed both the Popes power to practise the deposition of Princes and also the practice it selfe in all cases whatsoeuer and that albeit the deniall of some particular practice doth not imply a deniall of the power it selfe to practise yet a deniall of all practices and effects is a vertuall deniall of the power it selfe to practise And thirdly it is shewed that a meere probable power to depose or punish is no true reall lawfull and sufficient power and for practise as good as no power at all to depose or punish In the third Section is shewed that euery doctrine which containeth a falshood against the holy Scriptures is truely and properly hereticall both according to the doctrine of Protestants who hold the holy Scriptures to be the only rule of faith and also of most Catholike Diuines who hold that the Church doth not make any Catholike veritie or heresie but doth onely declare it and make it knowne to all which before her declaration was not known to all Neither is it required in the opinion of Protestants to make any doctrine hereticall that it subuert the foundation of faith ex parte obiecti materialis or of the fundamentall things which are to bee beleeued which are the generall articles of our Creede or Christian Beleefe but that it contain a falshood although it be in poynts of a lesse matter then are the Articles of the Creed repugnant to the Word of God which is the rule of faith and consequently subuerteth the foundation of faith ex parte obiecti formalis or the formall cause of our beleefe which is the infallible truth of God reuealed to vs in the holy Scriptures In the fourth Section is shewed First both by manifest reason and also by the testimony of many learned Catholike Diuines that euerie Theologicall Conclusion which is euidently deduced from two premisses whereof the one is expressely contained in the Word of God and the other manifest by the light of Nature is of faith and the contrarie hereticall and against faith and that therefore although it bee not cleare in Scriptures expressely and directly that it is manifest wrong to depose a Prince excommunicated and depriued by the Pope yet it is cleere in Scriptures indirectly vertually and by a necessary consequence that it is manifest wrong to depose such a Prince and consequently to deny the same is properly hereticall and secondly that maxime of the Logicians The conclusion followeth the weaker part is clearely explained In the fifth Section is shewed First that it is against the holy Scriptures indirectly vertually and by a necessarie consequence and therefore against faith and properly hereticall that it is lawfull to murther Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope Secondly that it is very false and seditious to apply the doctrine of killing manifest Vsurpers to the killing of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope for that manifest Vsurpers haue no probable title to the Crowne but Princes after the Popes sentence of Excommunication and also depriuation haue besides reall possession a true probable title and right to the Kingdomes which they possesse Thirdly that albeit a Prince should yeeld vp his Crowne after depriuation yet it were not hereticall according to my Aduersary his grounds to kill such a Prince although my Aduersary doth grant it to be euident murther and therfore vertually repugnant to the holy Scriptures In the sixth Section is shewed First that the Author of the New-yeeres Gift did not bring those examples of taking a purse from one who leadeth a wicked life or killing him with a pistoll to compare them to the deposing or murthering of Princes excommunicated or depriued by the Pope but hee brought them onely to proue that

to Moyses in a flame of fire out of the mids of a bush that the bush burned with fire was not consumed Iob. 1. or to deny that Iob had seuen sons and three daughters or such like for albeit these and such like falshoods doe not directly and expressely subuert the foundation of faith ex parte credendorum in regard of the materiall obiect of supernaturall faith which is principally contained in the Articles of our Creed yet they subuert the foundation of faith ex parte regulae fidei and in regard of the formall obiect of faith which is the infallible truth and testimony of God reuealed to vs in the holy Scriptures and so the auerring of these fashoods make God a Lyar and doe indirectly vertually and by a necessary consequence subuert the first Article of our Creede and destroy the infinite power knowledge or goodnes of God and consequently God himselfe and therefore are truely and properly hereticall falshoods or repugnant to faith both according to Protestants and most learned Catholike Diuines Whereupon all Diuines commonly doe put in the first place or degree of hereticall propositions those which are expressely and formally against the holy Scriptures and in second or third place those which are repugnant to the definitions of the Church See Cardinall Turrecremata in Sum. de Ecclesia lib. 4. part 2. cap. 10. Canus lib. 12. de locis cap. 7. Bannes 2 a 2 ae q. 11. ar 2. Franciscus de Christo dist 25. in q. 3. de haeresi in Excursu de Catholica veritate Directorium Inquit sitorum part 2. comment 27. in prima regula besides Alphonsus de Castro and Couerruuias cited by Mr. Widdrington in his answer to Mr. Fitzherbert part 2. Append. p. 69. 2. Veritas Catholica est veritas c. saith Franciscus à Christo Catholike verity is a verity deliuered supernaturally and made known by God alone Wherof there are foure kindes The first kinde is of those truths or verities which are formally and expressely contained in the holy Scriptures And beneath saith hee Therefore the first degree of hereticall propositions is of those which are against Catholike verity or truth contained formally expressely in the holy Scriptures The same saith Turrecremata in the places aboue cited Catholicae veritates illae habendae sunt c. saith Franciscus Pegna in Comment 27. vpon the Directorie of the Inquisitors part 2. Catholike verities are to be accounted those which are contained in the holy Scripture of the old and new Testament And a little aboue in q. 2. Illa propositio c. That proposition is hee reticall saith Eymericus whom Pegna glosseth which is against the holy Scripture approued by the Church 3. And therefore as well sayth Card. Turrecremata cap. 3. Ecclesiae determinatio c. The determination of the Church doth not make nor can make heresie or an hereticall proposition as neither Catholike verity because as Cas tholike verities without all approbation of the Church of their owne nature are immutable and immutably true so immutably they are to be accounted Catholike And likewise heresies without all condensnation of the Church are heresies The same saith Castro and Couerruuias cited by Widdrington g In his Appendix to the second part of Master Fitzherbert num 206. pag. 69. Wherefore you must distinguish as the aforesayd Doctours doe well obserue betwixt Catholike verities and heresies secundùm se quoad nos according to their owne nature and in respect of vs for heresies without all condemnation of the Church are heresies although before the Church hath declared them to bee heresies they are not alwayes knowne to all Catholikes but to some more or lesse who see that either directly or indirectly they containe a falshood repugnant to the holy Scriptures See also the definition which S. Robert of Lincolne maketh of heresie related by Matthew Paris in the life of K. Henry the third pag. 846. Sect. 4. Obiection FOR though it be say you cleare in Scriptures Obiect that none must doe wrong yet it is not cleare in Scriptures that the subiect or other deposing the Prince after depriuation doth wrong It is onely grounded on your rule In pari casu melior est conditio possidentis In the like case the condition of the possessor is the better which though it be true and grounded on reason yet it is not de fide of faith or set downe in Scripture and consequently the doing against it not hereticall For as you know when a conclusion dependeth on two premisses whereof the one is de fide of faith the other not when according to the Logicians rule The Conclusion must follow the weaker part the conclusion cannot be de fide of faith and consequently the contrary proposition to that conclusion cannot bee hereticall And so though it be cleare in Scriptures wee must doe no wrong yet because it is not in Scriptures proued that it is a wrong for the subiect or other to depose the Prince depriued but proued so to bee by your rule which is no Scripture it can not be sworne that the doctrine so teaching is hereticall Answer 1. BVT this discourse of yours is farre more weake Answ and insufficient then the former And first to shew the insufficiency therof by some inconueniences It is manifest that according to your principles no particular proposition is of faith and the contrarie hereticall although it bee neuer so cleerely contained in the generall proposition which is expressed in the holy Scripture vnlesse both the premisses to proue the particular proposition to bee included in the generall bee expressely contained in the holy Scripture And so by your manner of arguing it is not lawfull to abiure as hereticall any particular doctrine which approueth the dishonoring of particular Parents which approueth any particular adultery theft or murther although they bee neuer so vnquestionable dishonouring vnquestionable adultery vnquestionable theft or murther For to proue these particular and vnquestionable vnlawfull actions to bee included in those generall precepts Honour thy father and mother Thou shalt not commit adultery Thou shalt not steale Thou shalt not kill one of the premisses is not contained in the holy Scripture but it must be deduced from naturall reason or humane testimonice which are not Scriptures For although it be cleare in Scriptures that wee must honour our father and mother yet it is not set downe in Scriptures although it be otherwise certaine that this particular man or woman is our father or mother but this must bee proued by humane testimonies and naturall reason which are not Scriptures And although it bee cleare in Scriptures that wee must not commit adulterie yet it is not cleare in Scriptures although it bee otherwise vnquestionable that this woman is another mans wife and consequently that particular abuse to be adultery but this must bee proued out of Scriptures And although it bee cleare in Scriptures that wee must not steale from