Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	hear_v	speak_v	word_n	7,138	5	4.4441	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30979	A letter concerning invocations of saints, and adoration of the cross writ ten years since, to John Evelyn of Depthford, esq. / by Dr. Barlow ...	Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691.	1679 (1679)	Wing B834; ESTC R12483	26,860	40

Sermon and said Audiamus itaque dicentem but about three hundred and thirty years before when he u Scripsit Evangelium paulò ante mortem moritur Anno Christi 101. Euseb. in Chronico Hieronymus de script Illustr in Johanne writ his Gospel Thirdly What was it he spake Not any thing de novo but what he had spoke and writ so long before in the 1 Chap. and 1. verse of his Gospel for Cyril having said Audiamus itaque Johannem dicentem he immediately adds what John said and he would have them to hear In principio erat verbum verbum erat apud Deum Deus erat verbum Whence I further observe 6. That this passage of Cyril which is pretended to be a Prayer and a proof of their Invocation of Saints is only a piece of Cyril's Homilie or Sermon not of any Prayer either before or after it 7. All Cyril desires of John in this Passage and pretended Prayer is only this That he would tell them what they well knew already out of that Gospel he had writ above three hundred years before For so the words are Da ut nunc de salutis fontibus hauriamus imò TUUM nobis FONTEM appone By fontes salutis he means the Gospels and by TUUM FONTEM S t John's Gospel and so all he desires is That S t John would set his Gospel before them which was before them already that out of it they might draw or learn that passage In principio erat verbum c. Now for Cyril or any body else to desire of John in a serious Prayer that he would tell them what he had told them and they well knew long before were irrational and ridiculous But to do it as beyond dispute Cyril here does by way of an usual figure and Rhetorical Apostrophe is not only allowable but in the best Authors commendable Cyril sayes here Audiamus Johannem dicentem Let us hear what Saint John saith though in truth and propriety of speech S t John spoke not one word then nor was it possible they should hear him speak what he spoke not And so our Church in her x In the Communion Service a little after the General Confession 1. Liturgy makes use of the very same figurative expression Hear what comfortable words our Saviour saith And again Hear what Saint Paul saith And again Hear what Saint John saith The truth manifestly is this The Priest who Officiates at our Communion exhorts the Congregation to hear what our blessed Saviour what Paul and John saith in the present tense when he reads unto them comfortable Passages spoke by then sixteen hundred years before and left upon Record in the Gospel out of which he reads them So S t Cyril here in his Sermon being to prove the Dignity and Divinity of our blessed Saviours person out of Saint John's Gospel he first makes that long Rhetorical harangue and Apostrophe to John as if he were present and heard it and then cites the Text as if he had spoke it then which he well knew was not then spoken by John but about three hundred and thirty years before So that he who makes Cyril's words here to be any thing but a Figurative Expression and a Rhetorical Apostrophe he who would have his words in propriety of Speech a serious Prayer and supplication to John that he would tell them what he had already three hundred years before told and they certainly knew I say he who makes this the meaning of Cyril's words makes both Cyril and himself ridiculous Well but suppose though it be evidently untrue that Dub. Cyril did in this Sermon and Passage properly without any figure and truly pray to Saint John will it not be a great Argument for the Popish Invocation of Saints and confirm the truth of their Doctrine c. No it will be no Argument at all For it being Resp. granted that Cyril did pray to Saint John it will not follow that Invocation of Saints is commendable or to him or us lawfull All the Argument that can be built upon this Passage taken in their own sense which yet is evidently false is only this Cyril prayed to John a dead Saint ergo Invocation of Saints is lawfull which is an illogical deduction evidently inconsequent no better than these David committed Adultery ergo Adultery is lawfull Peter deny'd and forswore his Saviour ergo we may do so All men know that A facto ad jus non valet argumentum Sempronius or Titius did such a work ergo It was well done or we may do it this is irrational and a manifest non sequitur Cyril's Fact if he had done it does no more justifie Invocation of Saints than what David and Peter did the lawfulness of Adultery and denying our Lord and Master If it be said Cyril was a Saint a great and good man and therefore his Example of more weight and more imitable I answer 1. He is call'd a Saint and I in charity believe him so but whether he really be a Saint none under Heaven does or can certainly know no not the Pope notwithstanding his Infallibility 2. He was I grant a great and for ought I know a good man but David and Peter for many reasons I do know were far greater and better as far before him in dignity and piety as in time and therefore his Action had it been his will no more warrant Invocation of Saints than Davids or Peters can legitimate Adultery or Perjury But this was not Cyril's Fact or Opinion only but the Dub. Judgement of the Oecumenical Council of Ephesus It was in that Council he had that Homilie It was Cyril and the Council pray'd to Saint John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Ecce tantus PASTORUM COETUS ad te venit it was the whole Synod which did supplicate to S t John and therefore Invocation of Saints has not only the Approbation and Authority of Cyril but of the whole Oecumenical Synod of Ephesus This is the utmost can be said by those who bring it in the prosecution and pressing this Argument To this which is all gratis dictum I say 1. That Resp. 't is evident and I believe may in part appear by what is abovesaid this whole passage in Cyril is only a figurative speech an Apostrophe but no Prayer to Saint John and so though it have the approbation of Cyril and the Synod too is altogether impertiment and no proof of Invocation of Saints 2. I deny this Sermon or this passage in it to have the Authority and approbation of the Council in which it was spoke 'T is true the Sermon was spoke in the Synod at Ephesus and is register'd amongst the Acts of that Council But all know who have read and considered the Acts and Editions of Councils that many things have been read and spoken publickly in them and are now Recorded amongst the Acts of such Synods which are but of