Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
truth_n know_v speak_v word_n 9,131 5 4.2861 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
A42576 A second letter to Father Lewis Sabran, Jesuite in answer to his reply. Gee, Edward, 1657-1730. 1688 (1688) Wing G460; ESTC R9551 13,276 18

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

A Second Letter TO Father LEWIS SABRAN Jesuite IN ANSWER TO HIS REPLY Imprimatur hic Libellus cui Titulus A Second Letter to F. L. S. December the 2 d. 1687. Jo. Battely LONDON Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard 1688. A Second Letter to Father Lewis Sabran Jesuite in Answer to his Reply Reverend Sir Novemb. 30 th 1687. I Was very glad to hear yesterday of your intentions of giving me an answer to the Letter I wrote to you five days ago I did expect I should find something extraordinary and some reasons or arguments of strength sufficient to convince the world that even the demonstrative argument from Isidore ought to be set aside since you could produce evidences as strong and as positive on the other hand and therefore as soon as I heard it I resolved with my self not to be obstinate in the defence of my charge against you but fairly and honestly to own my mistake if you did bring on your side any thing stronger and more rational than what had been produced against you But when I this day had your Answer from the Press the first perusal of it sufficiently informed me that you had not done that thing which indeed my private reason I must confess did assure me that you could not I mean that you had not given any thing of moment in defence of your self One thing I must own I was surprised at the great alteration in your style betwixt your two Letters This is as blustring and abusive as the other was calm you reflected in your Letter to the Honourable Lord on the insulting and scurrilous lauguage of the Hereticks but for your self you said far be it from me even to return the like we have no such custome neither hath the Church of God Truth say you would blush to be defended by such unwarrantable arms but it seems your mind is altered since and now Truth will not blush to be so defended and you can make use of harsher words which others call insolent language in the defence of Truth but I must do you this justice to own that you have not quitted the resolutions of the former Letter since what you set your self so angryly to defend here is no Truth but a gross Errour as I shall very quickly shew You begin your Letter in a victorious stile and reason good since you say you have the Opinion of all men of sense that your Letter to the Peer of the Church of England hath cleared you sufficiently of the mistake I charged you with I must confess I dare not deny what you say here since I have not spoken with the hundredth part of the men of sense in the Town to know whether it be Truth that you write here however thus far I dare speak that I do not believe it since I am afraid that by the ALL MEN of SENSE here is meant no more than SOME of your own party It was not from an inconsiderate itch of Scribling as you word it that I reflected upon that passage in your introduction to your Sermon at Chester I was provoked to it from that passage's being so much cryed up boasted of and insisted upon as if it had been a most genuine and a most considerable Testimony about Praying to the Virgin Mary from St. Augustine and therefore since I was quickly satisfied that the Sermon out of which it was taken was not St. Augustine's I looked upon it as a duty I owed to the world and particularly to the Nobility of the Church of England some of whom had been urged much with that passage to publish it to the whole Nation in that page that was empty at the end of my Book that that Sermon de Sanctis out of which it is taken was not nor could be St. Augustine's The Reasons I used there have been the subject of this Letter-Controversie betwixt us and though you be resolved never to take any farther notice of such unknown persons who conceal their names yet I am resolved to defend my first Letter to you and I believe I shall convince the world in it that you ought to make some other Reply than you hitherto have to the Demonstrative Argument from Isidore The first and least considerable Reason that I urged against the Sermon was from the Title and Subject of it About this we have had the most ado though I hinted in my Letter to you that the stress of the Controversie did not at all depend upon it But you are resolved to insist upon this and in your Reply you have marshal'd my reasonings for that proof first into a new Errour next into a false Inference then into a plain cheat and contradiction These are very hard words and therefore I come now to examine how I deserve them 'T is an Errour say you that there was not in St. Augustine's time a general pious Belief of the Blessed Virgin 's Assumption You refer me for the proof of what you say there to your Letter to the Peer well I have looked into it and am no more convinced by it yet than I was by my first perusal of it The Authours named in that Paragraph you refer to are the Supposititious Sermon of St. Hierome St. Hephonsus William Bishop of Paris St. Bernard and others but these cannot be the men to shew the General pious Belief of the Assumption in St. Austin's time since you say you find in them that they doubted of or disbelieved her the B. Virgin being assumed in Body into Heaven and methinks these Fathers and others look like a fair argument to prove against your GENERAL pious belief in St. Austin's time To pass them therefore who are either not to the purpose here or against your assertion there are but two Authours more in the Paragraph St. Mellion's Sermon which in your Reply hath changed both its name and is called St. Melitons Book and Nicephorus And now I would fain know of you Sir how either of these Authours prove what you assert a General pious Belief of the Assumption in St. Austin's time as for Nicephorus he lived not till almost a Thousand years after St. Austine so that he is a most unfit Witness for such a purpose but here you will tell me that Nicephorus is urged by you onely to shew that Juvenal Patriarch of Hierusalem proved the Truth of this Mystery to have been received of very Ancient Tradition before Marcian the Emperour To this I answer that Juvenal lived after St. Austine's time and therefore can be no Witness as to his time but passing this the Credit of all this story depends upon Nicephorus Callistus who is of no Authority herein not onely because he lived not till the fourteenth Century but because he is a most fabulous Writer I have not time to insist on or urge what Monsieur Launoy hath offered against this Story especially what he says about the