Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	word_n	work_v	write_n	46	3	8.8002	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09100	A defence of the censure, gyuen vpon tvvo bookes of william Charke and Meredith Hanmer mynysters, whiche they wrote against M. Edmond Campian preest, of the Societie of Iesus, and against his offer of disputation Taken in hand since the deathe of the sayd M. Campian, and broken of agayne before it could be ended, vpon the causes sett downe in an epistle to M. Charke in the begyninge.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.; Charke, William, d. 1617. Replie to a censure written against the two answers to a Jesuites seditious pamphlet.	1582 (1582)	STC 19401; ESTC S114152	168,574	222

Augustin hath written but one booke of this matter I wolde gyue a good thing that I were by you whyle you reade this to see whether you can blushe or no. But yet I call backe my wishe agayne For I thinke you wolde make me more a fearde than I you a shamed for that your Purseuantes are stronger than our argumentes And this is but concerning the quotation of S. Augustin for about the text it selfe M. Charks behauioure is a great deale worse and suche in verie deede as yf a man had care of his owne sowle he wolde neuer trust suche a felow more that against all honestie trueth shame and respect bothe of conscience ●redit falsifieth so learned a fathers writinges against his plaine and euident woordes and meaning For whereas S. Augustin alleaged by the Censure in many places else of his woorkes sayeth auoucheth confirmeth and proueth that Concupiscentia iam non est peccatum quando ●lli ad illicita opera non consentitur concupiscens nowe in the regenerate is not sinne when consent of mynde is not yeelded to vnlaufull woorks M. Chark answereth S. Augustins place is expounded by him selfe afterward sayeing Cōcupiscence is not so for gyuen in baptisme that it is not synne but that it is not imputed as synne this seemeth plaine and Augustin appeareth contrarie to hym selfe But what is the principall woorde in this sentence that maketh moste for M. Charke The word Synne you will say for that being taken away in the former clause the sentence maketh quite against hym VVell then that woorde hathe he added of hym selfe and yet hathe corrupted the whole sentēce besides For S. Augustines woordes are these quaeritur c. si in parente baptizato potest esse concupiscentia peccatum non esse cur eadem ipsae in prole peccatum sit The question is sayth S. Augustin whie this concupiscence is sinne in the childe before it be baptized yf it be no sinne in the parent nowe baptized heere you see by the way that it is holden as a matter out of doubt that concupiscence is no sinne in the parent whiche is baptized and the reason S. Augustin yeedelth immediatlie in the answer sayeing Ad haec respondetur dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo non vt non si● sed vt in peccatum nō impute●ur quamuis reatu suo iam soluto manet tamē c. To this is answered that the cōcupiscence of the fleshe is forgeuen in baptisme not that it is not or remayneth not but that it is not imputed into sinne Yt remaneth still though the guylt be taken awaye Heere now we see that S. Augustin affirmeth onelie that concupiscence is not quite taken awaye by baptisme but yet the guilt thereof is so that it is no more imputed into the nature of a sinne The cause whie it is left he vttereth in diuers places as when he sayeth ad agonem manet non sibi ad illicita consentientibus nihil omnino nocitura Concupiscence remaneth to fight withall but yet in such sort as it can hurt vs nothing at all yf we cōsent not to her vnlaufull suggestiōs Secondlie we see that S. Augustin in this verie place proueth directlie our verie position that concupiscence in the baptized is not sinne also that it hath no guilt and that it doeth hurt nothing vvithout consent vvherby M. Charkes lacke of Iudgement and shame may be noted in bringing this place of all others against vs adding that hovv soeuer the Iesuits distinguish yet these sinnes the first motions of concupiscence ●vhich by the Iesuits doctrine are so called figuratiuelie except vve fynde mercie vvill fynde no figuratiue condemnation Thyrdlie vve may beholde and lament the pityfull desperate resolutiō of our aduersaries whoe seing and knoweing their owne vveaknes yet to couer their miserie dare abuse forge and falsifie playne authorities as in this place this shamelesse creature hath done in so many points For first vvhere as S. Augustin sayeth Concupiscence is forgyuen in baptisme he translateth concupiscence is not so forgyuen in baptisme Secondlie vvhere as S. Augustine saythe it is forgyuen not that it be not or remaine not he trāslateth not that it is not sinne Thirdlie for imputed into synne he trāslateth imputed as sinne Fowerthlie he cutteth of the woordes immediatlie goeing before where S. Augustin sayeth concupiscence in the paren● baptized is no synne as also the voordes immediatlie foloweing and affirming that concupiscence remayneth but vvithout guilt and consequentlie can not be sinne Hathe this man anye conscience any trueth any good meaning any sparke of grace seeketh he to instruct or to deceyue to proue and defend or to couer dissemble Is this he whiche protested suche sinceritie in his dealing as before God and Angels is this the credit of a puritane protestant O how miserable are those people whiche hange their soules vpon the trust of such dissēbling and deceyuing men And this for the fyrst place cited by M. Charke for his sentence of S. Augustin for he citeth two chapiters in one booke the first thereof hath as you haue seene the other hath no one woorde tendinge that waye but cleane to the contrarie For S. Augustin layeth downe proueth our position of purpose in muche more ample and vehement maner than I can against M Charke and sheweth it also by examples how the Apostle called concupiscence sinne improperlie vocatur peccatum quia peccato facta est cum iam in regeneratis non sit ipsa peccatum Si autem vocatur lingua locutio quam facit lingua manus vocatur scriptura quam facit manus Concupiscence is called sinne because it is made in vs by originall sinne whereas it selfe is not sinne now in the regenerate euen as the speeche whiche the tongue maketh is called the tongue and the writinge whiche the hand maketh is called the hand The verie same hath S. Augustin against Iulian the pelagian towching S. Pauls calling of concupiscence sinne whiche in deede properlie is no sinne except consent be yeelded thervnto as there S. Augustin proueth by the woordes of Paul hym selfe VVherfore M. Charke doeth fraudulentlie alleage his woords against the same Iulian to proue that all concupiscence is sinne For S. Augustin sayeth onelie of concupiscence in generall that it is synne and the punishement of synne and the cause of synne whiche is true of concupiscence in generall as it comprehendeth all her braunches and all estates of men for concupiscence is the punishement of sinne in all men In them that gyue consent it is the cause of sinne in them that are not baptized it is sinne it selfe whether they gyue consent or no. But yet is it not nedefull that all these points should be verified in euerye particular braunche of concupiscence as for example Manslaughter in generall comprehendeth murder chaunce medley execution by Iustice and the like and in respect of these braunches a man may say

sayd trueth and also confirme many of your owne syde that now iustlye doe wauer vpon this open discouerie of your feare in tryall VVherfore once againe I saye vnto you ministers obtaine vs this disputation thoughe it be onelie but for a shevv therby to hold maintaine your credites VVe protest before God that vve seek it onelie for the triall of Christ his trueth for searche vvherof vve offer our selues to this labour charges perill of lyfe VVe aske for our safties but onelie such a vvarrant from her Maiestie as the late Councell of Trent dyd offer vnto all the protestāts of the wolrd wherof you haue the copie vvith you VVee will come in what kynde number at what tyme to what place you shall appoint Yf you will haue your owne countrie mē they are redie to come Yf you will haue straungers to dispute in your vniuersities before the learned onely there shall not want For your selues vve gyue you leaue to call all the learned protestants of Europ for your defence VVe will take onelie our owne countrie men yf you permitt vs. VVe gyue you leaue to oppose or defende to appoint questiōs to chuse owt controuersies to begynne or end at your pleasure and to vse any other prerogatyues that you please so that they impugne not the indifferencie of tryall VVhat can yow alleage whye yow should not accept this If you had leuer make this triall in other countries than at home before your owne people as perhaps you had chuse you what protestant state you lyst and procure vs therin the forsayd saftie from the prince and we will nether spare labour nor cost to meet you therin also Or yf this seeme hard or lyke you not then take you but the paynes some number of you to come into any Catholique kyngdome or countrie where you best please And wee will procure what securitie soeuer reasonable you shall demaund for your persons And more then that we will beare your expenses also rather than so good a woorke shall remayne vnattēpted And yf you can deuyse any other conditiō to be performed on our partes whiche I haue left owt doe you adde the same and we will agree by the grace of God to fullfill it If we offer you reason than deale somewhat reasonablie with vs againe For all the world will crye shame and begynne to discredit you yf you will nether gyue nor take vpon so great oddes as heere are offered you If you dare not venture with disputatiōs yet graunt vs certaine sermons to encounter with you vpon this matter Or yf that also be to daungerous procure vs but a litle passage for our bookes at leastwyse you M. Charke shall doe an honorable acte to obtayne licence of free passage for this booke vntill it be answered by you to the end that men hauinge reade this ouer may be the better able to conceyue your answer when it comethe THE ANSVVERE TO THE PREFACE TOVCHINGE DISCERNINGE of Spirites MAister Charke besides the matter in question maketh a praeface to the reader touching the vtilitie necessitie and waye of tryeing spirites alleginge the woordes of S. Iohn whereby we are willed not to beleeue euerie spirite but to trie the spirites whether they be of God VVhich he saythe he and his felowes offer to doe and we refuse But that this is clearlie false and a formall speche onelie withoute trueth or substance our dedes doe testifie which are alwayes with indifferent men as good as woordes Our bookes are extant whereby we haue called to tryall all sectaries of our tyme as they rose vpp and shewed new spirites as Luther Corolostad Swinglius Munster Stankarus and Caluin whome our aduersaries folow as one of the last And nowe in England yf we had not bene willing or rather desirouse of this triall of spirites we wolde neuer haue laboured so muche to obtayne the same of our aduersaries in free printing preaching or disputatiō much lesse wolde we haue aduentured our liues in comming and offering the same to thē at home with so vnequall conditiōs on our syde as we haue done and doe dayly for the triall of truthe And yf all these our offers and endeuours ioyned with so many petitions and supplications for triall haue obtained vs nothing hitherto but offence accusations extreme rackings and cruell deathe me thinke M. Charke had litle cause to make this preface of our refusing triall and their offering the same except it were onelye for lacke of other matter and to kepe the custome of sayeing somewhat in the beginning But perhappes M. Charke will saye that althoughe we offer triall yet not suche nor by suche meanes as in his opinion is lawfull sure and conuenient VVhen we come to the cōbate then remayneth it to be examined whiche parte doeth alleage best meanes whiche shalbe the argument of this my answer to this preface And I will endeuour to shew that all the meanes of tryall which M. Chark his felowes will seme to allow in woord for they offer none in deede are neyther sure possible nor euident but onelie meere shyftes to auoyde all triall and that we on the cōtrary parte doe not onelie allow but allso offer all the best and surest wayes of tryall that euer were vsed in Gods churche for discerning an hereticall spirit from a Catholique The onelie meanes of tryall whiche M. Chark will seme to allow is the scripture wherto onelie he wolde haue all triall referred and that which can not be tryed therehence by hym must stand vntryed And then as yf we refused all tryall of scripture he vseth his pleasure in speche against vs. But this is a shyft common to all suche as M. Chark is And the cause thereof I will declare immediatlye S. Augustin dothe testifye it of the heretiques of his tyme. And all the sectaries of our dayes doe make it plaine by experience referring thē selues in woordes eche one to the holie scripture onelie for maintenance ●f there errours and denyeing all other meanes of tryall whereby the true meaning of scripture may be knowen The causes of this shyft in all new teachers are principally three The first to gett credit with the people by naming of scripture and to seme to honour it more than their aduersaries doe by referring the whole triall of matters vnto it The second is by excluding councels fathers and auncitours of the churche who from tyme to time haue declared the true sense of scripture vnto vs to reserue vnto them selues libertie and authoritie to make what meaning of Scripture they please and thereby to gyue colour to euerye fansie they list to teache The third cause is that by chalenging of onelie scripture they may delyuer them selues from all ordinances or doctrines left vnto vs by the first pillers of Christe his Church thoughe not expresselie sett downe in scripture thereby assume authoritie of allowinge or not allowing of comptrolling or permittinge what soeuer liketh or

sayeth that albeit the hoost seme to vs of a rounde forme insēsible yet who soeuer beleeueth it not to be the verie true bodie of Christe seing he hathe sayd it is excidit a gratia salute Suche a one is fallen from grace and saluation And S. Chrisostom sayeth we must not beleeue sense and reason in this matter Sed quoniam ille dixit hoc est corpus meum credamus etiamsi sensui absurdum esse videatur But because Christ hathe sayed this is my bodye we must bele●ue it although it seme absurd to our sense Hoc idem corpus cruentatum lancea vulneratum quod in caelum extulit This is the very same bodie vvhose bloode vvas shed and vvhiche vvas vvounded vvith the speare and vvhiche he caried vpp vvith hym to heauen All whiche notwithstandinge oure aduersaries haue founde out a new exposition of these woordes thys is my bodye affirming that it must be construed this is onelie the signe of my bodie For the whiche construction as they haue neither scripture nor auncient father for theyr warrāt or example so agree they not amongest them selues of this exposition For Luther in his tyme numbreth vpp eight dyuerse and contrarie expositions of Sacramentaries vppon these woordes cōming from eight diuerse spirits of the deuyll as he affirmeth And a learned byshop of our time hathe gathered 84. gyuen by diuerse sacramentaries vppon the same So that once goe oute of the highe waye and there is no ende of erringe And because I haue here made mention of Doctor Luther a man by M. Charks opinion illuminated singularlie by the holye ghost and compared to Elias by the common phrase of all protestants I will repeate here what he had reuealed to hym by hys holy spirit touchinge this interpretation of M. Charke and his felowes First he writteth thus to the protestants that is to the true Christians as he calleth them of Argentina Hoc diffiteri nec possum nec volo si Corolostadius c. This can I not nor vvill deny but yf Corolostadius or anie man els could for this fyue yeres haue persuaded me that there had bene nothinge in the sacrament but bread and vvine he should haue bound me to hym by a great good turne For I haue takē great care and anxietie in discussinge this matter and haue endeuoured vvith all my povver sinovves stretched ovvte to rydde my selfe of the same For I dyd vvell see that by this thing I might hurt the pope more than in anie other matter But I do see my selfe captiue no vvay being left to escape For the text of the gospel is too plaine and stronge and suche as can not easelie be ouerthrovvne by any man and muche lesse by vvoordes and gloses deuised by a phātasticall heade For I my selfe God forgyue me for it am too prone to that par●e so farre foorthe as I can perceyue the nature of my ovvne Adam Agayne the same prophet in an other place after many most detestable woords vttered against M. Chark and his parteners sayeth thus his spiritibus credat doceri veritatem si quem perire delectat c. Lett hym beleue that these spirites doe teache the trueth vvho deliteth to damne him selfe vvhereas in dede they began not theyr doctrine but by manifest lyes and novv doe defend the same onelye by lyes diuulging the same by corrupting other mens bookes not vouchsafing to heare the anguishes of our consciences vuhich crie saye the vvoordes of Christ are cleare and manifest eate this is my bodye And againe in a certayne treatise intituled against the phanaticall Spirits of sacramētaries He sayeth talking of this interpretation of the woords This is my bodye Age ergo quando adeo sunt impudentes c. Goe to then seing they are so impudent therfore I vvill geue them a Lutheran exhortation accursed be their charitie and concorde for euer and euer And after cōming to the expositiō of the sayde woordes he sayeth thus Doctor Carolostad vvresteth miserablie this pronoune this Svvinglius maketh leane this verbe is Oecolampadius tormenteth this vvorde bodye other doe boucher the vvhole text and some doe crucifie but the halfe thereof so manifestlie doeth the deuyll holde vs by the noses And agayne in the same worke he hathe these wordes To expound the vvordes of Christ as the sacramentaries doe this is the signe of my bodie is as absurd an exposition as if a man shoulde interprete the scripture thus In the beginning God made heauē earthe that is the Cuckovve dyd eate vp the Titling or hedge Sparrovv together vvith her bones Again in S. Iohn And the vvoorde vvas made fleshe that is a croked staffe vvas made a kyte This was the opinion of holy Luther towching our aduersaries interpretatiō or rather euasion and shift whiche I haue alleaged somewhat more at large against M. Chark for that he esteemeth and defendeth the man as a rare instrument of the holy ghoste VVhich yf it be true then woe to M Charke and his comparteners whose spirit is so contrarye to this mans holy illumination By this now it appeareth that the controuersie is not betwene vs whiche part prouoketh to scripture which doeth not but as it hathe allwayes bene betwixt heretiques and Catholiques which part alleageth true meaning of Scripture whiche thing accordinge to the councell of wise Sisinius to Theodosius the Emperour we desire to be tried by the Iudgement of auncient fathers indifferent in this matter for that they lyued before our cōtrouersies came in question But our aduersaries will allow no exposition but theyr owne whereby it is easie to defeate what soeuer is brought against them ether scripture or doctour For examples sake to proue that we may lawfullie make vowes are boūd also to perform the same being made we alleage the plaine woordes of the prophet vouete reddite domino vowe ye and rēder your vowes to god how will the aduersarie auoyde this think you M. Fulke answereth this text belongeth onelye to the olde testament But what may not be wiped awaye from vs that lyue vnder the new testament by suche interpretations Again to proue that there is some state of lyfe of more perfectiō in Christianitie than other we alleage the cleare saying of Christe Si vis perfectus esse vade vende quae habes da pauperibus habebis thesaurum in caelo veni sequere me Yf thow wilt be perfect goe sell all thow hast and gyue to the poore and thow shalt haue a treasure in heauen and come folowe me VVhat answer haue they trow you to this M. Fulke answereth this vvas spoken onelie as a singular triall to that yong man alone and not to others beside hym VVhat a deuise is this May not he as well say also that the other woordes immediatelie going before were onlie spokē to this yong man to witt Si vis ad vitam ingredi

shall serue for this tyme. He hath wryten two large and learned volumes of the corruptions of gods woorde by the heretiques of our tyme where he hath these woo●des Est ergo verbum dei c. VVherfore the vvoorde of God is as holie scripture conteyneth the knovvleige of saluatiō the cleare lanterne and shynyng lampe it is the hydden mysterie the heauentlie Manna the pure and proued golde the learnyng of Saints the doctrine of all spirit and trueth the loking glasse the liuelye fontayne the sealed booke vvhich booke vvho soeuer doe vse vvell they are Gods scholars they are spirituall they are vvyse they are iust they onelye are made the freendes and heyres of almightie God These are Canisius a Iesuites woordes And doe these men speak baselye of scriptures as M. Chark heere accuseth them But now we come to examine the text alleaged by M. Chark agaynst the Iesuites to wytt Lex domini immaculata the law of our Lord is vnspotted or vnd●filed which M. Charke wolde haue to signifie that the scripture is so perfect playne in sense as no wicked man may wrest or abuse the same For whiche absurd reasoninge and wrestinge of scripture he being now reproued by the Censure heare what he answereth and how he defendeth hym selfe The Censure sayeth he supposeth me to haue but one Byble and that of the olde translation onelie vvhich hathe the lavve of the Lord is vndefiled c. but the original hath the lavve of the Lord is perfect And the best translations haue so translated it your olde translation goeth alone The 70. folovv the rest Heere you see that M. Charke bryngeth diuers reasons for his defense First that he hath diuers Bybles in his house and that of diuers translations Secondlie that the original or hebrew text of this verse in the Psalme hath not immaculata that is vndefiled or vnspoted but rather perfect in that sense as he defendeth it Thirdlie that all the best translations haue it so and that our olde translation differeth from them all Fouerthlie that the septuagint or seuentie greke interpretours are also against vs here in This is all M. Charkes defense But here by the waye wolde I haue the reader to Marke how muche M. Charke getteth to hys cause Yf I should graunt hym all that he hathe here sayd surelie he should gayne onelie that the law of God is perfect And is this against any thinge that we saye or holde or is it against the signification of the woord immaculata in the olde latin translation whiche he impugneth Is not a thinge immaculate or vndefiled also called perfect euen as on the contrarie a filthie or defiled thinge is called imperfect If then we should graunt that the hebrew and greeke textes had the woord perfect in them in steed of the latin woord immaculata yet this dothe not condemne the olde translation for vsing the woord immaculata immaculate For that immaculate as hath bene shewed signifieth also perfect from spot mary not perfect in that sense wherin M. Charke talketh and for proofe wherof he alleaged this sentence to witt that because the law of the lorde is perfect therfore the scripture can not be wrested whiche is a most false and absurd illation vppon the worde perfect For S. Paules epistles are persect together withe other scriptures and yet S. Peter sayeth that many men dyd wrest and depraue them But now lett vs consider the seuerall fower pointes of M. Charkes former answer whiche as yow see if wee should graunt vnto him without contradiction yet had he gayned nothing therby But lett vs examine them Touching the first whiche he answereth that is abowt the varietie of Bybles and translations which he hath at home I will not stand or cōtend with M. Chark Let hym haue as many as he please the matter is howe well he vnderstandeth or reporteth those Bybles and not how many he hath The second poynt is false that the hebrew text disagreeth from the olde latin translation as shalbe shewed after The thyrd is fond that all the best translations doe differe from the olde translation heerin For what best or better or other good latin translation hath he than the olde whiche was in vse in gods Churche aboue thirtene hundred yeeres past as may be seene by the citations of the fathers whiche lyued then whiche was afterwarde also ouervewed corrected by S. Ierom which was also so hyghlye cōmended by S. Augustin what other better translation I saye hath william Charke than this auncient which he so contemneth except he will name some latter of our tyme as of Erasmus Luther or the like whiche Beza hym selfe notwithstandinge affirmeth to be nothing lyke the olde trāslatiō for exactnes The fowerth poynt which he addeth is a shameles lye that the septuagint in greeke doe dissent from the woorde immaculata in the latin For their woorde is AMOMOS which their owne lexicon will expound vnto them to be immaculate innocent irreprehensible To returne therfore in a woorde or two to the originall text the hebrew woorde is TAMAM or TAM which the septuagint doe interpret as you haue heard AMOMOS that is irreprehensible and the auncient latin translation immaculata immaculate And what refuge then can M. Charke fynde heere I doe not denye but that it signifieth also perfect for that what soeuer is irreprehensible and without spott may also be called perfect as hath bene shewed But how doeth this proue that it signifieth to be perfect in sense in suche sorte as it may not be wrested or peruerted In the 118. Psalme where our auncient translation hath beati immaculati in via your owne englysh bible hath translated it M. Charke blessed are those that be vndefyled in the vvaye and the Hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM AMOMOS as in the other text How then doe you rayle at our olde auncient translation for that wherein your new englishe byble doth the verye same the lyke you may see in infinite other places as leuit 3. v. 1. 6. Also Num. 6. v. 14. VVhere sacrifices are appointed to be immaculate according to the auncient tranflation And your englishe byble translateth it so too sayeinge they must be without blemishe where the hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM and AMOMOS as before By whiche is seene that M. Charke careth not whether he runneth what he forgeth or whome he reprehendeth so he maye seeme allwayes to saye somewhat And of all other shyftes this is the last and the easiest and of most credit and least able to be spyed of his reader as he thinketh to inueighe against the olde latin translation when he is pressed vnauoydablye with any place of scripture alleaged For this shyft besides the present couering of the difficultie yeeldeth also some opinion of Learning to his Maister gyuinge men to vnderstand that he is skillfull in the learned tongues whereas God knoweth the refuge is vsed for bare