Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	canonical_a	scripture_n	write_v	2,879	5	5.9738	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00797	True relations of sundry conferences had between certaine Protestant doctours and a Iesuite called M. Fisher (then prisoner in London for the Catholique fayth:) togeather with defences of the same. In which is shewed, that there hath alwayes beene, since Christ, a visible church, and in it a visible succession of doctours & pastours, teaching the vnchanged doctrine of fayth, left by Christ and his apostles, in all points necessary to saluation and that not Protestants, but only Roman Catholiques haue had, and can shew such a visible church, and in it such a succesion of pastours and doctours, of whome men may securely learne what pointe of fayth are necessary to saluation. / By A.C.	A. C.; Sweet, John, 1570-1632, attributed name.; Floyd, John, 1572-1649, attributed name.; Fisher, John, 1569-1641, attributed name.	1626 (1626)	STC 10916.5; ESTC S118355	64,677	92

one or other such succession of Visible Pastors and no other can be shewed out of approued Histories or ancient monumēts besides that of the Roman Church only and such others as agree with it in Faith Ergo. The Roman Church only and such others as agree with it in Faith hath true diuine infallible Faith necessarie to saluation The Consequence of the Maior cannot with reason be denied and if it be it shal be proued The Minor hath two partes The first wherof is plaine by that which is already said and if need be it shal be more fully proued out of holy Scriptures The second part may be made manifest first out of Histories secondly out of the confession of Protestants The second Argument If the Roman Church had the right Faith and neuer changed any substantiall part of Faith Then it followeth that it hath now that one true diuine infallible Faith which is necessary to saluation But the Roman Church once had the right Faith and neuer changed any substantiall part of Faith Ergo. The Roman Church now hath the right Faith and consequently Protestants so far as they disagree with it haue not the right soule-sauing Faith The Maior is euident The Minor hath two partes The first is cleere out of S. Paul Rom. 1. and is confessed by Protestants The second part I proue thus Yf the Roman Church changed any substantiall part of Faith then there may be shewed the point changed the person which was the Authour of that change the time when and place where the change was made others may be named who persisting in the ancient Faith continued opposition against the innouation and change as may be shewed in other like and lesse changes and namely in Luthers and Caluins change But these circumstances cannot be shewed Ergo. No change If my Aduersaries name any point which they affirme to haue beene changed 1. This wil not suffice vnlesse they name the other circumstances of the Author time place and who persisting in the former vnchanged Faith opposed and continued oppositiō against it as against a Nouelty and Heresie as we can do in other changes and namely in that which was by Luther and Caluin 2. These points which they say were changed after the first 600. yeares may be shewed them to haue beene held by more ancient approued Authors in the same sense in which they are held by the Roman Church which doth argue that there was no such change made A briefe Relation of what passed betweene D. White and M. Fisher about the foresaid written Paper THIS forsaid paper passing from one to another came to some hāds who gaue it to D. Francis Whyte to answere and to prepare himselfe to oppugne it in a Conferēce with M. Fisher who whē he wrot it gaue it to the Lady did not thinke or suspect that any such great matter should haue bene made of it as after proued M. D. Whyte hauing as he cōfessed after to M. Fisher had this paper about ten dayes in his handes studying what to say to it came as he was appoynted to the place of meeting and M. Fisher being then a Prisoner was also sent for At the houre and place prefixed both the one and the other as they were bidden sate downe before a few but very Honorable Persons whose names I will onely as M. Fisher first did expresse in these ensuing letters L. K. L. M. B. L. B. M. B. Then D. Whyte drew out a copie of the aforesaid written paper and asked M. Fisher whether he wrote it Vnto which M. Fisher answered I wrote such a thing if it be a true copy I will defend it Then D. Whyte read the first point of the said paper in which was said This is one and has one was diuine Faith c. This saith D. Whyte is true if Faith be vnderstood explicite or implicite Which to be the true sense M. Fisher assented Then D. White read the second point in which was said That this true diuine Faith was wholy prouided vpon the word of God c. This also D. White yielded to be true Then D. White read the third point in which was said That this word of God vpon which Faith was grounded is not only the Word increate but also the Word Created to wit the diuine reuelation made manifest partly by Christes 〈◊〉 preaching partly by the holy Ghosts inward inspiration in 〈◊〉 hartes of the Apostles c. This point also D. White allowed but knowing what followed in the fourth point he asked M. Fisher whether he thought that the holy Ghost was equally in others as in the Apostles M. Fisher said that the inspiratiō of the holy Ghost was promised giuen both to the Apostles others yet not in the same degree nor in the samefull measure but the Apostles as being after Christ the prime foundations of the Church had the holy Ghost in such high degree and full measure that they could and did write Canonicall Scriptures Others that were Pastours and Doctours had it in an inferiour degree yet so as by it they were enabled to teach infallibly and without change the substance of all pointes needfull to saluation especially when in a generall Councell after discussion of the matter they did conclude as the Apostles and Seniours did Visum est spiritui sancto nis It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and vs. The people also had a measure of the same spirit sufficient to enable thē to conceiue rightly and to belieue stedfastly the teaching of their Pastours D. Whyte did not disallow the substance of this answere but only made a verball Obiection saying The Apostles had inspiration Pastours and People onely illumination M. Fisher answered that both Apostles Pastours had inspiration and illumination in regard the motion of the holy Ghost as receiued in the vnderstanding is called Illumination and as receiued in the will it is called Inspiration L. K. bad them leaue that verball controuersy and proceed in the matter D. Whyte excepted against that part of the paper wherin was said That the word of God was partly written partly vnwritten and would haue nothing to be the word of God but what is written in Scripture M. Fisher to iustifie that part of the paper first alledged that Text of S. Paul Hold the traditions which you haue learned whether by our Word or Epistle 2. He made these two ensuing arguments to proue that more is to be belieued by diuine Faith then is written in Scripture It is necessarie to belieue by diuine Faith that Genesis Exodus and other particuler Books are Canonicall and diuine Scripture But this to be so is not assuredly knowen by the only Word written Ergo c. Moreouer Protestants hould and belieue this proposition Nothing is to be belieued by Christian Faith but what is contayned in Scripture But this Proposition is not contayned in the word written Ergo. Somthing is belieued euen by Protestants

related only he sayd 1. That himselfe did not remember a point or two which both M. Fisher and M. B. did perfectly remember to haue bene so as is here related 2. He sayd that something more was sayd then is related which M. Fisher did not deny but was willing to add any thing that D. Whyte could put him in mind of or that himselfe should after remember and so being put in remembrance made by D. Whyte to wit Whereas M. Fisher vpon some occasion or other had sayd That although a generall Councell might erre in the premisses yet not in the Conclusion D. Whyte obiected saying That in all sciēces the conclusiō is no more certayne thē the Premisses therfore if the premisses in a general councell be fallible the conclusion cannot be infallible To which M. Fisher answered saying Although in sciences which depend only vpon the light of Nature the conclusion cannot be more certaine then the premisses yet in a generall councell assisted by the holy Ghost in the finall conclusion or definitiue sentence the conclusion is alwayes infallible although sometimes the premisses be fallible And M. Fisher had great reason to answere in this manner Indeed if to define a matter of Fayth were to conclude the same by way of discourse out of Principles as the Argument doth suppose then if Councels might erre in the Promisses they might likewise erre in their Conclusion and d●finitiue sentence But this supposition is false Infallibility in defining being a diuine Assistance not to inferre one thing out of another by way of connexion and consequence but to decree and declare what is conform 〈…〉 to the word of God by way of authority binding the Church so to believe And this definition is euer infallible though all the arguments the Councell bringes by way of discourse in proofe of the definition eyther before or after the same is made be not still demonstratiue Another obiection M. Fisher hath since that time remembred to wit that D. White alleaged something out of Abulensis in Matt. 7. 19. which M. Fisher differred to make answere vnto vntil he might see the Author himself hauing had experience inough how falsely many Ministers the Authors and how false their Note-Bookes be Now M. Fisher hath seene the booke and findeth the words cited by D. White to contayne two parts one as contrary to D. White as the other seemeth contrary to M. Fisher that the whole discourse of Abulensis in that place sheweth that euen that part which seemeth contrary to M. Fisher doth nothing preudice M. Fishers cause as will appeare to any that will duly ponder all that is there sayd of the Authority of the Church in defining what bookes be and what be not Canonicall For Abulensis expressly declareth that all and only those bookes are to be accounted Canonicall which the church doth define to be canonicall and the reason why he did in his priuate opinion thinke one or two Bookes not to be canonicall which we do now hold for canonicall is for that the Church had not then so cleerely defined them to be Canonicall as it hath done since A 〈…〉 sts wrot that passage as there are diuers other Bookes held for Canonicall euen by Protestants which haue not beene so esteemed by some of the Ancient Fathers in regard the church had not then so clearely defined them to be canonicall as is hath done in after times A third obiection was made by D. White about the worship of Images which D. White would needs affirme to be an Innouation and gross● Error of Papists Which M. Fisher denied and sayd that the worship meaning the same worship which is due to the Prototypon is not giuen by vs to the Image it selfe This obiection D. White vrged no further the first day but the next day of meeting he vrged those words of Bellarmine Datur veneratio ipsi imagini M. Fisher anwered that Bellarmine did not meane that the same worship which was due to the Prototypon was giuen to the Image it selfe but an inferior degree of worship and that also for the Prototypons sake Then D. White betooke himselfe to Suares saying That Suares did hold that the same worship which was giuen to the Prototypon was giuen to the Image M. Fisher answering sayd You do not vnderstand our Authors For sayd M. Fisher they that seeme to giue most giue the least to Images for those that say that one and the same worship is giuen to the Image and that which is represented by it hold the Image to be incapable of any part of worship and so the whole to pertayne to the thing Wheras others who distinguish one honour to be due to the thing and another farre inferior to be giuen to the Image giue something as M. Fisher explicated in the example of the respect one beareth to the picture of his friend which although it be not capable of that friendly respect and affection which by looking vpon it he exciteth in himselfe towards his friend represented by it yet is it capable of an inferiour degree of respect as to be set in a more worthy and eminent place c. then it should be if it were the picture of some other who were not ones friend These be the chiefe Passages of this Conference between D. White and M. Fisher so far as hath come to my notice who haue vsed so much diligence in inquiring the truth of this matter as I haue no doubt but for substance I haue not omitted any thing that may much import considering what the occasion and subiect of the Conference was to wit that Paper written by M. Fisher in which he proued the Roman Church and those who agree in Fayth with it to be that Company of whome euery one must learne what is the truth in all points and questions of Fayth necessary to saluation which paper not being substantially confuted as it was not by any thing sayd by D. White or any other at that time or after D. Whyte is yet obliged to make a better answere if he meane to giue satisfaction either to Catholiques or Protestants in this most important point of a perpetually visible church of which all forts must learne true diuine infallible Faith necessary to Saluation FINIS A RELATION OF THE Conference between a certain B. M. Fisher defended against the said B. his Chaplayne The Preface GENTLE Reader I think it needful to let thee vnderstand that whereas the Chaplaine of a certayne B. sayth in the Preface of his Answere to a Relation of what passed betweene the said B. and M. Fisher That the Iesuite spread abroad papers of this Conference which were full of partiality to his cause more full of calumney against the B. the truth is that the Iesuite did not at all so much as in speach much lesse in papers publish this or either of the other two Conferences which he had with D. White vntill he was forced vnto it by false

Reports giuen out about them to his priuate disgrace and to the preiudice of the Catholique Cause Neither then did he spread papers abroad but only deliuered a very few Copies to speciall friends and this not with intent to calumniate either the B. or the Doctor or to make the papers common but to enable his friends to answere and countermaund such false Reportes as they had heard or might heare Which being so I do not see how the Chaplaine can free himself from the faults of partiality and Calumny wherof he doth accuse the Iesuite vnles he do by some other proofs better then his owne or his Maisters bare affirmation proue that the Iesuite spread such papers shewing also particulerly wherein he did relate partially to his cause and calumnlously against the B. I say relate in regard I do not at this present promise to examine exactly all doctrines insinuated in the Iesuits Relation and impugned by the Chaplaine as neither hauing sufficient leysure nor commodity of Bookes requisite for such a worke but the Relation to haue bene sincere and true free from partiality more free from calumny I vndertake to defend For which purpose I thinke best to set downe the Iesuits Relation for the most part as I find it in the Chaplains printed Copie in greater letters and in a lesser letter the Chaplains chiefest exceptions and my answere vnto them I think the Iesuite himself for his owne particuler respect could be content to let passe this partiall and calumnious Censure of his Relation suffering it patiently as one of the ordinary persecutions which he and others at this day endure for the Catholique Faith and for that peculiar order of life which he professeth vnder the name of the Society of IESVS comforting himself with the exāple of Christ his Apostles who reioyced that they were thoughts worthy to suffer Contumely for the name of Iesus In this respect I say I suppose the Iesuite himself could be content that nothing were said to the Chaplaines Censure But considering the hurt which may come to the common cause by his vniust disgrace I haue thought it necessary to defend the sincerity and truth of his Relation and some of the chief heads of doctrine conteined in it to the intent that hereby men may be moued better to trust what he hath written heretofore or may write hereafter in defence of the Catholique Faith Church lesse trust his Aduersaries who without iust cause do so much endeauour to calumniate his person or writinges M. Fishers Relation of the Conference betvveene a certaine B. and himselfe THE occasion of this Conference was for that it was obserued that in a second Conferēce with D. VVhite all the speach was about particuler matters little or nothing about a Continuall Infallible Visible Church which was the chief and onely point in which a certaine Lady required satisfaction as hauing formerly setled in her mind that it was not for her or other vnlearned persons to take vpon them to iudge of particulers without depending vpon the Iudgment of the true Church This La. therefore hauing heard it graunted in the first Conference that there must be a continual visible Company euer since Christ teaching vnchanged doctrine in all points Fundamentall that is in all points necessary to Saluation desired to heare this confirmed and proofe brought to shew which was that Continuall Infallible Visible Church in which one may and out of which one cannot attaine Saluation And therefore hauing appointed a time of meeting betwixt a certaine B. and my selfe and thereupon hauing sent for the B and me before the B. came the La. a friend of hers came first to the roome where I was debated before me the aforesaid Question and not doubting of the first part to wit That there must be a Continuall Visible Church as they had heard grāted by D. VVhite L. K. c. The Question was which was that Church The La. friend would needs defend that not only the Romane but also the Greeke Church was right I told him that the Greeke Church had plainely changed and taught false in a point of doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and that I had heard say that euen his Maiesty should say The Greeke Church hauing erred against the Holy Ghost had lost the Holy Ghost The La. friend not knowing what to answere called in the Bishop who sitting downe first excused himself as one vnprouided and not much studied in Controuersies and desiring that in case he should faile yet the Protestant Cause might not be thought ill of it hauing a hundred better Schollers to maintaine it then he To which I said there were a thousand better schollers then I to maintaine the Catholique cause Then the Question about the Greek Church being proposed I said as before that it had erred The B. said that the errour was not in a point Fundamentall Wherupon I was forced to repeate what I had formerly brought against D. VVhyte concerning points fundamentall first reading the sentence of S. Augustine Ferēdus est disputator errans c. Out of which is proued that all pointes defined by the Church are fundamētall Secondly I required to knowe what points the Bishop woulde account fundamētall He said All the points in the Creed were such I asked how then it happened that M. Rogers sayth that the English Church is not yet resolued what is the right sense of the Article of Christ his descending into Hell The B. sayd that M. Rogers was but a priuate man But said I if M. Rogers writing as he did by publique authority be accounted onely a priuate man in what Booke may we find the Protestāts publique Doctrine The B. answered That to the Booke of Articles they were all sworne and the Scriptures only not any vnwrittē Tradition was the foundation of their Fayth I asked how he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particuler Genesis Exodus c. These are belieued to be Scripture yet not proued out of any place of Scripture The B. said That the Bookes of Scripture are principles to be supposed and needed not to be proued Against this I read what I had formerly written in my Reply to M. Iohn White wherin I plainly in shewed that this Answere were was not good and that no other Answere could be made but by admitting some Word of God vnwritten to assure vs of this point From this the La. called vs desiring to heare whether the B. would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church The B. graunted That it was Further he granted that Protestants made a Rent or Diuision from it Moreouer he said he would ingenuously acknowledge that Corruption of māners was not a sufficient Cause to iustifie their departing from it But said he besides Corruption of manners there were Errours in doctrine which whē the Generall Church would

nobis tenetur veritas cùm id facimus quòd vniuersae placet Ecclesiae quam earundem scripturerum commend at authoritas We hold the verity of Scriptures when we do that which pleaseth the whole Church which the authority of the same scriptures doth commend But what answere the chaplaine can make I cannot easily guesse vnles with vs he acknowledg authority of church-tradition to be necessary in this case p The Iesuite did not aske this question as doubting of the diuine authority of Scripture but to make it seene that beside scripture which the B. sayd was the Onely foundation of Faith there must be admitted some other foundation to wit Vnwritten Tradition and this of infallible authority to assure vs infallibly that these Bookes are diuine which to be diuine is one point infallibly belieued by diuine Faith and yet cannot be infallibly proued out of Onely Scripture therefore Onely Scripture cannot be sayd as the B. said to be the Onely foundation of Fayth or of euery point belieued by Faith I hope the Chaplaine who is so carefull to auoyd all suspition of being familiar with impiety as he would haue no question moued about this point vpon any termes or pretence will not be so impious as to say That to belieue these bookes to be diuine scripture is not a point of diuine Faith or that this point being so important as it is to be most firmely belieued is belieued by diuine Faith without any ground or foundation or without a sufficiēt infallible diuine foundatiō of Gods word written or vnwritten Sith therfore this is a point of Faith hath a foundation yea an infallible foundation it is not against either art or equity or piety for confutation of Error and confirmation of Truth to enquire what particuler foundation of Gods word written or vnwritten doth assure vs infallibly that these particuler bookes containe the sole and whole truth of God belieued by christian Fayth Neyther need any be troubled or endangered by this question but such as not finding any sufficient foundation in gods word written do pertinaciously resolue not to belieue any thing to be Gods word which is not written Those that belieue that there is a word of God partly written and partly vnwritten according to that of S. Paul 2. Thess. 2. Hold the Traditions whether by our word or Epistle do easily without too much turning in a wheele or circle answere the question See the Reply to M. Wotton M. White in the Introduction of which mention is made in the Relation where this and diuers other important matters pertayning to the drift of this Conference are handled at large q The Chaplaine saith that some body tould him that the B. vntied the knot But why doth not the Chaplaine tell how he did vntie the knot It seemeth the knot was not well vntied when the Iesuite had a Reply so ready as is insinuated by his only going againe and reading in the Book which he had so rudely writen Although a Praecognitum in faith need not be so cleerly knowne as a praecognitum in science yet there must be this proportion that as primum praecognitum the first thing foreknowne in a science must be primò cognitum first knowne must not need another thing pertayning to that science to be priùs cognitum knowne before it So if in Faith the Scriptures be the first and only foundation and consequently the first thing knowne primùm praecognitum it must be in Faith primò cognitum first knowne and must not need any other thing pertayning to Faith to be priùs cognitum knowne before it so Church-Tradition which is one thing pertayning to Fayth could not as the Chaplain saith it is and as indeed it is be knowne first and be an Introduction to the knowledge of Scripture Moreouer like as sciences which suppose a principle proued in a higher science cannot haue certainty of that principle but either by hauing seene that principle euidently proued by other principles borrowed of that higher science or by giuing credit to some that haue seene or haue by succession receiued it from others that haue seene it euidently so proued So Faith cannot haue certainty of her first principles but either by seeing proof from the knowledg of the Blessed which ordinarily no mā now seeth or by giuing credit immediatly to some who haue seene as to Christ who cleerly saw or to the Apostles to whom cleere reuelation I say cleere in attestante was made or by giuing credit to others who by succession haue had it from the first seers In which last case the certainty of these principles can be no greater then is the authority of that succession If it be meerely humane and fallible the science and Faith is humane and fallible Neither can either science or Faith be diuine and infallible vnlesse the authority of that succession be at least in some sort diuine and infallible The chaplain therefore who as it seemeth will not admit church-Tradition to be in any sort diuine and infallible while it doth introduce the beliefe of scriptures to be diuine bookes cannot sufficiently defend the Faith introduced of that point to be infallible vnles he admit an infallible impulsion of the priuate spirit ex parte subiecti without any infallible sufficiently applied reason ex parte obiecti which he seemeth not not hath reason to doe 〈◊〉 this were to open the gap to Enthusiasms of all vpstart Anabaptists and would take away due proportion of Obiect and Subiect and the sweet order of things which diuine prouidence hath appointed It may be that if he would but consider the Tradition of the Church not only as of a Company of fallible men in with sort the authority of it is but humaine and fallible but also as it is the Tradition of a Company which by it owne light sheweth it self to be assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit farre more cleerely then Scripture by it owne light doth shew it selfe to be the infallible word of God he would find no difficulty in that respect to account the authority of Church-Tradition to be infallible and consequently not only able to be an Introduction but also an infallible motiue reason or at least condition ex Parte obiecti to make both it self and the bookes of Scripture appeare infallibly though obscurely to our soule disposed and illuminated by Gods spirit to haue in them diuine and infallible authority and to be worthy of diuine and infallible credit sufficient to breed in vs diuine and infallible Fayth Neither do I see why the Chaplain may not consider the Tradition of the present Church these two waies as well as the present scriptures printed and approued by men of this age For if the scriptures printed and approued by men of this age must be considered not onely as printed or approued by men in regard the credit giuen to them thus considered can be no more then humane but also as printed and by