Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	according_a	church_n	word_n	2,678	5	4.0797	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00791	An answer to a pamphlet, intituled: The Fisher catched in his owne net In vvhich, by the vvay, is shevved, that the Protestant Church was not so visible, in al ages, as the true Church ought to be: and consequently, is not the true Church. Of which, men may learne infallible faith, necessarie to saluation. By A.C.	A. C.; Champney, Anthony, 1569?-1643?, attributed name.; Sweet, John, 1570-1632, attributed name.; Floyd, John, 1572-1649, attributed name.; Fisher, John, 1569-1641, attributed name.	1623 (1623)	STC 10910.4; ESTC S107710	44,806	106

posteriori is more demonstratiue then a priori M. Fisher did not speake perhaps he might say That a proofe a posteriori doth better demonstrate to vs then a priori not meaning in general to preferre a Logical demonstration a posteriori before that which is a priori but that such a proofe a posteriori as he in this present Question required and as the Question it selfe exacted would better demonstrate or shew to al sorts of men which is the true Church then any proofe which D. Featly or D. White can make a priori to proue the Protestant Church to be the true Church as shal be shewed when need is hereafter at this present it may suffice to say to that which D. Featly now obiecteth against the proofe taken from visibilitie That although al kind of visible Professors doe not argue right Faith yet want of visible Professors argueth want of Christs true Church For supposing it to be true which euen D. Featly himselfe here saith according to the Protestants Relator viz. We know by the Promises of God in the Scripture that the Church which maintaines the true Faith shal haue alwayes Professors more or lesse visible and as M. Fisher further proued in one of the foresaid Papers giuen to the old Gentleman before this meeting so visible as their names in al ages may be shewed out of good Authors Supposing also out of D. Whitaker contra Dur. l. 7. p. 472. That whatsoeuer is fore-told by the ancient Prophets of the propagation amplitude and glory of the Church is most clearely witnessed by Histories and supposing lastly out of D. Iohn White in his Way p. 338. That things past cannot be shewed to vs but by Histories Supposing al this I say it is most apparant That if there cannot be produced as there cannot names of Protestants or of any other Professors of Christian Faith in al ages out of Histories to whom Gods Promises agree beside those which are knowne Roman Catholikes not Protestants nor any other but onely the Roman Catholikes are the true Church of Christ which teacheth the true Faith and of which al sorts are to learne infallible Faith necessarie to Saluation But as for the argument which D. Featly wil needes perswade vs not to be Petitio principy but Demonstratio a priori viz. That Church whose Faith is eternal and perpetual and vnchanged is so visible as the Catholike Church ought to be and as the Popish Church by M. Fisher is pretended to be But the Faith of Protestants Church is eternal perpetual and vnchanged Ergo The Protestants Church is so visible as the Catholike Church ought to be and the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be This argument as it is set downe is so farre from being a Demonstration whose propertie is to conuince the Vnderstanding as it is not a probable or Moral perswasion For I am verily perswaded that no wise man not alreadie possessed with Protestant opinions wil or can be so much as morally conuinced or in any sort probably perswaded by it That Protestants be the true visible Church more then a man in case of doubt can be by the like argument which a man may make to proue himselfe and his Brethren to be as wel spoken of as any in al the Parish Thus Those who are in heart true honest men are as wel spoken of as any in al the Parish But I and my Brethren are in heart true honest men Ergo As this proofe is not able to make any man not partially affected to beleeue these men to be wel spoken of or to be honest men so neyther can D. Featlyes proofe make any wise man beleeue Protestants to be the true visible Church or to haue the true Faith Secondly If the terme That Church be vnderstood onely of a particular Church as for example the Church of England it is so farre from a Logical Demonstration as it hath not in it any Logical forme according to any of the vsual Moods Barbara Caelarent c. But if it be vnderstood vniuersally of euery Church that is or may be then both Maior and Minor are false and so it cannot be a Demonstration whose propertie is to consist of most certainely true propositions The Maior in this latter sense is false for that there may be a Church or Companie who may haue inward Faith eternal and vnchanged as for example a Church of Angels who for want of visible Profession are not so visible as the Catholike Church ought to be The Minor is false also for the Protestant Church hath not the true Primitiue Faith neyther is that Faith they haue vnchanged but so often changed and so much subiect to change as one may say as a great Person in Germanie once said of some Protestants What they hold this yeare I doe in some sort know but what they wil hold next yeere I doe not know Which is true in regard they haue no certaine and infallible Rule sufficient to preserue them from change But if D. Featly shal say That he neyther meant the tearme That Church in eyther of the aforesaid senses but meant to signifie by it that one holy Catholike and Apostolike Church which the holy Scriptures doe shew both to haue perpetual vnchanged Faith and also to be perpetually visible Then indeed the Maior is true But the Minor is most false and so the argument is farre from being a Demonstration especially when it endeuoreth to proue Magis no●um per ignotius viz. the Visibilitie which is easily knowne by the truth of Doctrine which is more hard to be knowne especially by onely Scripture of the sense Whereof according to Protestants who say The whole Church may erre no particulat man can be infallibly sure For if the whole Church or Companie to whom Christ promised the Spirit of Truth to teach them al truth may erre Then much more may euery particul●r man erre and consequently no particular man can be infallibly sure of the sense of Scripture Thirdly This argument beggeth or supposeth that which is in question For in asking which is the true visible Church or Congregation of the true faithful we aske at least virtually which is the true Faith in regard the true Church cannot be without this true Faith Yea therefore doe we aske which is the true Church that of it being first knowne by other Markes we may learne what is the true Faith in al points in which we yet know not what is to be held for true Druine Faith Fourthly Although Faith be pre-required to be in some or other members of the true Church yet inward Faith alone without some outward profession by which it is made visible or sensible doth not sufficiently make a man to be a member of the visible Church Let D. Featly therefore looke backe vpon his argument and tel vs what Academical Learning taught him to cal it a Demonstration a priori But let vs heare how M. Fisher did answer this

argument according to the Protestant Relator M. Fisher. I distinguish the Maior That Church whose Faith is perpetual and vnchanged so as the names of the Professors may be shewed is so visible as the Catholike Church ought to be and as M. Fisher pretendeth the Roman Church to be I grant it That Church whose Faith is perpetual and vnchanged yet so as the names cannot be shewed in al ages is visible as the Catholike Church ought to be and as M. Fisher pretends the Roman Church to be I denie it To the Minor I apply the like distinction and consequently to the Conclusion in the same manner D. Featly What answer you to the Conclusion also This is a straine of new Logick This idle exception M. Fisher attending to the matter did not regard but might haue told him That it is not vnuseal after a distinction made both to Maior and Minor to apply the like to the Conclusion For although it be true That in a Syllogisme when Maior and Minor are absolutely granted the Conclusion must not be denyed nor distinguished but must be absolutely granted yet when Maior and Minor also be distinguished the Conclusion may be distinguished And I maruaile what Rule of Logick D. Featly can bring against this In like manner if D. Featly did say any such words as the Relator telleth viz. A strange distinction of the eternitie of Faith by Professors to be named and not to be named What are Professors nominable or innominable to the eternitie of Faith If I say D. Featly did say these words it is like M. Fisher did not regard them as being impertinent but might haue said That this distinction had not relation to eternal Faith but to a Church which hath eternal Faith about which it imports much to know whether it hath Professors nominable or innominable For if it hath not it is inuisible or at least not so visible as the true Catholike Church of which al sorts in times past haue learned and in time to come must learne the infallible Diuine Faith necessarie to Saluation ought to be Therefore M. Fisher might wel though I thinke he did not say as the Relator telleth Tolle distinctionem and conclude that which I denie That the Faith of the Protestant Church is so eternal as the names of visible Protestants in al ages may be shewed To proue this D. Featly made this argument according to the Protestant Relator D. Featly That Church whose Faith is the Catholike and Primitiue Faith once giuen to the Saints without which no man can be saued is so perpetual as the names may be shewed in al ages But the Faith of the Protestant Church is the Primitiue and Catholike Faith once giuen to the Saints without which none can be saued Ergo The Faith of the Protestant Church is so perpetual as the names may be shewed in al ages Note here That the Relator putteth in the Margent ouer-against the Minor Tollitur distinctio But how false this Marginal Note is appeareth to any who wil reflect vpon what the Distinction was and what I haue now said of it For this Minor speaking onely of Faith doth not take away the distinction applyed to the Church That which D. Featly thinketh to be a straine of new Logicke to wit to distinguish vpon a proposition without applying the distinction to any particular tearme is not so strange as he maketh it As for example When one saith An Aethiopian is white neyther the tearme Aethiopian alone nor the tearme White alone in it selfe needeth distinction because it is not Aequiuocal but the whole proposition being Amphibological needeth it being true if it be meant The Aethiopian is white in the Teeth and false if it be meant He is white in his whole Bodie To the argument M. Fisher said I denie the Minor But marking that hereupon D. Featly would haue transferred the Question to endlesse disputes about particular Controuersies from the present general Question about the perpetual visible Church whose Professors names as himselfe saith may be shewed in al ages M. Fisher I say marking this would not let D. Featly make his proofe but hauing said I denie the Minor he presently added by way of explication these ensuing words My first Question was Whether there must not be a true visible Church of Christ in al ages of which al sorts must learne that infallible Faith which is necessarie to Saluation and therefore we must first finde such a Church before men can know it to be such as they may securely learne of it what is the infallible Faith necessary to Saluation While M. Fisher was beginning to make this explication D. Featly insulted as if M. Fisher durst not for Conscience denie the Minor absolutely To whom M. Fisher said I doe absolutely denie it And then he went forward with the aforesaid explication Which ended M. Fisher said And hereupon I answer againe to the said Minor If this proposition be taken simply in it selfe I absolutely denie it but if this proposition be considered as it must be as related to the first Question and the end thereof I further adde That it is not pertinent to that end for which the whole Dispute was intended viz. To shew to those who were not able by their owne abilities to finde out the infallible Faith necessarie to Saluation without learning of the true visible Church of Christ and consequently Visibilitie of the Church is first to be shewed before the truth of Doctrine in particular shal be shewed To this as the Relator saith D. Featly replyed viz. First What speake you of those who are not able by their owne abilities to finde out Faith Is any man able by his owne abilitie without the helpe of Diuine Grace Secondly What helpeth the Visibilitie to confirme the Truth of the Church Visibilitie indeed proues a Church but not the true Church These words eyther were not spoken or M. Fisher did not regard them being in the middest of his answer in which he went on shewing the necessitie of a visible Church by a saying of D. Fields viz. Seeing the Controuersies of Religion at this day are so many in number and so intricate in nature that few haue time and leysure fewer strength of wit and vnderstanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to seeke out which among al the Societies of men in the World is that Spouse of Christ the Church of the liuing God which is the Pillar of the Truth that so they may embrace her Communion follow her Direction and rest in her Iudgement M. Fisher therefore I say being busily speaking this did not regard what D. Featly did then say but might easily haue answered First That he neuer meant that any were able of themselues without helpe of Gods grace to attaine the true Faith which hindreth not but that some may haue that abilitie of Wit and Learning by which they can