Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	believe_v	church_n	pillar_n	1,678	5	10.0870	5	false

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

principall and fundamentall points of Faith 2. M. Fisher might haue asked Whether Onely the words of the Creed are needfull to be held as a sufficient foundation of Fayth or the Catholique senses If onely the wordes then the Arrians and other condemned Heretikes may be sayd to haue held all the fundamentall points sufficient to Saluation which is contrary to the iudgement of Antiquity and is most absurd If the Catholique sense then the question must be who must be iudge to determine which is the catholique sense and whether it be not most reasonable and necessary that the Catholique Church it selfe rather then any particuler man or Sect of men should teach the true sense When especially the holy Ghost was promised to the catholique church and not to any particuler man or Sect of men differing in doctrine from it to teach it all Truth 3. M. Fisher might haue asked whether all points fundamentall were expressed in the creed or not If they be not by what other rule shall one know what is a point fundamentall If all which is fundamentall be expressed in the creed then to belieue only Scripture or to belieue that there is any Scripture at all is not fundamentall or necessary to Saluation but to belieue the catholique church and consequently the truth of all such doctrines of Fayth which she generally teacheth or defineth in her generall councells is fundamentall So as we may say with S. Athanasius Whosoeuer will be saued must belieue the catholique Fayth that is the Fayth taught by the catholique church and this not only in part or in a corrupt sense but in all points and in catholique sense For as the same S. Athanasius saith vnles one belieue the said Catholique faith integram inuiolatam entiere and inuiolate without doubt he shall perish euerlastingly All these questions M. Fisher might haue asked but he at that present only asked Whether all articles of the Creed were held by D. Whyte to be fundamentall To which Question D. Whyte answered That all was fundamentall M. Fisher asked Whether the article of christs descending into hell were fundamentall D. Whyte said Yes Why then said M. Fisher did M. Rogers affirme That the Church of England is not yet resolued what is the right sense of that Article It was answered that M. Rogers was a priuate man M. Fisher replyed That his Booke in the title professeth to be set out by publique authority To which M. Fisher might haue added That the Booke so set out by publique authority beareth title of the Catholique or Vniuersall doctrine of the church of England by which addition is shewed a difference betwixt this book of M. Rogers and some others which were obiected to be set out by licence of the catholique side for these our books are only licenced to come out in the name of such or such a priuate author and as books declaring his priuate opinions but this of M. Rogers was authorized and graced with the title of the Catholique doctrine of the church of England and therfore ought by Protestants to be more respected then other priuate mens books M. Fisher not thinking it necessary to presse this difference returned againe to D. Whytes first answere to the maine argument in which he hauing said That it was sufficient to shew a visible succession of such as held points fundamentall did implicitely graunt it necessary that a succession should be shewed of such visible Pastours as did hold all points which at least himself held to be fundamentall or necessary to saluation Whereupon M. Fisher bad D. Whyte name a continuall companie or succession of visible Protestants different from the Romane Church which they call Papists holding all points which he accounted fundamentall D. Whyte expresly graunted That he could not shew such a visible succession of Pastours and Doctours differing in doctrine from the Romane church who held all points which he accounted fundamentall Which his ingenuous confession I desire the Reader to note applying it to the argument which M. Fisher proposed shewing that Onely the Roman church hath had such a succession For if as the argument vrgeth one such succession hath bene and none differing in doctrine from the Roman can be shewed by D. Whyte being accounted a prime Protestant Controuersist who may teach such as D. Featly as was lately professed by D. Featly himself we may absolutely conclude that no such visible succession was of Protestants so farre as they differ in doctrine from the Roman church and consequently till they assigne some other which they can neuer do they must acknowledge the Romane to be the only church or at least a church which hath had a visible succession teaching the vnchanged Faith of christ in all ages in all points at least fundamentall which being acknowledged worthily might M. Fisher aske as he did aske D. Whyte Why Protestants made a schisme from the Romane church and why Protestants did persecute Romane catholiques contrary to the custome of the ancient Fathers who still kept vnity with other churches although in their opinion holding errours vntill the catholique church by full authority defined them to be errours in Faith and that after such definition of the church which was yet neuer made against the Romane church they would still obstinatly persist in errour as appeareth in S. Cyprians case To these demaunds made by M. Fisher D. Whyte answered We do not persecute you for Religion About which answere I desire the gentle Reader to obserue that M. Fisher asked two Questions 1. Why Protestants made a schisme from the Romane church 2. Why Protestants did persecute Romane catholiques To the first of these questions being about Schisme D. Whyte answered not a word and yet this was the most important Question sufficient to shew Protestants to be in a damnable state vnles they repent and returne to vnity with the Roman church For on the one side it cannot be denyed but that schisme or separation of ones selfe from church-Vnity is a most damnable sinne which cannot be made lawfull for any cause nor cannot without repentāce returning to Vnity be washed away euen with martyrdome it selfe as the ancient Fathers confesse And on the other side it is euident euen confessed by some Protestants that Protestants did separate themselues from the Romane Church which is confessed to be the mother Church and which cannot be shewed to haue separated it selfe from a former church yet extant as the true church of christ must alwayes be visibly extant Neither can there be shewed any other reason why Protestants did make and continue this their separation then were or might haue bene alledged by Heretiques and Scismatiques of ancient times separating themselues from the catholique Roman church For setting asyde all temporall respects which doubtles were but were very insufficient and vnworthy causes why some did first and do yet continue this separation there cannot be imagined any pretended cause which may not be reduced to

points said that both the Greeke Church and the Protestant Church had such a succession of visible Pastours which two sayings how D. Whyte will reconcile pertayneth to him to declare M. Fisher replyed and tould him that the Greeke Church changed and erred in a point of Faith to wit about the holy Ghost A like or greater change he might and in likelyhood would haue tould him to hauc bene in many points held by the Protestant Church if he had not bin interrupted by L. K. who asked Whether notwithstanding that errour of the Greeke Church Ignorant man might not be saued M. Fisher answered to L. K. his question saying Some ignorant men may be excused from actuall sinne in holding that errour as through inuincible ignorance one holding some errour against the holy Trinity it self may be excused Yet for other actuall sinnes they might be damned for want of meanes necessary for remission of them This answere was meant by M. Fisher of such ignorant men who although by inuincible ignorance excused from the actuall sinne of positiue Infidelity Heresy Scisme wanted true supernaturall Faith Hope and Charity out of which an act of true Contrition springeth or wanted the true and lawfull vse of the Sacrament of Pennance Priestly Absolution which being needfull to obtaine pardon of sinne may easily be wanting to such people as commit other sinnes against the light of nature or against those good motions of Grace which now and then Almighty God giueth to all sorts who consequently through this their owne fault are not illuminated with true supernaturall Faith but are permitted still to remaine in Infidelity or Heresy or Schisme or in a negatiue disposition of want of all Faith deuotion and desire of vnion with God and such good men who truly serve god in his true Church of which sort of ignorant people it is to be doubted there be but to many in all especially Infidel Hereticall or Schismaticall Countries But hence doth not follow neither did M. Fisher euer meane to affitme that all ignorant Graecians Protestants or of any other sort of Schismatiques Heretiques or Infidels are damned for if on the one side this their ignorance be inuincible so as to excuse them from the actuall sinne of their Schisme Heresy and Infidelity and on the other syde they by Almighty Gods speciall grace be preserued from other actuall mortall sinne and by the same grace be excited extraordinarily to Faith Hope Charity and to true Contrition for all finne they may be saued But this being extraordinary no man ought ordinarily presume or rely on it especially so as to neglect the ordinary meanes knowne to be in the vnity of the Catholique Roman Church After this D. White excepted against another point of M. Fishers paper in which was sayd That the Roman Church had still held vnhanged doctrime of Fayth in all points c. And for instances of change made he obiected Transubstantiation Images Communion vnder one kind Sacrament of pennance c. These points he slieghtly began to touch but did not as the paper required name when and by whome the change was made in these points but sayd It was not needful to shew these circumstances As for example sayth he the Pharisies held errour in saying that the gold of the Altar was more holy then the Altar which was a change in doctrine yet you cannot shew when and by whome this change was made To this M. Fisher answered that although he could not on the suddaine tell when and by whome this Change was made yet he did not doubt but that with study he might find it out And so indeed he might haue named the Author of the Sect of Pharisies who first brought in that error and the time when that Sect began which is inough For we do not presse Protestants to tell the very day or houre in which euery one of our supposed Errors were brought in but to name the first Author of any erroneous doctrine or of any Sect of men who were specially noted for teaching such a peculiar doctrine and about what yeare or Age that Sect of men first began and who they were who then noted them to teach such doctrine contrary so the formerly receaued Fayth of the vniuersall Church as must be and is vsually noted when especially any such notorious matters as those which D. White obiected were by any man or any sect of men taught contrary to the formerly receaued Faith of the vniuersall church Sith therfore the aforesaid circumstances are vlually noted in other such kind of changes and that it is morally impossible that such great changes and so vniuersally spread ouer the world should be made ether in an instant or in succession of time and that not one or other writer would haue made mention of the change and when where and by whome it was made as they do of all other such matters D. White who obiected such great changes of doctrine to haue beene made in the Roman church accusing hereby greuiously her which consessedly was once the true Mother church is obliged and bound not only to proue this his accusation by shewing the forsayd circumstances in good Authors if he will not be accounted an vnnaturall and false calumniator of his true Mother-church but he must also shew another continually visible church which neuer did admit any any such change in doctrine of Faith if he will not impiously deny the truth of the Prophesyes and Promises of Scripture wherby we learne that Hell gates shall not preuaile against the church And that christ himself and his holy spirit will alwaies be with the church teaching it and consequently enabling it to teach vs all truth and making it the pillar and ground of truth and consequently free from all error in matters of Fayth But D. White can neuer proue his accusation by shewing out of good Authors the aforesayd circumstances of the change of the Roman church in doctrine of Fayth nor can shew any other continually visible church which did not admit change in doctrine of Fayth Let him therfore consider whether it be not better to recall his false vnnaturall accusation of his Mother the Roman church being sorry for it with purpose here after humbly to heare belieue obey and follo wher doctrine and direction rather then to incurre not only the foresayd censure of men but also of christ himselfe who sayth He that will not heare the Church let him be to thee as an heathen Publican that is cast out of the fauour of God and all good men both in this present life and also if he do not in time repent in the future eternall life These be the chiefe points which I haue gathered out M. Fishers first Relation which he shewed to D. Whyte with an intēt that he should put him in mind if any thing were not remembred or misremembred But the Doctour at that time did not nor could truly say that any thing was safely

formall reason in all and applyed sufficiently by the same meanes to all would easily belieue all But so long as they do not belieue all in this sort but will as all Heretiques do make choyse of what they will and what they will not belieue without relying vpō the Infallible authority of the Cath. Church they cannot haue that One Soule-sauing Fayth which all good Catholique Christians haue in any one article of Fayth For although they belieue the same truth which other good Catholiques do in some Articles yet not belieuing them for the same formall reason of diuine reuelation sufficiently applyed by Infallible Church-authority but either for some other formall reason or at least not for this reason sufficiently applyed they cannot be sayd to haue one and the same Infallible diuine Fayth which other good catholique christians haue who do belieue those Articles not for any other formall reason beside the diuine reuelation applyed sufficiently and made knowne to them not by their owne fancie or the fallible authority of humaine deductions but by the infallible authority of the church of God that is of men infallibly assisted by the Spirit of God as all lawfully called continued and confirmed Generall councells are assisted Whence I gather that although euery thing defined to be a diuine truth in Generall councells is not absolutly necessary to be expresly knowne and actually belieued as some other truthes are by all sorts yet no man may after knowledge that they are thus defined doubt deliberatly and much lesse obstinatly deny the truth of any thing so defined For euery such doubt and denyall is a breach from that one sauing Fayth which other good christians haue in regard it taketh away infallible credit from the church and so the diuine reuelation being not by it sufficiently applyed it cannot according to the ordinary course of Gods prouidence breed infallible belief in vs for as S. Paul Rom. 10. saith How shall they belieue vnles they heare how shall they heare without a Preacher how shall they preach to wit infallibly vnles they be sent to wit from God and infallibly assisted by his spirit And if a whole Generall councell defining what is diuine truth be not belieued to be sent and assisted by gods spirit and consequently of Infallible credit what man in the world can be said to be of infallible credit or if such a Councell lawfully called continued and confirmed may erre in defining any one diuine truth how can we be Infallibly certaine of any other truth defined by it for if it may erre in one why not in another and another and so in all or how can we according to the ordinary course be infallibly assured that it erreth in one and not in another when it equally by one and the same authority defineth both to be diuine truthes for if we leaue this to be examined by any priuate man this examination not being infallible had need to be examined by another and this by another without end or euer coming to infallible Certainty necessarily required in that One Fayth which is necessary to saluation and to that peace and Vnity which ought to be in the Church It is not therefore as the Chaplain would perswade the fault of councells definitions but the pride of such as will preferr and not submit their priuate Iudgments that lost continueth the losse of peace and vnity of the Church and the want of certainty in that one aforesaid soule-sauing Fayth the which how far it doth extend is indeed as the Chaplain pag. 73. confesseth no work for his penne but is to be learned of that one Holy Catholique Apostolique alwayes Visible and Infallible Roman Church of which the La. once doubting resteth now fully satisfied that in it she may learne all truth necessary to saluation and that out of it there is no ordinary meanes sufficient to teach her the right way of saluation And therefore the Iesuit might well say as he did in the Relation that the La. was by this a former conference satisfied of the truth of Roman Religion g The Chaplain vpon this last clause saith that he is sure she wil be better able to answer for her coming to church thē for her leauing the church of England following the superstitions and Errours of the Church of Rome But he neither proueth nor can proue that it is lawfull for one perswaded especially as the Lady is to goe to the Protestant Church which were to halt on both sides to serue two Maisters to dissemble with God and the world to professe outwardly a Religion in conscience knowne to be false neyther doth he or can he proue any superstition or errour to be in Romane Religion but by presuming with intolerable pride to make himself or some of his fellowes iudge of Controuersies and by taking authority to censure all to be superstition and errour which suteth not with his fancy although it be generally held or practised by the vniuersall church which in S. Augustins Iudgment is most insolent madnes Ephes. 4. 11. Matt. 16. 1● Luc. ●2 3● 〈◊〉 ●0 18.

these two heads to wit corruption of Manners or corruption of Doctrine Corruption of manners is not a just cause to make one leaue the Faith Sacraments and rites of the church our Sauiour hauing sufficiently forewarned what is to be done in this case when he said Vpon the chaire of Moyses the Scribes and Pharisees have sitten all therefore that they say vnto you obserue and do but according to their works do not For by this is shewed that the separation which in other places of Scripture is commanded is not meant so as if it were to be made by neglecting or contradicting the doctrine of lawfully authorized Pastours or by corporally absenting ones selfe from communicating with them in necessary Sacraments and church Rites but only spiritually to departe from the imitation of their ill manners The second to wit corruption of Doctrine pertayning to the common Faith of the catholique Church neither did nor can happen to the whole visible church christ hauing promised that the holy Ghost shal be alwaies with it to teach it all Truth and that Hell-gates shall neuer so preuaile against it as to ouerthrow in it the fundation of all goodnes to wit true Faith And for other errours in such questions as are not determined by full authority of the said catholique church S. Austens rule is to be obserued whom when he saith Ferendus est disputator errans neither must one for the errour of a few leaue the society and communion of all neither must one or a few presuming vpon their owne priuate reading and interpreting of scripture or their priuate spirit which is or may be the comō pretext of all Heretiques censure condemne the doctrine or practise of the vniuersall Catholique Church to be erroneous which to doe is by S. Bernards sentence Intollerable Pride and in S. Austans iudgment Insolent madnes The beginning therefore and continuance of the Schisme and separation of the Protestants from the Catholique Romane Church in which euen as Caluin confesseth there was made a discession departure from the whole world is very damnable and altogether inexcusable Which perhaps was the cause why D. Whyte passed ouer that part of the Question touching this Schysme with silence and onely answered as is aboue said to the other parte saying We do not persecute you for Religion To which answere M. Fisher replyed saying You do vs wrong for my self being a prisoner was never taxed with any state matter but do suffer for Religion L. M. B. made another answere saying You of your side did first persecute Protestants M. Fisher answered that we Catholiques hold all points in which Protestants differ from vs in doctrine of faith to be fundamentall and necessary to be belieued or at least not denyed and so may haue cause to punish them who deny or contradict But Protestants who believe catholiques to hold right in all points which themselues esteeme fundamentall have no reason to persecute vs for supposed errours in points not fundamentall which Protestants do not account damnable For better cleering wherof M. Fisher asked D. White whether he thought errour in a point not fundamentall to be damnable D. White said No vnles one hold it against his conscience M. Fisher asked How one could hould an errour against his conscience meaning that one could not inwardly in his conscience believe that be true which he knew in his conscience to be an errour D. White answered That by peruersity of will he might hould an errour against the knowne truth Which answere is true if he meane that one who knoweth the truth at this instant may after by peruersity of Will incline the Vnderstanding to hold the contrary errour But that at the same instant he should know the truth actually and yet actually hold in the same instant the contrary errour in his conscience or inward knowledg is more then I think any Philosopher can explicat For this were to know and not know and to belieue two contraries Truth and Errour about the same obiect in the same subiect the inward conscience at one and the same instant which is impossible M. B. meruayling at D. Whites answere asked him againe the same question saying May one be saued that holdeth errour in points of Faith not fundamentall supposing he hould not against his conscience D. White sayd Yes Those faith M. B. who suffering for conscience hould errour in Faith against their conscience are worthy to be damned M. Fisher hauing obserued that D. White had insinuated that one might be damned for holding errour in points of Faith not fundamenall in case he hould them against his conscience said If it be damnable to hold errours in points not fundamentall in case one hold them willfully against his conscience à fortiori it is damnable to hold the like errours wilfully and obstinatly against the known iudgment and conscience of the Church For as S. Bernard saith Qua major superbia quàm vt vnus homo iudicium suum praeferattoti Congregationi What greater pride then that one man should preferre his iudgment or conscience before the iudgment and conscience of the whole Church D. Whyte said he remembred that sentence of S. Bernard but it is not remembred that he gaue any good answere either to that sentence or to the argument confirmed by it Neither indeed can he giue any good answere in regard it is certaine that the iudgment conscience of the whole Church or Congregation of so many faithfull wise learned and vertuous men assisted by the promised Spirit of truth is incomparably more to be respected and preferred before the iudgment and conscience of any priuate man as appeareth by that of Christ our Sauiour who without excepting any who pretendeth to follow his conscience and without distinguishing the matter in which he pretendeth to follow it into points fundamentall not fundamentall absolutely affirmeth He that will not heare that is belieue and obey the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen Publican Hence Protestants who preferre their priuate Iudgment and Conscience before the iudgment and conscience of the Catholique Church in interpreting Scriptures or otherwise may learne in what state they remaine so long as they do thus being by the Censure of S. Bernard extremely Proud and in the indgement of S. Austen insolently madde and by the sentence of Christ himselfe to be accounted no better then Heathens and Publicans It seemeth that D. Whyte did not deeply ponder this point or els was willing to passe ouer it as a Cat ouer hote coales and so he betooke himselfe to oppugne another part of M. Fishers paper in which is sayd that No company of visible Pastours deliuering vnchanged doctrine could be shewed in all ages besydes those of the Romane Church D. Whyte denyed this to be true and notwithstanding he had before said that he could not shew any companie differing in doctrine from the Roman Church holding in all ages all fundamentall