Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	speak_v	true_a	word_n	8,834	5	4.4618	4	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

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

AN ANSWER TO A PAMPHLET INTITVLED 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. MATTH 28. vers 19 20. Going teach al Nations baptizing them c. Behold I am with you AL DAYES euen to the consummation of the World EPHES. 4. vers 11 14. Christ gaue some Apostles and some Prophets othersome Euangelists and othersome PASTORS and DOCTORS c. that we be not Children WAVERING and CARRIED ABOVT with euerie winde of Doctrine c. M. D. C. XXIII THE PREFACE GEntle Reader although I doubt not but al that be wise and iudicious especially if they duly consider the occasion and state of the question lately treated in a Conference betwixt D. White and D. Featly Ministers and M. Fisher and M. Sweet Iesuits wil easily discerne euen by that false Relation which is set out in print by a Protestant that the Protestants Cause hath not gained any thing Neuerthelesse because those who be partially affected or of meane capacitte may as it is to be doubted diuers doe conceiue and speake amisse of this matter to the disgrace of the Catholike Cause and the preiudice of their owne and other mens soules I haue thought it needful to set out a true Relation of the occasion progresse and issue of that Conference and this in such sort as diuers falsehoods of the Protestant Relator may be easily perceiued and the weakenesse of the Protestants Cause may be euidently discouered which is also so bad as it seemeth it cannot be supported but by setting out such lying Relations the sight and consideration whereof maketh me more easily beleeue that to be true which I haue read viz. That a decree was made by Diuines in Geneua defyning it lawful to lye for the honor or credit of the Gospel and that conformably to this decree an English Minister being told that one of his Powfellowes had made lyes in stead of proofes of his Protestant Religion did answer saying He cannot lye too much in this cause It must needes be a weake and bad cause that needeth to be supported by such weake and bad shifts I for my part wil not promise to haue perfectly remembred and set downe euery word that passed in this Conference especially spoken by by-standers nor to haue strictly obserued the precise order of euerie passage but for the substance and truth of the matter that I doe relate I assure that there shal not be found any falsehood vnlesse it be in some of those Parcels which I doe not relate of my selfe but out of the Protestant Relator whose Relation ordinarily as I doe not contradict vnlesse it be vpon necessarie occasion so I doe not intend to approue but simply relating what it saith I wil leaue it to others to iudge what they thinke fit of it Onely this I wil say That euerie one may beleeue it so farre as it relateth any thing which may aduantage the Catholique Defendants and their Cause or disaduantage the Protestant Disputants and their Cause For it is certaine that no man wil lye for the aduantage of his Aduersarie or his Cause nor for his owne disaduantage But in such things as it hath set downe aduantagiously for the Protestant Disputant or his Cause there is iust reason to suspect it in regard I am told that D. Featly himselfe who is said to be the Author hath confessed That more is said in the Relation then was said in the Conference it selfe and I am sure something is left out which was said and something mis-reported This being premised by way of Preface I wil begin to discourse of the matter it selfe CHAP. I. About the first occasion of the Conference in which is shewed that Master Fisher did not seeke it or prouoke his Aduersaries by any challenge vnto it nor did intend to haue it so publike as by his Aduersaries fault it proued The Protestant Relator of this Conference setteth downe the occasion in these words EDWARD BVGGS Esquire about the age of 70. yeeres being lately sicke was solicited by some Papists then about him to forsake the Protestant Faith telling him There was no hope of saluation without the Church there was no Catholike Church but theirs and to beleeue the Catholike Church was the Article of his Creede and by it could no other Church be meant but the Church of Rome because it could not be proued by al the Protestants in the Kingdome that they had any Church before Luther This Gentleman being much troubled in his mind with these and the like suggestions who al his life time had beene and prosessed himselfe a Religious Protestant became now more sicke in mind then body After his recouerie being much troubled in mind with these former suggestions of the Popish Priests he repayred to Sir Humfrey Lynd Knight who by reason of his alliance and long acquaintance with him gaue the best satisfaction that he could to his said Cousin Master Buggs who seemed to take content in such his Conference and to be wel satisfyed by him in al points But the Popish Priests and Iesuits not desisting to creepe in further where they had once made a breach perseuering stil in questioning him where his Church was before Luther Whereupon hee repayred againe to Sir Humfrey Lynd and required some further satisfaction of him concerning that demand And thereupon Sir Humfrey Lynd told him it was first in Christ and the Apostles consequently also conspicuous in the Primitiue Church for 600. yeeres after Christ after which time some errors crept into the Church as diseases into a mans body so that the Church which Luther we acknowledge was in general the same Christian Church as his body was the same substantial body being now wel and lately sicke though different in the qualities c. How farre this parcel of the Relation is true or false I wil not stand to discusse as not yet knowing how or by whom the aforesaid Gentleman came first to doubt of his Church and consequently of his Religion yet I haue some cause to doubt that it is not altogether true especially in that he saith The Popish Priests and Iesuits not desisting to creepe in further where they had ●●ce made a breach perseuering stil in questioning him where his Church was before Luther For I doe not thinke that many if any at al Priests or Iesuits did first put this doubt into the old Gentleman his head nor perseuered in questioning him about it And for Master Fisher in particular I know certainly that hee neuer saw this old Gentleman much lesse did he speake to him in any matter of Religion til that time when Sir Humfrey Lynd first met Master Fisher. The which meeting is mentioned in the Protestant Relation saying thus And after his