Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	church_n	doctrine_n	tradition_n	2,974	5	9.2119	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

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-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-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-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

authority of men assisted by Gods spirit approued to be true copies of that which was first written by the Holy Ghosts Pen-men before we can giue infallible credit vnto them I see no reason why the like twofold consideration of the Tradition of the present church may not be admitted especially when as the promise of Christ and his holy Spirits continuall presence and assistance Luc. 10. 16. Math. 28. 19. 20. Ioan. 14. 16. was made no lesse but rather more expressly to the Apostles and their successours the lawfully-sent Pastours and Doctours of the Church in all ages in their teaching by word of mouth then in writing or reading or printing or approuing copies of what was formerly written by the Apostles Perhaps the Chaplaine will aske mee how I know that any church or company of men of this age or any age since the Apostles haue promise of christ and his holy spirits assistance I answer that I know it both by Tradition and Scripture considered in the twofold manner aforesaid both which without any vitious circle mutually confirme the authority of ech other as a Kings Embassadors word of mouth and his Kings letter beare mutuall witnesse of ech other And I do not want other both outward and inward arguments or motiues of Credibility which are sufficient not only to confirme the Fayth of belieuers but also to perswade well disposed Infidells that both the one and the other were sent from God and that one is the infallible word of God speaking in and by his Legats the lawfully-sent preachers of the Church The other the infallible word of God speaking in and by his letters the holy scriptures which he hath appointed his said legats to deliuer and expound vnto vs and which among other things do warrant that we may heare and giue credit to these Legats of Christ as to Christ the King himself r The Chaplain saith As it is true that this question was asked 〈◊〉 it is false that it was asked in this forme or so answered I answer that the Iesuite doth not say that the La. asked this question in this or any other precise forme of words but onely saith she was desirous to heare whether the B. would graunt the Roman Church to be the Right Church which to haue ben her desi●e the Iesuit is sure as hauing particulerly spoken with her before and wished her to insist vpon this point Secondly he is sure that she did not propound the question in that precise forme insinuated by the Chaplayne vz. whether the Romane Church be a true Church as if she meant to be satisfied with hearing the B. say that the Rom. church is a true church and the Greek church another and the Protestant another This I say could not be her Question for that she was persuaded that all these were not true and right and that there was but One Holy Catholique church and her desire was to heare whether the B. would graunt the Rom. church not only that which is in the Citty or Diocesse of Rome but all that agreed with it to be it Thirdly what precise forme of words the La. did vse the Iesuite did not remember perfectly and therefore did not aduenture to set downe but by the B. his Answer which he perfectly remenbred so set downe in these words It was he thinketh that her question was whether the Roman church was not the right church vz. once or in tyme past before Luther and others made a breach from it To which question so vttered or so vnderstood as it seemes by the Answere and the ensuing discourse made by the B. it was vnderstood the B. might truely certainly did answere as is related to wit not It is but It was vz. once or in tyme past the right Church for so the Chaplaine doth heere confesse pag. 37. The time was c. that you and we were all of one belief Out of which answere it may be the B. suspected that the La. would inferre If once it were the right what hindereth it now to be sith it did not depart from the Protestant Church but the Protest Church departed from it And therefore as in the Text he was willing to graunt that the Protestants made a Rent or diuision from it c. s The Chaplaine hauing told vs that the B. could be hartily angry saith The B. neuer said nor thought that Protestants made this rent The cause of the schisme is yours c. I answere that the Iesuite is sure that whatsoeuer the B. thought which may be was as the Chaplain now expresseth to wit that we had giuen cause to the Protestants to do as they did yet he did say either ijsdem or aequipollentibus verbis iust as is in the Relation For the Iesuite did in fresh memory take speciall notice of this passage in regard it concerned a most important point which being vrged by him in the first Conference against D. White in these words Why did you make a schisme from vs Why doe you persecute vs the Doctour slipped ouer that of the schisme without denying it to haue ben made by them or laying the cause to vs and only answered to the other saying We do not persecute you for Religion The Iesuite therefore say did as he had reason take speciall notice in fresh memory and is sure he related at least in sense iust as was vttered by the B. And I aske the Chaplain what reason the B. had to discourse so long as he did endeauoring to shew what reason Protestants had to make that rent or diuision or if he like not these words that discession to vse Caluins phrase or departure not only from the church of Rome but also as Caluis lib. Epist. ep 141. confesseth à toto mundo from the whole world if he had not as the Iesuite related confessed that Protestants being once members of the Roman Church separated themselues from it as the world knowes they did when they got the name of Protestants for protesting against it Now for the Chaplains ascribing the Cause of the schisme to vs in that by excommunication we thrust them from vs he must remember that befo●e this they had diuided themselues by obstinate holding and teaching opinions contrary to the Roman Fayth and practise of the Church which in S. Bernards iudgment serm de resur is most great pride Quae maior superbia c. What greater pride then that one man Luther for example should prefer his Iudgment not only before a thousand Austens and Cyprians and King Harry-Churches but before the whole Congregation of all christian churches in the world which in S. Austen his Iudgment is most insolent madnes for contra id disputare c. to dispute against that which the vniuersall church doth practise is saith S. Austen most insolent madnes What then Is it not onely by way of doubtfull disputation but by solemne and publick protestation to condemne the generall practise of the church

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

not to goe so far that it should labour to shake the foundation it selfe of the Church S. August Ser. 14. de verbis Apost cap. 12. g Out of this place we may gather that all points defined are fundamental All points defined are as S. Austen speaketh made firme by full authority of the Church But all points made firme by full authority of the Church are fundamentall in such sense as the Iesuite taketh the word fundamentall that is in S. Austens language such as cannot be denyed or doubtfully disputed against without shaking the foundation of the Church For denying or doubtfully disputing against any one why not against another another and so against all sith all are made firme to vs by one and the same diuine reuelation sufficiently applyed by one and the same full authority of the Church which being weakened in any one cannot be to firme in any other h By the word Fundamentall is vnderstood not only those Primae Credibilia or prime Principles which do not depend vpon any former grounds for then all the Articles of the Creed were not as both the B. and D. White say they are fundamentall points but all which do so pertaine to supernaturall diuine infallible Christian faith by which Faith Christ the only prime foundation of the Church doth dwell in our hearts 1. Cor. 3. 11. which Fayth is to the Church the substance basis and foundation of all good things which are to be hoped for Heb. 11. as that they being once confirmed or made firme by full authority of the Church if they are wittingly willingly and especially obstinately denyed or questioned al the whole frame and in a sort the foundation it self of all supernaturall diuine Christian Faith is shaken i The Chaplaine granteth that there are quaedam prima Credibilia or some prime Principles in the bosome whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded vp So as euery point of the Creed is not a prime Foundation and therefore the B. himself did not vnderstād the word fundamentall so strictly as if that which in one respect is a foundation may not in another respect to wit as included in and depending vpō a more prime Principle be accoūted a superstructure k If the B. meane that Onely those points are fundamentall which are expressed in the Creed of the Apostles I meruayle how he can afterwards account Scriptures wherof no expresse mention is made in the Creed to be the foundation of their Faith But if he meane that not only those are fundamentall which are expressed but also all that is infolded in the Articles of the Creed Then not Scriptures onely but some at least of Church Traditions vnwritten may be accounted fundamentall to wit all those that are inwrapped in these two Articles I belieue in the holy Ghost The holy Catholique Church as all those are which being first reuealed by the holy Ghost vnto the Apostles haue byn by successiue Tradition of the Church assisted by the same holy Ghost deliuered vnto vs one of which is That the Bookes of Scriptures themselues be diuine and infallible in euery part which is a foundation so necessary as if it be doubtfully questioned all the Faith built vpon Scripture falleth to the ground And therefore I meruayle how the B. can say as he doth afterwards in the Relation That Scriptures Onely and not any vnwritten Tradition was the foundation of their Faith l The reason why the Iesuite did specially vrge M. Rogers booke was for that it was both set out by publique authority and beareth the Title of the Catholique doctrine of the Church of England Our priuate Authors are not allowed for ought I know in such a like sort to take vpon them to expresse our Cath. doctrine in any matter subiect to question m By Protestants publick doctrine in this place the Iesuite meant as he vnderstood the B. to meane onely of English Protestants for the words going before making mention only of the English Church do limit the generall word Protestants to this limited sense n This Answer hath reference to that sense which the question had of Onely English Protestantes and not of all English Protestants out of such as the B. and others are who by office are teachers of Protestant doctrine who do either sweare to the booke of Articles or by subscribing oblige themselues to teach that and no contrary doctrine But if the Chaplain to discredit the Relation will needs inforce a larger extent of the sense contrary to the meaning of him that made the answere and him that asked the Question who vnderstood one another in that sense which I haue declared he must know that although none do sweare or subscribe besides the English clergy to the Book of Articles yet all who wil be accounted members of or to haue communion with one and the same English Protestant church are bound eyther to hold all those Articles or at least not to hold contrary to any one of them in regard the English Protestant church doth exclude euery one from their church by Excommunication ipso facto as appeareth in their book of Canons Can. 5. Who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles So as in this respect I do not see why any one who pretendeth to be of one and the same Protestant communion with the church of England can be sayd not to be obliged to hold one and the same doctrine which is in the book of Articles not onely as the chaplaine sayth in chiefest doctrines which like a cheuerell point may be enlarged to more by those who agree in more and straitned to fewer by those who agree in fewer points but absolutly in all points and not to hold contrary to any one or any the least part of any one of them Such a shrew as it seemes is the church of England become no lesse then the chaplaine saith the church of Rome to haue bene in denying her blessing and denouncing Anathema against all that dissent although most peaceably in some particulers remote inough from the foundation in the Iudgment of the purer sort both of forraine and home-bred Protestants o The Chaplaine saith The Church of England grounded her positiue Articles vpon Scripture c. True if themselues in their owne cause may be admitted for competent Iudges in which sort some other Nouellist will say that he groundeth his positiue Articles vpon scriptures and his Negatiue refuse not only our Catholique but also Protestant doctrines As for example Baptizing of Infants vpon this Negatiue ground it not expressely at least euidently affirmed in Scriptures nor directly at least not demonstratiuely concluded out of it In which case I would gladly know what the Chaplaine would answere to defend this doctrine to be a point of Faith necessary for the saluation of poore Infants necessitate medij as all Catholique Deuines hold I answere with S. Austen Aug. l. 1. contra Cresc c. 31. Scripturarum à

as superstitious and the doctrine as erroneous in Fayth yea as hereticall and euen Antichristian All this considered the B. hath no cause to be hartily angry either with the Iesuite for relating or with himself for granting Protestants to haue made a rent or diuision from the Rom. church but might with a safe conscience yet further grant as one did was it not He to an Honorable person That it was ill done of those who did first make the s●paration Which is most true both in regard there can be no iust cause to make a schisme and diusion from the whole Church for the whole Church cannot vniuersally erre in doctrine of Fayth and other iust cause there is none and also for that those who first made the separation Luther and his Associates gaue the first cause in manner aforesayd to the Rom. church to excommunicate them as by our Sauiours warrant she might when they would not heare the church which did both at first seeke to recall them from their nouel● opinions and after their breach did permit yea inuite them publikely with safe conduct to Rome to a Generall Councell and freely to speake what they could for themselues And I make no doubt so farre is the Rom. Church from being cause of continuance of the schismes or hinderance of Re-union that it would yet if any hope may be giuen that Protestantes will sincerely seeke nothing but truth and peace giue them a free hearing with most ampie safe conduct which is more then euer we English catholiques could obtayne although we haue made offers diuers times to come to publique Dispute first in Queene Elizabeth her dayes and also in his Maiesties that now is only requiring the Princes word for our safe●y and equality of Conditions of the dispute Vnto which offer our Aduersaries neuer did nor euer will giue good Answere As one saith Honestum responsum nullum dabunt praeter vnum quod numquam dabunt Regina Rex spondet Aduola Camp inrat Acad. red t This question the Iesuite made chiefly against that part of the B. his last speach in which he said There were errours in doctrine for if the B. meant as the Iesuite vnderstood him to meane that there were errours of doctrine of Fayth in the Generall Church neuer did any lawfull competent Iudge so censure neither can it so be No power in Earth or Hell it self can so far preuayle against the Generall Church of Christ built vpon a Rock as to make it or the pastours thereof erre generally in any one point of diuine truth Christs promises stand Matth 16. 28. Luc. 22. Ioan. 14. 16. and will neuer permit this no not in Antichrists dayes Particuler Pastors and Churches may fall into Heresy or Apostasy but the whole Church cannot It may sometyme not expresly teach or know all diuine truthes which afterwards it may learne by study of Scriptures and otherwayes but it neuer did nor can vniuersally by its full authority teach any thing to be diuine truth which is not and much lesse any thing to be a matter of Fayth which is contrary to diuine truth either expressed or inuolued in Scriptures rightly vnderstood So as no reformation of Fayth can be needfull in the Generall Church but only in particuler Churches in which case also when the need is onely questionable particuler Pastours or Churches must not take vpon them to iudge and condemne others of errour in Fayth but as S. Irenaus intimateth must haue recourse to that Church which hath more powerfull Principality the Church of Rome and to her Bishop being Cheife Pastour of the whole Church as being Successour to S. Peter To whom Christ promised the Keyes Math. 16. For whom Christ prayed that his Fayth might not faile Luc. 22. and whom he charged to confirme his brethren and to feed and gouerne the whole flock lambes and sheep loan 21. people and Pastours subiects and superiours which he shall neuer refuse to do in such sort as that this neglect shall be a iust Cause for any particuler man or Church to make a schisime or separation of himself and others from the whole Generall Church vnder pretence of Reformation either of manners or of Fayth Protestants therefore did ill in first deuiding themselues from the Generall Church and do still ill in continuing deuided from it Neither can those Protestants be excused from intolerable pride insolent madnes who presume to be Accusers Witnesses Iudges Executioners of the sentence pronounced by themselues against the Church in Generall and against the principall and Mother Church and the B. of Rome which is and ought to be their Iudge in this case For although it be against equity that Subiects and Children should be accusers witnesses iudges and executioners against their Prince and Mother in any case yet it is not absurd that in some case the Prince or Mother may accuse witnesse iudge and if need be execute Iustice against vniust or rebellious subeuects or euill children u It is true when the Question is about the Generall Fayth of the church the matter may be made most firme if the church in a Generall Coūcell with the full authority of her cheif Pastour and all other Pastours whome all people must obey Rom. 13. Hebr. 13. decree what is to be held for diuine truth by Visum est spiritui sancto nobis Act. 15. and by adding Anathema to such as resist this Truth For if this be not firme and infallible what can be so firme and well founded in the church which vnder pretext of seeming euidēt Scripture or demonstration may not be shaken and called in question by an erring disputer For if all Pastours being gathered togeather in the name of christ praying vnanimiter for the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost making great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures and other grounds of Fayth and hearing ech Pastour declare what hath been the ancient Tradition of his church shall in fine conclude and decree in manner aforesaid what is to be held for diuine truth If I say the Councell in this decree may erre and may be controlled by euery particuler or any particuler vnlearned or learned man or church pretending euident text of Scripture or cleere demonstration supple Teste Iudice seipsis what can remaine firme or certaine vpon Earth which may not by a like pretence be cōtrolled or at least by one or other called in question A Generall councell therefore being lawfully called continued and confirmed is doubtles a most competent iudge of all controuersies of Fayth But what is to be done when a Generall councell cannot be called as many times it cannot by reason of manifold impedimēts or if being called all will not be of one mind As among Protestants and others who admit no Infallible meanes rule or iudge beside Onely Scripture which ech man will interprete as seemeth best to his seuerall priuate Iudgment or spirit it is scarse to

thankes to his Chaplain for setting it downe but will commend the lesuite for relating his speach more truely and at least lesse disgracefully C Heere againe the Chaplain taxeth the Iesuite saying That the B. did not answer thus in particuler But the Iesuite is sure he did and it appeareth to be so by the Iesuits wordes who said to the La. Marke that Vnto which the B. replied saying She may be better saued in it then you which Reply sheweth that the B. had said that she in particuler might be saued in the Roman Fayth Otherwise if his first Answere had ben as the chaplaine would now make the B. should haue said The ignorant may be saued in it but neither you nor she But the Iesuite is sure that this Answere of the B. and Reply of the Iesuite Marke that was iust as he related without any such addition as now the chaplain doth relate and that if such a Caueat were added it was after the end of the conference and not in the Iesuits presence Out of this last passage the Chaplain obserueth that Catholiques take aduantage and make vse of the argument drawne from Protestants granting That one liuing and dying a Rom. Catholique may be saued accounting it secure so to liue and die euen by confession of Aduersaries The force of which argument he endeauoureth to weaken by saying that although Protestants grant it to be possible yet they say withall that it is not secure but hard c. But he must remember that when Protestants graunt that in the Rom. Fayth and Church there is ground sufficient and consequently possibility of saluation this is a free confession of the Aduersaries argument themselues and therefore is of force against them and is to be thought to be extorted from them by the force of truth it self But when Protestants do say that saluation is more securely and easily had in Protestant Fayth Church then in the Romane this onely is their partiall priuate opinion in their owne behalf which is of no weight especially when Romane Catholiques farre more in number and farre more spread in place and of much longer continuance in tyme and for vertue and learning at least equall or rather much exceeding Protestants do confidently and vnanimously and with authority and reason proue that according to the ordinary Course of Gods prouidence Out of the Cath. Romane Church there is no possibility of saluation And therefore who will not thinke it safer to adhere to the Cath. Romane Fayth and Church in which all both Catholiques and best learned Protestants do promise possibility of saluation without doubt then to the Protestant Church sith all Roman Catholiques do threaten damnation to all who obstinately adhere vnto it and dye in it The which threat doth not proceede out of malice or want of Charity but is grounded in Charity as are the like threats of Christ our Sauiour and Holy Fathers who knowing that there is but One True Fayth and One True Church out of which there is no saluation do out of their Charitable care of our soules good so commend to vs the beliefe of that Fayth and the cleauing to that Church as they pronounce He that shall not belieue shall be condemned Mar. 16. and He that will not heare the Church and haue it for his Mother is to be accounted as a Heathen and Publican Matth. 18. and cannot haue God to be his Father accounting it more charity to fore warne vs by these threats of our perill that we may feare and auoide it then to put vs in a false security and so to let vs runne into danger for want of foresight of it Those examples which the Chaplaine giues of the Donatists giuing true Baptisme in the opinion of all and Protestants holding a kind of Reall Presence not denied by any are nothing like our case For in these cases there are annexed other reasons of certainly knowne perill of damnable schisme and heresie which we should incurre by cōsenting to the Donatists deniall of true Baptisme to be among Catholiques and to the Protestants denyall or doubting of the true substantiall presence of Christ in the Eucharist But in our case there is confessedly no such perill of any damnable Heresy schisme or any other sinne in resoluing to liue and die in the Catholique Rom. Church and in case some Protestants should say that there is perill of damnation in liuing and dying Roman Catholiques the authority of them that say there is perill being so few in comparison of those who say there is none and so passionate and partially affected men who are in this their saying contradicted by their owne more learned brethren ought not to be respected more then a Scarre-crowe But the authority of those who allow saluation to such as do liue and die Roman Catholiques being so many so ancient so vertuous so learned and some no way partially affected out opposite to the Romā Church ought to be accoūted of exceeding great weight may worthily perswade any wise man that it is most secure to liue and dye a Roman Catholique and consequently that in so important a matter this most secure course of liuing and dying in the Roman Church ought in all reason to be chosen and that so pretious a Iewell as the Soule is ought not to be left to the hazard of loosing heauen and falling into hell by relying vpon ones ownes opinion or the opinion of those few new Protestant Doctours who acknowledg that their whole congregatiō may erre much more therfore may they thinke that ech member therof may be deceiued in following his owne or any other mans opinion d Heere the Chaplain taxeth the Iesuite for falsly relating D. Whites Answer and saith he hath spoken with D. White who auowes this no other Answere He was asked in the Conference whether Papists errours were fundamentall To this he gaue answere by a distinction of persons which held and professed the errours Namely that the errours were fundamentall reductiuè by a reducent if they who imbraced them did pertinaciously adhere vnto them hauing sufficient meanes to be better informed Nay further that they were materially in the kind and nature of them leauen drosse haye and stubble yet he thought withall that such as were misled by education or long Custome or ouer-valuing the soueraigntie of the Romane Church and did in simplicity of heart imbrace them might by their generall Repentance faith in the merits of Christ attended with Charity and other vertues finde mercy at Gods hands But that he should say signanter expressè that none of yours or your fellowes errours were damnable so long as you hold them not against your Conscience that he vtterly disauowes c. To this the Iesuite answereth first that he did not in this his Relation say that D. White did signanter and expresly say these precise words None of yours or your fellowes errours are damnable Secondly he saith that D. White did