not signanter and expresly make this precise Answere which now he maketh nor scarse any part of it as appeareth by the Relation of the first Conference made by the Iesuite in fresh memory and conferred with D. White himself who did not at that time contradict it in this point Thirdly the reason which moued the Iesuite to say that D. White had secured him as is said in this Relation was for that D. White in the said first Conference graunted that there must be one or other church continually visible which had in all ages taught the vnchanged Fayth of Christ in all points fundamentall and being vrged to assigne such a church D. Whyte expressely graunted that he could not assigne and shew any church different from the Roman which held in all ages all points fundamentall Whence the Iesuite gathered his opinion to be that the Roman church held and taught in all ages vnchanged Fayth in all fundamentall points and did not in any age erre in any point fundamentall Whereupon the Iesuite asked whether errours in points not fundamentall were damnable D. White answered they were not so long as one did not hold them against his conscience which Answere he repeated againe to M. B. asking the same question Out of all which the Iesuite did collect that D. Whites opinion was that the Roman church held all points fundamentall and only erred in points not fundamentall which he accounted not damnable so long as one did not hold them against his conscience and thereuppon the Iesuit might well say that D. White had giuen security to him who holdeth no Faith different from the Roman nor contrary to his owne conscience As for D. Whites saying he could discerne but small loue of truth and few signes of grace in the Iesuite I will let it passe as the censure of an Aduersary looking vpon the Iesuite with eyes of dislyke which is not to be regarded further then to returne vpon him not a like censure but a charitable wish that he may haue no lesse loue of truth nor fewer signes of grace then the Iesuite is thought to haue by those who know him better then D. White doth e The Chaplain noteth that the B. was confident and had reason of his confidence For sayth he To belieue the Scripture and Creed in the sense of the Ancient Primitiue Church to receiue the first fowre Generall Councells so much magnified by Antiquity To belieue all points of doctrine generally receiued as fundamentall in the Church of Christ is a Fayth in which to liue and dye cannot but giue saluation And I would fayne see sayth the chaplain any one point maintained by the church of England that can be proued to depart from the foundation To which I answer first that if to say thus be a sufficient cause of confidence I meruayle why the chaplain maketh such difficulty to be confident of the saluation of Rom. Catholiques who belieue all this in a farre better maner then Protestants do neyther can they be proued to depart from the foundation so much as Protestants do who denying infallible authority to all the Pastours of the cath church assembled in a Generall councell do in effect deny Infallibility to the whole catholique church which is bound to heare belieue what is defined and to practise what is prescribed by her Pastours in a generall councell and ordinarily doth so belieue and practise Secondly I aske how Protestants who admit no certaine and infallible meanes and rule of Fayth beside onely Scripture can be infallibly sure that they belieue the same entier scripture and creed and the foure first Generall councels c. in the same vncorrupted sense which the Primitiue Church belieued What text of scripture doth tell that Protestants who now liue do belieue all this or that all this is expressed in those particuler Bibles or in the writings of the Fathers or Councells which now are in the Protestants handes or that Protestants do rightly vnderstand the sense of all which is expressed in their bookes according to that which was vnderstood by the Primitiue Church and the Fathers which were present at the foure first Generall Councells Or that all and onely those points which Protestants do account to be fundamentall and necessary to be expresly knowne by all were so accounted by the Primitiue Church I suppose neither the B. nor the Chaplain can produce any text of scripture sufficient to assure one of all this And therefore he had need to seeke some other Infallible rule and meanes by which he may know these things infallibly or els he hath no reason to be so confident as to aduenture his soule that one may be saued liuing and dying in the Protestant Fayth f Heere I note that the Iesuite was as confident for his part as the B. for his but with this difference that the B. had not sufficient reason of his Confidence as I haue declared But the Iesuite had so much reason both out of expresse scriptures and Fathers and the infallible authority of the Church that the B. himself then did not nor his Chaplaine now doth not taxe the Iesuit of any rashnes but the Chaplain expresly graunteth that There is but one sauing Faith and the B. did as was related graunt that the La. might be saued in the Rom. Fayth which is as much as the Iesuite did take vpon his soule Onely the chaplain saith without any proofe that we haue many dangerous errours but he neither tels vs which they be nor why he thinketh them dangerous but leaueth vs to look to our owne soules and so we do and haue no cause to doubt because we do not hold any new deuise of our owne or any other man or any thing contrary but all most conformable to scriptures interpreted by Vnion consent of Fathers and definitions of Councells Which being so the B. and his chaplaine had need to looke to their soules for if there be but one sauing Fayth as the Chaplain graunteth and he hath reason because S. Paul sayth Ephes. 4. Vna fides One Fayth and S. Leo serm de Natiuit Nisi vna est fides non est vnlesse it be One it is not Fayth and this One Fayth was once the Roman which also yet is as the B. graunteth a sauing Fayth or else he ought not to haue granted that one may be saued liuing dying in it I see not how they can haue their soules saued without they entirely imbrace this Fayth being the Cath. Fayth which as S. Athanasius in Symb. affirmeth vnles one hold entiere that is euery point of it and inuiolate that is belieuing all in right sense and for the true formall reason of diuine reuelation sufficiently applied to our vnderstāding by the Infallible authority of the Cath. Church proposing to vs by her Pastours this reuelation without doubt he shall perish for euer In which sort if the B. and his chaplain did belieue any one Article they finding the same
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 vpoÌ„ 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 theÌ„ 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. 1â— Luc. â—2 3◠〈◊〉 â—0 18.
by obiecting falsly-supposed Vntruthes Contradictions c. more is to be sayd in another place and therfore not being willing to hold thee Gentle Reader any longer from the consideration of the first Occasion of all this busines I commit thee to the Protection of Almighty God Thy hearty Wellwisher and seruant in Christ. W. I. THE TABLE Of the principall Contents and Chapters of the ensuing Relations THE Occasion of a certaine Conference had betweene D. Francis White and M. Iohn Fisher. pag. 1. A Relation of what passed betweene D. Whyte and M. Fisher about a certaine Paper giuen by the sayd M. Fisher to an Honourable Lady wherein was proued the Catholique Roman Church and Fayth to be the right pag. 13. A Relation of the Conference betweene a certaine Bishop and M. Fisher defended against the sayd B. his Chaplaine pag. 37. 41. An Answere to a Pamphlet intituled The Fisher catched in his owne Net In which is shewed that the Protestant Church was not so visible in all Ages as the true Church ought to be and consequently is not the true church of which men may learne Infallible Fayth necessary to Saluation CHAP. 1. About the first occasion of the Conference in which is shewed that M. Fisher did not seeke it nor prouoke his Aduersaries by any challenge vnto it nor did intend to haue it so publicke as by his Aduersaries fault it proued pag. 1. A Copy of the first Paper which M. Fisher wrote and deliuered to an old Gentleman before the meeting pag. 7. A copy of the second Paper writen by M. Fisher before the sayd meeting pag. 10. CHAP. II. About that which passed in the conference it selfe pag. 12. CHAP. III. Of the issue of the conference pag. 43. CHAP. IIII. conteyning a Reuiew and Reflexion vpon the Premisses Togeather with diuers Obseruations coÌ„cerning the Occasion Meaning Methode Manner of proceeding in the forsayd conference pag. 46. seqq An Appendix vnto the former Answere refuting diuers Vntruthes obiected by D. Whyte and D. Featly against M. Fishers Relations writings pag. 73. A Reply to D. Whyte and D. Featly who haue vndertaken to shew a visible ProtestaÌ„t Church in all Ages by naming prouing defending visible ProtestaÌ„ts in all Ages out of good Authors The first Part. In which is shewed that neyther they nor any other haue performed this vndertaken Taske in such methode and manner as M. Fishers Question proposed vnto the sayd Doctours in a former Conference required And much lesse haue they or can they or any other shew such a visible Protestant Church in all Ages and Nations as Christs true Church is in the Prophesies and Promises of holy Scripture described Whence it followeth that the Protestant Church is not the true Church of Christ. pag. 1. CHAP. I. About the vtility of M. Fishers Question requiring Names of visible Protestants in all Ages out of good Authours for finding out the true Church and by it the true Fayth pag. 9. CHAP. II. In which M. Fishers Question is explicated and D. Whytes and D. Featly Answere giuen in the Conference is shewed to haue byn very deficient pag. 13. CHAP. III. In which is shewed how many Ministers after the Conference aforesayd haue endeauoured to make Answere And that none haue sufficiently answered M. Fishers Question pag. 17. CHAP. IIII. About M. Bernards Answere intituled Looke beyond Luther pag. 19. CHAP. V. Concerning M. Rogers his Answere to M. Fishers fiue Propositions pag. 22. A true Copy of M. Fishers fiue propositions aforesaid pag. 24. CHAP. VI. Concerning W. C. his idle Dialogue pag. 36. An Argument prouing that he that denyeth the Authority of the Church in any one point taketh away infallible Certainty pag. 39. CHAP. VII About a certaine Treatise of the Visibility of the true Church pag. 51. CHAP. VIII About a Booke intituled Luthers Predecessours set forth by a Namelesse Author pag. 61. CHAP. IX Concernining D. Whytes Answere pag. 65. CHAP. X. A Reply to D. Featly his Answere to M. Fishers Question pag. 71. Certaine shifts and Tergiuersations vsed by D. Featly pag. 79. CHAP. XI About D. Vshers Sermon preached before his Maiesty â—0 of Iune 1624. pag. 123. CHAP. XII Contayning a Confutation of the Pamphlet called The Protestant Kalendar pag. 136. The second Part of the Reply to D. Whyte and D. Featly In which is shewed that the Catholique Roman Church can name proue defend visible Professours of her Fayth in all Ages And that she only and such as agree in Fayth with her is the True visible Catholique Church out of which there is no saluation pag. 143. CHAP. I. In which is shewed that the Roman Church hath had visible Professours whose Names may be shewed in all Ages pag. 145. CHAP. II. In which is shewed that out of the Catholique Roman Church there is no saluation pag. 152. A Discourse wherin is demoÌ„strated by Reasons drawne out of Scriptures ancient Fathers that out of the Vnity of the Roman Church there is no Saluation pag. 153. The first Argument therof pag. 157. The second Argument pag. 158. Faultes escaped in the printing In the Relations of the Conferences Page Line Fault Correction 24 31 whome when dele whome 26 5 be true to be true 33 7 being a diuine coÌ„ming froÌ„ a diuine Ibid 11 this definition so this definition 44 24 of fayth of points of fayth 45 23 to be firme be firme 49 4 it not is not 51 1 2 so rudely formerly Ibid. 13 knowne foreknowne 56 15 for contra for if contra Ibid. 18 What then Is it What then is it 57 2 to Rome to come 61 14 do iustify do not like 64 vlt. argument against 66 15 out opposite but opposite 70 12 vnion vnanime In the Answere to the Fisher catched c. 4 17 questions question 8 vlt. solloweth followeth 16 12 repotteth reporteth 23 11 sense Wherof sense wherof 39 18 defired desired 59 16 heahen heathen 60 28 with which 67 26 pre-present present 71 6 Prostant Protestant In the Reply to D. Whyte and D. Featly 1 17 offeringes ofspringes 4 18 pages ages 6 6 denyed not confessed not 8 11 different deficient 11 5 pretended produced 14 31 or defend and defend 15 8 The Proofes Moreouer the Proofes 21 18 first fifth 28 4 is of are of 32 12 of the argument against the argument Ibid. 31 possessours professours 33 2 the M. the same M. 36 7 pretenteth pretendeth 41 21 to mooue doth mooue 45 22 especially obstinatly dele vlt. parenthesim and read especially obstinately against the knowne fayth of the Church any one c. 68 26 precept of positiue c. read positiue and negatiue precept of profession c. 69 18 infer answere 74 20 Maior Minor 84 vlt. to be good not to be good 96 9 do not denominate read do not as the Name Protestant doth denominate c. 67 vlt. euery piously disposed read euery intelligent and piously disposed c. 108 21 points to take
which is not contayned in the written Word and therefore they must admit for a ground of Faith some Word of God not written D. Whyte answered Although at that time when S. Paul wrote the text alledged some part of Gods word was not written yet afterwards all needfull to be belieued was written This D. Whyte said but did not not cannot proue especially out of any parte of the written Word D. Woyte alledged this text Omnis scriptura diuinit 〈…〉 inspirata vtilis est c But as M. Fisher then tould him this Text doth not proue the point which is to be proued For this text doth not say that all which is diuinely inspired was written or that Genesis Exodus and other particuler books are diuinely inspired or that nothing is to be belieued which is not contayned in scripture but only saith That all or euery Scripture diuinely inspired is profitable D. Whyte said Scripture is not onely said simply to be profitable but to be profitable to argue to teach to correct to instruct that the man of God may be perfect and therfore being profitable to all these offices it may be said to be sufficient M. Fisher replyed Although wood be profitable to make the substance of the house to make wainscot to make tables and stooles and other furniture yet hence doth not follow that wood alone is sufficient to build and furnish a house I will notsay that heere D. White was at a Nonplus because I vnderstand that word Nonplus doth not please him but the truth is that to this D. Whyte did make no answere And for my part I professe I do not see what answere he could haue made to the purpose and worthy of that Honorable and vnderstanding Audience D. Whyte therefore without saying any thing to this instance seemed to be weary and giving the paper to M. Fisher had him read on M. Fisher taking the paper read the fourth Point in which was sayd That at the word of God manifested to the Apostles and by them to their immediate hearers was not to cease at their death but was to be continued and propagated without change in and by one or other companie of visible Pastours Doctours and lawfully-sent preachers successiuely in all ages c. All which to be true being at last graunted or not denyed by D. Whyte M. Fisher proposed the first of the two arguments set downe in the aforesaid Paper viz. If there must be in all ages one or other continuall succession of visible Pastours Doctours and lawfully-sent Preachers by whom the vnchanged word of God vpon which Faith is grounded was preserued c preached in all ages since Christ and no other is visible or can be shewed besides those of the Roman Church and such as agree in Faith with them Then none but the Pastours of the Romane Church and such as agree in Faith with them haue that one infallible diuine vnchanged Faith which is necessarie to saluation But there must be such a visible succession none such can be shewed different in Faith from the Pastours of the Roman Church Ergo. Onely the Pastours of the Romane Church and such as agree in Faith with them preserue and teach that one infallible diuine vnchaunged Faith which is necessarie to saluation D. Whyte answered That it was sufficient to shew a succession of visible Pastours teaching vnchanged doctrine in all points fundamentall although not in points not fundamentall M. Fisher replyed saying First that if time permitted he could proue all pointes of diuine Faith to be fundamentall supposing they were points generally held or defined by full authority of the Church to which purpose he did recite the beginning of this sentence of S. Augustine Ferendus est disputator errans in alijs quaestionibus non diligenter digestis nondum plena authoritate Ecclesia firmatis ibi ferendus est error non tantùm progredi debet vt ipsum fundamentum quatere moliatur In which S. Auston insinuateth that to erre in any questions defined by full authority of the Church is to shake the foundation of Faith or to erre in points fundamentall But M. Fisher not hauing the booke at hand and fearing to be tedious in arguing vpon a text which he had not ready to shew passed on and secondly required D. Whyte to giue him a Catalogue of all points fundamentall or a definition or description well proued out of Scripture and in which all Protestants will agree by which one may discerne which be and which be not points fundamentall D. Whyte reiected this demaund as thinking it vnreasonable to require of him a Catalogue or definition or description of Points fundamentall out of Scripture in which all Protestants will agree But considering in what sense D. Whyte did understand this distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall to wit that none could be saued who did not belieue all pointes fundamentall rightly and that none should be damned for not belieuing other pointes vnles he did wilfully against his conscience deny or not belieue them M. Fishers demand was both reasonable and most necessary for sith all Protestants agree in houlding it necessarie to be certaine of their saluation and that none can be saued who do not belieue all points fundamentall and that in these pointes one must not content himselfe with implicite Faith but must expressely know them it is most necessary that all Protestants should out of Scripture which they pretend to be their onely Rule of Faith find and conclude with vnanimous consent certainly what is and what is not a fundamentall point of Faith necessary to saluation For whiles some hould more some lesse to be fundamentall and none of them giueth out of Scripture a sufficient rule by which it may be discerned which is and which is not fundamentall how can ech particuler Protestant rest assured that he belieueth expresly all points fundamentall or so much as is necessary and sufficient to make him assured of saluation But to returne to the Relation D. Whyte hauing reiected M. Fishers demand requiring a Catalogue definition or description out of Scripture in which all Protestants will agree said That all those points were fundamentall which were contained in the Creed of the Apostles M. Fisher might haue asked him diuers questions vpon this answere 1. What text of scripture taught him that all the points contained in the Apostles Creed were fundamentall in the sense aforesaid Or That this Creed was composed by the Apostles as a summary of Faith contayning points needfull at least necessitate Praecepti to be expresly belieued by all men The Church indeed so teacheth but the Scripture hath not any text which doth expressly say so or whence by necessarie consequence so much may be gathered and therefore according to Protestant principles permitting nothing to be belieued but Onely Scripture the Apostles Creed ought not to be beleiued as a rule of any point of Faith and much lesse a rule containing all
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
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 quà m 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
related only he sayd 1. That himselfe did not remember a point or two which both M. Fisher and M. B. did perfectly remember to haue bene so as is here related 2. He sayd that something more was sayd then is related which M. Fisher did not deny but was willing to add any thing that D. Whyte could put him in mind of or that himselfe should after remember and so being put in remembrance made by D. Whyte to wit Whereas M. Fisher vpon some occasion or other had sayd That although a generall Councell might erre in the premisses yet not in the Conclusion D. Whyte obiected saying That in all scieÌ„ces the conclusioÌ„ is no more certayne theÌ„ the Premisses therfore if the premisses in a general councell be fallible the conclusion cannot be infallible To which M. Fisher answered saying Although in sciences which depend only vpon the light of Nature the conclusion cannot be more certaine then the premisses yet in a generall councell assisted by the holy Ghost in the finall conclusion or definitiue sentence the conclusion is alwayes infallible although sometimes the premisses be fallible And M. Fisher had great reason to answere in this manner Indeed if to define a matter of Fayth were to conclude the same by way of discourse out of Principles as the Argument doth suppose then if Councels might erre in the Promisses they might likewise erre in their Conclusion and dâ—finitiue sentence But this supposition is false Infallibility in defining being a diuine Assistance not to inferre one thing out of another by way of connexion and consequence but to decree and declare what is conform 〈…〉 to the word of God by way of authority binding the Church so to believe And this definition is euer infallible though all the arguments the Councell bringes by way of discourse in proofe of the definition eyther before or after the same is made be not still demonstratiue Another obiection M. Fisher hath since that time remembred to wit that D. White alleaged something out of Abulensis in Matt. 7. 19. which M. Fisher differred to make answere vnto vntil he might see the Author himself hauing had experience inough how falsely many Ministers the Authors and how false their Note-Bookes be Now M. Fisher hath seene the booke and findeth the words cited by D. White to contayne two parts one as contrary to D. White as the other seemeth contrary to M. Fisher that the whole discourse of Abulensis in that place sheweth that euen that part which seemeth contrary to M. Fisher doth nothing preudice M. Fishers cause as will appeare to any that will duly ponder all that is there sayd of the Authority of the Church in defining what bookes be and what be not Canonicall For Abulensis expressly declareth that all and only those bookes are to be accounted Canonicall which the church doth define to be canonicall and the reason why he did in his priuate opinion thinke one or two Bookes not to be canonicall which we do now hold for canonicall is for that the Church had not then so cleerely defined them to be Canonicall as it hath done since A 〈…〉 sts wrot that passage as there are diuers other Bookes held for Canonicall euen by Protestants which haue not beene so esteemed by some of the Ancient Fathers in regard the church had not then so clearely defined them to be canonicall as is hath done in after times A third obiection was made by D. White about the worship of Images which D. White would needs affirme to be an Innouation and grossâ— Error of Papists Which M. Fisher denied and sayd that the worship meaning the same worship which is due to the Prototypon is not giuen by vs to the Image it selfe This obiection D. White vrged no further the first day but the next day of meeting he vrged those words of Bellarmine Datur veneratio ipsi imagini M. Fisher anwered that Bellarmine did not meane that the same worship which was due to the Prototypon was giuen to the Image it selfe but an inferior degree of worship and that also for the Prototypons sake Then D. White betooke himselfe to Suares saying That Suares did hold that the same worship which was giuen to the Prototypon was giuen to the Image M. Fisher answering sayd You do not vnderstand our Authors For sayd M. Fisher they that seeme to giue most giue the least to Images for those that say that one and the same worship is giuen to the Image and that which is represented by it hold the Image to be incapable of any part of worship and so the whole to pertayne to the thing Wheras others who distinguish one honour to be due to the thing and another farre inferior to be giuen to the Image giue something as M. Fisher explicated in the example of the respect one beareth to the picture of his friend which although it be not capable of that friendly respect and affection which by looking vpon it he exciteth in himselfe towards his friend represented by it yet is it capable of an inferiour degree of respect as to be set in a more worthy and eminent place c. then it should be if it were the picture of some other who were not ones friend These be the chiefe Passages of this Conference between D. White and M. Fisher so far as hath come to my notice who haue vsed so much diligence in inquiring the truth of this matter as I haue no doubt but for substance I haue not omitted any thing that may much import considering what the occasion and subiect of the Conference was to wit that Paper written by M. Fisher in which he proued the Roman Church and those who agree in Fayth with it to be that Company of whome euery one must learne what is the truth in all points and questions of Fayth necessary to saluation which paper not being substantially confuted as it was not by any thing sayd by D. White or any other at that time or after D. Whyte is yet obliged to make a better answere if he meane to giue satisfaction either to Catholiques or Protestants in this most important point of a perpetually visible church of which all forts must learne true diuine infallible Faith necessary to Saluation FINIS A RELATION OF THE Conference between a certain B. M. Fisher defended against the said B. his Chaplayne The Preface GENTLE Reader I think it needful to let thee vnderstand that whereas the Chaplaine of a certayne B. sayth in the Preface of his Answere to a Relation of what passed betweene the said B. and M. Fisher That the Iesuite spread abroad papers of this Conference which were full of partiality to his cause more full of calumney against the B. the truth is that the Iesuite did not at all so much as in speach much lesse in papers publish this or either of the other two Conferences which he had with D. White vntill he was forced vnto it by false
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 vnderstaÌ„d 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 vpoÌ„ a more prime Principle be accouÌ„ted 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 Ã
nobis tenetur veritas cùm id facimus quòd vniuersae placet Ecclesiae quam earundem scripturerum commend at authoritas We hold the verity of Scriptures when we do that which pleaseth the whole Church which the authority of the same scriptures doth commend But what answere the chaplaine can make I cannot easily guesse vnles with vs he acknowledg authority of church-tradition to be necessary in this case p The Iesuite did not aske this question as doubting of the diuine authority of Scripture but to make it seene that beside scripture which the B. sayd was the Onely foundation of Faith there must be admitted some other foundation to wit Vnwritten Tradition and this of infallible authority to assure vs infallibly that these Bookes are diuine which to be diuine is one point infallibly belieued by diuine Faith and yet cannot be infallibly proued out of Onely Scripture therefore Onely Scripture cannot be sayd as the B. said to be the Onely foundation of Fayth or of euery point belieued by Faith I hope the Chaplaine who is so carefull to auoyd all suspition of being familiar with impiety as he would haue no question moued about this point vpon any termes or pretence will not be so impious as to say That to belieue these bookes to be diuine scripture is not a point of diuine Faith or that this point being so important as it is to be most firmely belieued is belieued by diuine Faith without any ground or foundation or without a sufficiēt infallible diuine foundatiō of Gods word written or vnwritten Sith therfore this is a point of Faith hath a foundation yea an infallible foundation it is not against either art or equity or piety for confutation of Error and confirmation of Truth to enquire what particuler foundation of Gods word written or vnwritten doth assure vs infallibly that these particuler bookes containe the sole and whole truth of God belieued by christian Fayth Neyther need any be troubled or endangered by this question but such as not finding any sufficient foundation in gods word written do pertinaciously resolue not to belieue any thing to be Gods word which is not written Those that belieue that there is a word of God partly written and partly vnwritten according to that of S. Paul 2. Thess. 2. Hold the Traditions whether by our word or Epistle do easily without too much turning in a wheele or circle answere the question See the Reply to M. Wotton M. White in the Introduction of which mention is made in the Relation where this and diuers other important matters pertayning to the drift of this Conference are handled at large q The Chaplaine saith that some body tould him that the B. vntied the knot But why doth not the Chaplaine tell how he did vntie the knot It seemeth the knot was not well vntied when the Iesuite had a Reply so ready as is insinuated by his only going againe and reading in the Book which he had so rudely writen Although a Praecognitum in faith need not be so cleerly knowne as a praecognitum in science yet there must be this proportion that as primum praecognitum the first thing foreknowne in a science must be primò cognitum first knowne must not need another thing pertayning to that science to be priùs cognitum knowne before it So if in Faith the Scriptures be the first and only foundation and consequently the first thing knowne primùm praecognitum it must be in Faith primò cognitum first knowne and must not need any other thing pertayning to Faith to be priùs cognitum knowne before it so Church-Tradition which is one thing pertayning to Fayth could not as the Chaplain saith it is and as indeed it is be knowne first and be an Introduction to the knowledge of Scripture Moreouer like as sciences which suppose a principle proued in a higher science cannot haue certainty of that principle but either by hauing seene that principle euidently proued by other principles borrowed of that higher science or by giuing credit to some that haue seene or haue by succession receiued it from others that haue seene it euidently so proued So Faith cannot haue certainty of her first principles but either by seeing proof from the knowledg of the Blessed which ordinarily no mā now seeth or by giuing credit immediatly to some who haue seene as to Christ who cleerly saw or to the Apostles to whom cleere reuelation I say cleere in attestante was made or by giuing credit to others who by succession haue had it from the first seers In which last case the certainty of these principles can be no greater then is the authority of that succession If it be meerely humane and fallible the science and Faith is humane and fallible Neither can either science or Faith be diuine and infallible vnlesse the authority of that succession be at least in some sort diuine and infallible The chaplain therefore who as it seemeth will not admit church-Tradition to be in any sort diuine and infallible while it doth introduce the beliefe of scriptures to be diuine bookes cannot sufficiently defend the Faith introduced of that point to be infallible vnles he admit an infallible impulsion of the priuate spirit ex parte subiecti without any infallible sufficiently applied reason ex parte obiecti which he seemeth not not hath reason to doe 〈◊〉 this were to open the gap to Enthusiasms of all vpstart Anabaptists and would take away due proportion of Obiect and Subiect and the sweet order of things which diuine prouidence hath appointed It may be that if he would but consider the Tradition of the Church not only as of a Company of fallible men in with sort the authority of it is but humaine and fallible but also as it is the Tradition of a Company which by it owne light sheweth it self to be assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit farre more cleerely then Scripture by it owne light doth shew it selfe to be the infallible word of God he would find no difficulty in that respect to account the authority of Church-Tradition to be infallible and consequently not only able to be an Introduction but also an infallible motiue reason or at least condition ex Parte obiecti to make both it self and the bookes of Scripture appeare infallibly though obscurely to our soule disposed and illuminated by Gods spirit to haue in them diuine and infallible authority and to be worthy of diuine and infallible credit sufficient to breed in vs diuine and infallible Fayth Neither do I see why the Chaplain may not consider the Tradition of the present Church these two waies as well as the present scriptures printed and approued by men of this age For if the scriptures printed and approued by men of this age must be considered not onely as printed or approued by men in regard the credit giuen to them thus considered can be no more then humane but also as printed and by
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 desiâ—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 befoâ—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
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 sâ—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 nouelâ— 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 safeâ—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 CouÌ„cell 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 euideÌ„t 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 coÌ„trolled 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 impedimeÌ„ts 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
be hoped that all or the maior part will euer so agree as to remaine constant in one and the same mind Hath christ our Lord in this case prouided no meanes no rule no iudge which may Infallibly determine and end controuersyes procure vnity and certainty of belief being so necessary for the honor of God and the good of his church Must people for want of such a iudge rule or meanes continue not only moneths and yeares but whole Ages in vncertainty and disiunity of Fayth and in perpetuall Iarres about euen maine matters of diuine truth There is no earthly Kingdome that in case matters cannot be composed by Parlament which cannot be called vpon all occasions and at all tymes hath not beside the law-bookes some liuing Magistrates and iudges and aboue all one visible King the highest Magistrate and Iudge who hath authority sufficient to end controuersies and procure peace and vnity and certainty of Iudgments about all temporall affayres And shall we thinke that christ the wisest King hath prouided in his kingdome which is the church onely the Law-bookes of Holy Scriptures and no liuing visible Magistrats and Iudges and aboue all One cheife Magistrate and iudge so assisted with his spirit and prouidence as may suffice to end controuersies and breed vnity and certainty of Fayth which neuer can be while euery man may interprete Holy Scripture the Law-booke as he list x The chaplain saith that the B. said not only so but that it was no Generall Councell I answere that if the B. said so it was onely for want of memory that the Iesuite did not relate it so for the Exceptions which the B. did or can make against the lawfulnesse or generallnesse of the Councell of Trent may be made by Arrians against the councell of Nice It is not necessary to the lawfulnesse and generallnesse of a Councell that all Bishops of the world be actually present and actually subscribe or yield assent but that such promulgation be made as is morally sufficient to giue notice that such a Councell is called and that all may come if they will and that a competent number at least the maior part of those which be present yield assent to the decree y As Protestants do thinke that the councell of Trent is not lawfull for hauing in their Iudgment departed from the letter sense of Scripture so did the Arians thinke of the councell of Nice And as Protestants do iustifie that some were sent from the Pope to Trēt and that the Pope was President So doubtlesse did the Arians mislike that at Nice the Pope had Legats who did carry his messages and one of them in his place sate as President z The Chaplain saith that the B. did not say that the Pope made Bishops of purpose c. I answere that the Iesuite doth not say that the B. expresly said to but that by insinuation he did pretend so much which in effect the chaplaine seemeth to graunt when he saith pag. 40. the B. said the Pope made himself a strōg partie in it For although these words may be taken in another sense yet they may also be taken in that sense which the Iesuite by the circumstances of the B. his speach did then vnderstand and expresse in his Relation for that a great number of Italian Bishops which the Chaplain saith the B. alledged as a proof may very well import that the B. cōceiued the Pope to haue made more Italian Bishops then of other Countryes of purpose to haue a strong faction But this proof was so weake as the Iesuite might well say it was no proofe nor worthy of answere or of looking into the book for it it being only a surmise of Aduersaries who are apt to interprete euery thing to the worst Italian Bishops might be more as being neerer as in Greeke Councells more Grecians were present without any factious Combination with the Pope in any other sort then all the Cath. Bishops in the world who are as much vnited with the Pope for matters of Fayth defined in the Councell as any Italian Bishop Neither can the B. proue that any Catholique French or Spanish or of any other Country or the schismaticall Greekes did agree with Protestants in those points which were defined in the Councell especially after it was confirmed by the Pope For they all euen Grecians did do at this day vnanimously oppose Protestāts as appeareth by the Censure of Hieremias the Grecian Patriarch So as if such a free Councell as the B. and others wished were gathered out of East and West Protestants doubtles would be condemned for Heretiques and their negatiue refutes and denialls of ancient Articles for Heresies by more then the double maior Part compared to those who would take their part For although as all Heretiques vse to do Protestants perswade themselues Scriptures to be euident for their opinions and that with euident demon̄trations they should be able to conuince all the world that they teach truth and nothing but truth yet they would find innumerable others as learned to say no more and as well studyed in Scripture and skilfull in making demonstrations who are of another mind a I meruaile in what sort the B. will describe such a Generall Councell and how it should be gathered and what Rules are in it to be obserued which are morally likely so to be obserued as to make an end of cōtrouersies better then our catholique Generall councels b The Chaplaine saith that the B. added a Caution which the Iesuit omitteth saying The determination of a Generall coūcell erring was to stand in force and haue externall obedience at least yielded to it till euidence of Scripture or a demonstration to the contrary made the errour appeare and vntill thereuppon another Councell of equall Authority did reuerse it I answere that added Caution which eyther was not then added or not remembred by the Iesuite maketh the B. his Answere far worse then as the Iesuit did relate For whereas the Iesuite relateth onely thus Although it may erre this caution maketh the case to be that it doth actually erre And whereas the Iesuite relateth That we not knowing whether it do erre or not but only that it may erre are bound to hold it till another come to reuerse it this caution doth put the case so as if the determination of a Generall Coūcell actually erring were not ipso iure inualide but such as is to stand in force to haue externall obedience at least yielded vnto it till not onely morall certainty but euidence of Scripture or a demonstration to the contrary make the errour appeare and after the errour appeareth yet we must continue this yeilding of obedience And how long Vntill thereupon a Councell and not euery Councell but of equall authority do reuerse it which perhaps will not be found in a whole Age. Verily I can not belieue that the B. vpon better aduisement will allow this Caution or giue any
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