Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	believe_v	divine_a	revelation_n	3,649	5	9.8192	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

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

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

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 quàm vt vnus homo iudicium suum praeferattoti Congregationi What greater pride then that one man should preferre his iudgment or conscience before the iudgment and conscience of the whole Church D. Whyte said he remembred that sentence of S. Bernard but it is not remembred that he gaue any good answere either to that sentence or to the argument confirmed by it Neither indeed can he giue any good answere in regard it is certaine that the iudgment conscience of the whole Church or Congregation of so many faithfull wise learned and vertuous men assisted by the promised Spirit of truth is incomparably more to be respected and preferred before the iudgment and conscience of any priuate man as appeareth by that of Christ our Sauiour who without excepting any who pretendeth to follow his conscience and without distinguishing the matter in which he pretendeth to follow it into points fundamentall not fundamentall absolutely affirmeth He that will not heare that is belieue and obey the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen Publican Hence Protestants who preferre their priuate Iudgment and Conscience before the iudgment and conscience of the Catholique Church in interpreting Scriptures or otherwise may learne in what state they remaine so long as they do thus being by the Censure of S. Bernard extremely Proud and in the indgement of S. Austen insolently madde and by the sentence of Christ himselfe to be accounted no better then Heathens and Publicans It seemeth that D. Whyte did not deeply ponder this point or els was willing to passe ouer it as a Cat ouer hote coales and so he betooke himselfe to oppugne another part of M. Fishers paper in which is sayd that No company of visible Pastours deliuering vnchanged doctrine could be shewed in all ages besydes those of the Romane Church D. Whyte denyed this to be true and notwithstanding he had before said that he could not shew any companie differing in doctrine from the Roman Church holding in all ages all fundamentall

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

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