Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	bishop_n	show_v	succession_n	3,239	5	9.8646	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

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 cōcerning 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 Protestāt Church in all Ages by naming prouing defending visible Protestāts 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 ●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 demōstrated 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 cōming frō 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

points To take c. 109 29 but say and say 117 32 it seemeth It seemeth 118 1 notable not able 119 9 hunreds hundreds 131 29 found in sound in 140 27 be nameth he nameth 146 3 Fayh Fayth 147 19 Traditions The Traditions the 151 19 defined defined 153 13 had dele parenthesim 163 31 vncharitable vncharitably THE OCCASION OF A Certaine Conference had betvveene D. Francis White and M. Iohn Fisher. THE Occasion of this Conference was a certaine writtē Paper giuen by M Fisher to an honble Lady who desired somthing to be briefly writtē to proue the Catholique Roman Church Faith to be the only right The Copie of this Paper is as followeth FIRST It is certaine that there is one and but one true diuine infallible Faith without which none can please God or attayne Saluation 2. This one true diuine infallible Faith is wholy grounded vpon the authority of Gods word and in this it differeth not only from all humane sciences bred by a cleere sight or euident demonstration and from humane opinion proceeding from probable arguments or coniectures from humane Faith built vpon the authority of Pithagoras his Ipse dixit or the word of any other man but also from all other diuine knowledge had either by cleere vision of the diuine Essence which Saints haue in heauen or by cleere reuelation of diuine Mysteries which some principall persons to wit Patriarkes and Prophers and Apostles had on earth and also from that Theologicall discursiue knowledge which learned men attaine vnto by the vse of their naturall wit in deducing Conclusions partly out of the foundations of supernaturall Faith partly out of principles of naturall reason From all these kindes of knowledge I say that one true diuine and infallible Faith differeth in that it is grounded wholly vpon the authority of the VVord of God as humane fallible Faith is grounded vpon the authority of the VVord of Man 3. This VVord of God vpon which diuine infallible faith is grounded is not only the word of God Increate or the prime Verity but also the word Created or Reuelation proceeding from that prime Verity by which the truth of Christian mysteries by Christ who is true God was first made manifest to the Apostles and other his Disciples partly by the exteriour preaching of his owne mouth but chiefly by the inward reuelation of his eternall heauenly Father and by the inspiration of the holy Ghost Secōdly It was made knowne to others liuing in those dayes partly by owtward preaching partly by the writinges of the aforesaid Apostles and Disciples to whome Christ gaue lawfull mission commission to teach saying Teach all nations promising that himselfe would be with them all dayes vnto the end of the world and that his holy Spirit should assist them and teach them and consequently make them able to teach others all Truth in such sort as whosoeuer should heare them should heare Christ himself and so should be made docibles Dei and as the Prophet foretould docti à Domino and as S. Paul speaketh of some Epistola Christi the epistle of Christ written not with inke but with the spirit of God Whence appeareth that not only the Word Increate but also the Word Created may be truly sayd to be the Foundation of our Faith and not only that Word which was immediatly inspired by the heauenly Father or by the holy Ghost in the hartes of the Apostles and other Disciples who liued in our Sauiours dayes but also the Word as well preached as written by the Apostles and also that Word which by the preaching and writing of the Apostles was by the holy Ghost imprinted in the hartes of the immediate hearers who were therupon said to be the Epistles of Christ as I haue already noted 4. This Word of God which I call Created to distinguish it from the word Increate being partly preached partly written partly inspired or imprinted in manner aforesaid was not to cease at the death of the Apostles and Disciples and their immediate hearers but by the appointment of God who would haue all men to be saued and come to the knowledge of the Truth was to be deriued to posterity not by new immediate reuelations or Enthusiasmes nor by sending Angells to all particuler men but by a continuated succession of Visible Doctours and Pastors and lawfully-sent Preachers in all ages who partly by Transcripts of what was written first by the Apostles but cheifly by Vocall preaching of the same doctrine without change which the Pastors of euery age successiuely one from another receaued of their predecessors as they who liued in the age next to the Apostles dayes receaued it from the Apostles as a sacred Depositum to be kept and preserued in the Church maugre all the assaultes of Helly gates which according to Christs promise shall neuer preua-le against the Church Whence followeth that not only for 400. or 500. or 600. yeares but in al ages since Christ there was is and shal be the true Word of God preached by visible Doctours Pastors and lawfully sent Preachers so guided by Christ and his holy spirit that by them people of euery Age were are and shal be sufficiently instructed in true diuine infallible Faith in all thinges necessary to Saluation to the intent that they may not be little ones wauering nor carried about with euery winde of new doctrine which being contrary to the ould and first receaued must needs be false 5. Wheras by this which is already said which if need be may be morefully proued it apeareth first that there is one true diuine infallible Faith necessary to saluation Secōdly that this Faith is wholy grounded vpon the word of God Thirdly that this word of God is not only the word Increate but also the word Created either inwardly inspired or outwardly preached or written continued without change in one or other continued succession of Visible Pastors Doctours and lawfully-sent Preachers rightly teaching by the direction of Christ and his holy spirit the said word of God wheras I say all this doth most euidently appeare by this which is already sayd That I may proue the Romā Church only and those who consent and agree in doctrine of Faith with it to haue that one true diuine infallible Faith which is necessarie to saluation Thus I dispute If it be needfull that there should be one or other continuall succession of Visible Pastors in which and by which the vnchanged word of God vpon which true diuine infallible Faith is grounded is preserued and preached and no other succession besides that of the Roman Church and others which agree in Faith with it can be shewed as if any such were may be shewed out of approued Histories or other ancient monuments Then without doubt the Roman Church only and such as agree with it in Faith haue that true diuine infallible Faith which is necessary to saluation But there must be

one or other such succession of Visible Pastors and no other can be shewed out of approued Histories or ancient monumēts besides that of the Roman Church only and such others as agree with it in Faith Ergo. The Roman Church only and such others as agree with it in Faith hath true diuine infallible Faith necessarie to saluation The Consequence of the Maior cannot with reason be denied and if it be it shal be proued The Minor hath two partes The first wherof is plaine by that which is already said and if need be it shal be more fully proued out of holy Scriptures The second part may be made manifest first out of Histories secondly out of the confession of Protestants The second Argument If the Roman Church had the right Faith and neuer changed any substantiall part of Faith Then it followeth that it hath now that one true diuine infallible Faith which is necessary to saluation But the Roman Church once had the right Faith and neuer changed any substantiall part of Faith Ergo. The Roman Church now hath the right Faith and consequently Protestants so far as they disagree with it haue not the right soule-sauing Faith The Maior is euident The Minor hath two partes The first is cleere out of S. Paul Rom. 1. and is confessed by Protestants The second part I proue thus Yf the Roman Church changed any substantiall part of Faith then there may be shewed the point changed the person which was the Authour of that change the time when and place where the change was made others may be named who persisting in the ancient Faith continued opposition against the innouation and change as may be shewed in other like and lesse changes and namely in Luthers and Caluins change But these circumstances cannot be shewed Ergo. No change If my Aduersaries name any point which they affirme to haue beene changed 1. This wil not suffice vnlesse they name the other circumstances of the Author time place and who persisting in the former vnchanged Faith opposed and continued oppositiō against it as against a Nouelty and Heresie as we can do in other changes and namely in that which was by Luther and Caluin 2. These points which they say were changed after the first 600. yeares may be shewed them to haue beene held by more ancient approued Authors in the same sense in which they are held by the Roman Church which doth argue that there was no such change made A briefe Relation of what passed betweene D. White and M. Fisher about the foresaid written Paper THIS forsaid paper passing from one to another came to some hāds who gaue it to D. Francis Whyte to answere and to prepare himselfe to oppugne it in a Conferēce with M. Fisher who whē he wrot it gaue it to the Lady did not thinke or suspect that any such great matter should haue bene made of it as after proued M. D. Whyte hauing as he cōfessed after to M. Fisher had this paper about ten dayes in his handes studying what to say to it came as he was appoynted to the place of meeting and M. Fisher being then a Prisoner was also sent for At the houre and place prefixed both the one and the other as they were bidden sate downe before a few but very Honorable Persons whose names I will onely as M. Fisher first did expresse in these ensuing letters L. K. L. M. B. L. B. M. B. Then D. Whyte drew out a copie of the aforesaid written paper and asked M. Fisher whether he wrote it Vnto which M. Fisher answered I wrote such a thing if it be a true copy I will defend it Then D. Whyte read the first point of the said paper in which was said This is one and has one was diuine Faith c. This saith D. Whyte is true if Faith be vnderstood explicite or implicite Which to be the true sense M. Fisher assented Then D. White read the second point in which was said That this true diuine Faith was wholy prouided vpon the word of God c. This also D. White yielded to be true Then D. White read the third point in which was said That this word of God vpon which Faith was grounded is not only the Word increate but also the Word Created to wit the diuine reuelation made manifest partly by Christes 〈◊〉 preaching partly by the holy Ghosts inward inspiration in 〈◊〉 hartes of the Apostles c. This point also D. White allowed but knowing what followed in the fourth point he asked M. Fisher whether he thought that the holy Ghost was equally in others as in the Apostles M. Fisher said that the inspiratiō of the holy Ghost was promised giuen both to the Apostles others yet not in the same degree nor in the samefull measure but the Apostles as being after Christ the prime foundations of the Church had the holy Ghost in such high degree and full measure that they could and did write Canonicall Scriptures Others that were Pastours and Doctours had it in an inferiour degree yet so as by it they were enabled to teach infallibly and without change the substance of all pointes needfull to saluation especially when in a generall Councell after discussion of the matter they did conclude as the Apostles and Seniours did Visum est spiritui sancto nis It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and vs. The people also had a measure of the same spirit sufficient to enable thē to conceiue rightly and to belieue stedfastly the teaching of their Pastours D. Whyte did not disallow the substance of this answere but only made a verball Obiection saying The Apostles had inspiration Pastours and People onely illumination M. Fisher answered that both Apostles Pastours had inspiration and illumination in regard the motion of the holy Ghost as receiued in the vnderstanding is called Illumination and as receiued in the will it is called Inspiration L. K. bad them leaue that verball controuersy and proceed in the matter D. Whyte excepted against that part of the paper wherin was said That the word of God was partly written partly vnwritten and would haue nothing to be the word of God but what is written in Scripture M. Fisher to iustifie that part of the paper first alledged that Text of S. Paul Hold the traditions which you haue learned whether by our Word or Epistle 2. He made these two ensuing arguments to proue that more is to be belieued by diuine Faith then is written in Scripture It is necessarie to belieue by diuine Faith that Genesis Exodus and other particuler Books are Canonicall and diuine Scripture But this to be so is not assuredly knowen by the only Word written Ergo c. Moreouer Protestants hould and belieue this proposition Nothing is to be belieued by Christian Faith but what is contayned in Scripture But this Proposition is not contayned in the word written Ergo. Somthing is belieued euen by Protestants

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

Reports giuen out about them to his priuate disgrace and to the preiudice of the Catholique Cause Neither then did he spread papers abroad but only deliuered a very few Copies to speciall friends and this not with intent to calumniate either the B. or the Doctor or to make the papers common but to enable his friends to answere and countermaund such false Reportes as they had heard or might heare Which being so I do not see how the Chaplaine can free himself from the faults of partiality and Calumny wherof he doth accuse the Iesuite vnles he do by some other proofs better then his owne or his Maisters bare affirmation proue that the Iesuite spread such papers shewing also particulerly wherein he did relate partially to his cause and calumnlously against the B. I say relate in regard I do not at this present promise to examine exactly all doctrines insinuated in the Iesuits Relation and impugned by the Chaplaine as neither hauing sufficient leysure nor commodity of Bookes requisite for such a worke but the Relation to haue bene sincere and true free from partiality more free from calumny I vndertake to defend For which purpose I thinke best to set downe the Iesuits Relation for the most part as I find it in the Chaplains printed Copie in greater letters and in a lesser letter the Chaplains chiefest exceptions and my answere vnto them I think the Iesuite himself for his owne particuler respect could be content to let passe this partiall and calumnious Censure of his Relation suffering it patiently as one of the ordinary persecutions which he and others at this day endure for the Catholique Faith and for that peculiar order of life which he professeth vnder the name of the Society of IESVS comforting himself with the exāple of Christ his Apostles who reioyced that they were thoughts worthy to suffer Contumely for the name of Iesus In this respect I say I suppose the Iesuite himself could be content that nothing were said to the Chaplaines Censure But considering the hurt which may come to the common cause by his vniust disgrace I haue thought it necessary to defend the sincerity and truth of his Relation and some of the chief heads of doctrine conteined in it to the intent that hereby men may be moued better to trust what he hath written heretofore or may write hereafter in defence of the Catholique Faith Church lesse trust his Aduersaries who without iust cause do so much endeauour to calumniate his person or writinges M. Fishers Relation of the Conference betvveene a certaine B. and himselfe THE occasion of this Conference was for that it was obserued that in a second Conferēce with D. VVhite all the speach was about particuler matters little or nothing about a Continuall Infallible Visible Church which was the chief and onely point in which a certaine Lady required satisfaction as hauing formerly setled in her mind that it was not for her or other vnlearned persons to take vpon them to iudge of particulers without depending vpon the Iudgment of the true Church This La. therefore hauing heard it graunted in the first Conference that there must be a continual visible Company euer since Christ teaching vnchanged doctrine in all points Fundamentall that is in all points necessary to Saluation desired to heare this confirmed and proofe brought to shew which was that Continuall Infallible Visible Church in which one may and out of which one cannot attaine Saluation And therefore hauing appointed a time of meeting betwixt a certaine B. and my selfe and thereupon hauing sent for the B and me before the B. came the La. a friend of hers came first to the roome where I was debated before me the aforesaid Question and not doubting of the first part to wit That there must be a Continuall Visible Church as they had heard grāted by D. VVhite L. K. c. The Question was which was that Church The La. friend would needs defend that not only the Romane but also the Greeke Church was right I told him that the Greeke Church had plainely changed and taught false in a point of doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and that I had heard say that euen his Maiesty should say The Greeke Church hauing erred against the Holy Ghost had lost the Holy Ghost The La. friend not knowing what to answere called in the Bishop who sitting downe first excused himself as one vnprouided and not much studied in Controuersies and desiring that in case he should faile yet the Protestant Cause might not be thought ill of it hauing a hundred better Schollers to maintaine it then he To which I said there were a thousand better schollers then I to maintaine the Catholique cause Then the Question about the Greek Church being proposed I said as before that it had erred The B. said that the errour was not in a point Fundamentall Wherupon I was forced to repeate what I had formerly brought against D. VVhyte concerning points fundamentall first reading the sentence of S. Augustine Ferēdus est disputator errans c. Out of which is proued that all pointes defined by the Church are fundamētall Secondly I required to knowe what points the Bishop woulde account fundamētall He said All the points in the Creed were such I asked how then it happened that M. Rogers sayth that the English Church is not yet resolued what is the right sense of the Article of Christ his descending into Hell The B. sayd that M. Rogers was but a priuate man But said I if M. Rogers writing as he did by publique authority be accounted onely a priuate man in what Booke may we find the Protestāts publique Doctrine The B. answered That to the Booke of Articles they were all sworne and the Scriptures only not any vnwrittē Tradition was the foundation of their Fayth I asked how he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particuler Genesis Exodus c. These are belieued to be Scripture yet not proued out of any place of Scripture The B. said That the Bookes of Scripture are principles to be supposed and needed not to be proued Against this I read what I had formerly written in my Reply to M. Iohn White wherin I plainly in shewed that this Answere were was not good and that no other Answere could be made but by admitting some Word of God vnwritten to assure vs of this point From this the La. called vs desiring to heare whether the B. would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church The B. graunted That it was Further he granted that Protestants made a Rent or Diuision from it Moreouer he said he would ingenuously acknowledge that Corruption of māners was not a sufficient Cause to iustifie their departing from it But said he besides Corruption of manners there were Errours in doctrine which whē the Generall Church would

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