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
not reforme it was lawfull for particuler churches to reforme themselues I asked Quo Iudice did this appeare to be so Which question I asked as not thinking it equity that Protestants in their owne Cause should be Accuers Witnesses and Iudges of the Romane Church I also asked Who ought to iudge in this case The B. sayd A Generall Councell I told him that a Generall Councell to wit of Trent had already iudged not the Roman Church but the Protestant to hold Errour That said the B. was not a lawfull Councell So sayd I would the Arrians say of the CouÌ„cell of Nice The B would not admit the case to be like pretending that the Pope made Bishops of purpose for his side but this the B. proued not In fine The B. wished that a lawfull Generall Councell were called to end Controuersies The persons present said The King was enclined therunto and therefore we Catholiques might do well to concurre I asked the B. whether he thought a Generall Councell might erre He said it might If a Generall Councell may erre what neerer are we then sayd I to Vnity after a Councell hath determined yes said he although it may erre yet we shall be bound to hold it till another come to reuerse it After this we all rising The La. asked the B. whether she might be saued in the Roman Fayth he answered Shee might I bad her mark that She sayd the B. may be better saued in it then you D. White said I hath secured me that none of our errours are damnable so long as we hold them not against our CoÌ„science and I hold none against my CoÌ„science The Lady asked Whether she might be saued in the Protestant Fayth Vpon my soule said the B. you may Vpon my my Soule sayd I There is but one sauing Fayth and that is the Roman Vpon this and the precedent Conference the Lady rested fully satisfied in her Iudgment as she tould a friend of the truth of the Roman Churches Fayth Yet vpon frailty feare to offend the King she yielded to goe to Church for which she was after very sorie as some of her friends can testifie I beseech sweet Iesus to giue grace to euery one that offendeth in this sort to see repent and get pardon of their faults past and light of true Fayth in tyme to come for obtayning whereof they had need to pray to God for it and with a great desire to seeke after it and with humility to submit their will and Iudgment to those whom God hath appointed to teach it To wit such Doctours and Pastours as by a visible continuall succession haue without change brought it from christ and his Apostles euen vntill these our dayes and shall by a like succession carry it along euen vntill the end of world The which succession not being found in any other church differing in doctrine from the RomaÌ„ Church I wish the Chaplain his Lord and euery other man carefully to consider whether it be not more Christian and lesse brainsick to thinke that the Pope being S. Peters successour with a Generall Councell should be Iudg of Controuersies that the Pastorall Iudgment of him vpon whom as vpon a firme rock Christ did build his Church and for whose Fayth Christ prayed enioyning him to confirme his brethren and to whose care and gouernent Christ committed his whole flock of lambes and sheep should be accounted Infallible rather then to make euery man that can read Scripture Interpreter of Scriptures Decider of Controuersies Controller of Generall Councels and Iudge of his Iudges Or to haue no Iudge of Controuersies of Fayth to permit euery man to belieue as he list as if there were no Infallible certainty of Fayth to be expected on earth The which were to induce insteed of One sauing Fayth a Babylonicall Confusion of so many Fayths as phantasies or no true christian Fayth at all From which euills sweet IESVS deliuer vs. Amen FINIS 2. Pet. 1. Ibid. Ibid. L. K. Ephes. 4. Heb. 11. Matth. 28. Ioan. 16. Luc. 10. 1. Tim. 2. Ephes. 4. Ioan. 14. 16. Rogers in his doctrine of the Church of England Art 3. Matth. 21. Aug. de verb. apost Ser. 14. Caluin l. Ep. epist. 141. Bern. serm 5. de resurrect Matt. 1â— Act. 5. 41. a To wit absolutly to rely vpoÌ„ their priuate iudgment so as to aduenture Saluation vpoÌ„ it alone or chiefly b The Chaplaine noting the word Infallible to be sometimes put in somtimes left out taxeth M. Fisher of speaking distractedly But I note herein that M. Fisher spake most aduisedly and with precise care of puÌ„ctuall Truth for when he speaketh of what was obserued or desired by the La. he putteth in the word Infallible because he knew it was an infallible Church which she sought to rely vpon But when he speaketh of what D. Whyte or L. K. graunted he leaueth it out because they did not mention the word Infallible but onely granted a visible Church in all ages teaching vnchanged doctrine in all matters necessary to Saluation c The Chaplaine taxeth the Iesuite as if in this parcell he did insult and saith it was the B. his modesty to vse this excuse and to say there were a hundred schollars better then he But I do not see any Insultation but a simple true narration of what was sayd Neyther do I see lesse modesty in the Iesuits preferring a thousand before himself then in the B. his preferring a hundred before himself d The Chaplaine telleth that the Iesuite sayd that what the B. would not acknowledge in this he would wring extort from him But these words of wringing extorting the Iesuite neuer vseth eueÌ„ to his meanest Aduersaries therfore not likely to haue vsed theÌ„ to the B. but at most that he would euince by argument or such like e The Chaplaine faith the B. was not so peremptory his speach was that diuers learned men some of your owne are of opinion as the Greeks expressed themselues it was a question not simply fundamentall But the Iesuite cannot remeÌ„ber the B. to haue said these words yet if he did the Iesuite did not much misse of the chiefe point of the B. his meaning which was by the distinction of Faith fundamentall and not fundamentall to defend the error of the Graecians not to be such although held against the knowen definitiue sentence of the Church as doth hinder saluation or exclude them from being members of the true Church About which see more hereafter f The Chaplains corrupt Copie hath righting instâ—ed of reading the sentence of S. Austen The whole sentence is set downe by the Chaplaine thus This is a thing founded An erring Disputer is to be borne with all in other questions not diligently digested not yet made firme by full auauthority of the Church there errour is to be borne with But it ought
by obiecting falsly-supposed Vntruthes Contradictions c. more is to be sayd in another place and therfore not being willing to hold thee Gentle Reader any longer from the consideration of the first Occasion of all this busines I commit thee to the Protection of Almighty God Thy hearty Wellwisher and seruant in Christ. W. I. THE TABLE Of the principall Contents and Chapters of the ensuing Relations THE Occasion of a certaine Conference had betweene D. Francis White and M. Iohn Fisher. pag. 1. A Relation of what passed betweene D. Whyte and M. Fisher about a certaine Paper giuen by the sayd M. Fisher to an Honourable Lady wherein was proued the Catholique Roman Church and Fayth to be the right pag. 13. A Relation of the Conference betweene a certaine Bishop and M. Fisher defended against the sayd B. his Chaplaine pag. 37. 41. An Answere to a Pamphlet intituled The Fisher catched in his owne Net In which is shewed that the Protestant Church was not so visible in all Ages as the true Church ought to be and consequently is not the true church of which men may learne Infallible Fayth necessary to Saluation CHAP. 1. About the first occasion of the Conference in which is shewed that M. Fisher did not seeke it nor prouoke his Aduersaries by any challenge vnto it nor did intend to haue it so publicke as by his Aduersaries fault it proued pag. 1. A Copy of the first Paper which M. Fisher wrote and deliuered to an old Gentleman before the meeting pag. 7. A copy of the second Paper writen by M. Fisher before the sayd meeting pag. 10. CHAP. II. About that which passed in the conference it selfe pag. 12. CHAP. III. Of the issue of the conference pag. 43. CHAP. IIII. conteyning a Reuiew and Reflexion vpon the Premisses Togeather with diuers Obseruations coÌ„cerning the Occasion Meaning Methode Manner of proceeding in the forsayd conference pag. 46. seqq An Appendix vnto the former Answere refuting diuers Vntruthes obiected by D. Whyte and D. Featly against M. Fishers Relations writings pag. 73. A Reply to D. Whyte and D. Featly who haue vndertaken to shew a visible ProtestaÌ„t Church in all Ages by naming prouing defending visible ProtestaÌ„ts in all Ages out of good Authors The first Part. In which is shewed that neyther they nor any other haue performed this vndertaken Taske in such methode and manner as M. Fishers Question proposed vnto the sayd Doctours in a former Conference required And much lesse haue they or can they or any other shew such a visible Protestant Church in all Ages and Nations as Christs true Church is in the Prophesies and Promises of holy Scripture described Whence it followeth that the Protestant Church is not the true Church of Christ. pag. 1. CHAP. I. About the vtility of M. Fishers Question requiring Names of visible Protestants in all Ages out of good Authours for finding out the true Church and by it the true Fayth pag. 9. CHAP. II. In which M. Fishers Question is explicated and D. Whytes and D. Featly Answere giuen in the Conference is shewed to haue byn very deficient pag. 13. CHAP. III. In which is shewed how many Ministers after the Conference aforesayd haue endeauoured to make Answere And that none haue sufficiently answered M. Fishers Question pag. 17. CHAP. IIII. About M. Bernards Answere intituled Looke beyond Luther pag. 19. CHAP. V. Concerning M. Rogers his Answere to M. Fishers fiue Propositions pag. 22. A true Copy of M. Fishers fiue propositions aforesaid pag. 24. CHAP. VI. Concerning W. C. his idle Dialogue pag. 36. An Argument prouing that he that denyeth the Authority of the Church in any one point taketh away infallible Certainty pag. 39. CHAP. VII About a certaine Treatise of the Visibility of the true Church pag. 51. CHAP. VIII About a Booke intituled Luthers Predecessours set forth by a Namelesse Author pag. 61. CHAP. IX Concernining D. Whytes Answere pag. 65. CHAP. X. A Reply to D. Featly his Answere to M. Fishers Question pag. 71. Certaine shifts and Tergiuersations vsed by D. Featly pag. 79. CHAP. XI About D. Vshers Sermon preached before his Maiesty â—0 of Iune 1624. pag. 123. CHAP. XII Contayning a Confutation of the Pamphlet called The Protestant Kalendar pag. 136. The second Part of the Reply to D. Whyte and D. Featly In which is shewed that the Catholique Roman Church can name proue defend visible Professours of her Fayth in all Ages And that she only and such as agree in Fayth with her is the True visible Catholique Church out of which there is no saluation pag. 143. CHAP. I. In which is shewed that the Roman Church hath had visible Professours whose Names may be shewed in all Ages pag. 145. CHAP. II. In which is shewed that out of the Catholique Roman Church there is no saluation pag. 152. A Discourse wherin is demoÌ„strated by Reasons drawne out of Scriptures ancient Fathers that out of the Vnity of the Roman Church there is no Saluation pag. 153. The first Argument therof pag. 157. The second Argument pag. 158. Faultes escaped in the printing In the Relations of the Conferences Page Line Fault Correction 24 31 whome when dele whome 26 5 be true to be true 33 7 being a diuine coÌ„ming froÌ„ a diuine Ibid 11 this definition so this definition 44 24 of fayth of points of fayth 45 23 to be firme be firme 49 4 it not is not 51 1 2 so rudely formerly Ibid. 13 knowne foreknowne 56 15 for contra for if contra Ibid. 18 What then Is it What then is it 57 2 to Rome to come 61 14 do iustify do not like 64 vlt. argument against 66 15 out opposite but opposite 70 12 vnion vnanime In the Answere to the Fisher catched c. 4 17 questions question 8 vlt. solloweth followeth 16 12 repotteth reporteth 23 11 sense Wherof sense wherof 39 18 defired desired 59 16 heahen heathen 60 28 with which 67 26 pre-present present 71 6 Prostant Protestant In the Reply to D. Whyte and D. Featly 1 17 offeringes ofspringes 4 18 pages ages 6 6 denyed not confessed not 8 11 different deficient 11 5 pretended produced 14 31 or defend and defend 15 8 The Proofes Moreouer the Proofes 21 18 first fifth 28 4 is of are of 32 12 of the argument against the argument Ibid. 31 possessours professours 33 2 the M. the same M. 36 7 pretenteth pretendeth 41 21 to mooue doth mooue 45 22 especially obstinatly dele vlt. parenthesim and read especially obstinately against the knowne fayth of the Church any one c. 68 26 precept of positiue c. read positiue and negatiue precept of profession c. 69 18 infer answere 74 20 Maior Minor 84 vlt. to be good not to be good 96 9 do not denominate read do not as the Name Protestant doth denominate c. 67 vlt. euery piously disposed read euery intelligent and piously disposed c. 108 21 points to take
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
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
related only he sayd 1. That himselfe did not remember a point or two which both M. Fisher and M. B. did perfectly remember to haue bene so as is here related 2. He sayd that something more was sayd then is related which M. Fisher did not deny but was willing to add any thing that D. Whyte could put him in mind of or that himselfe should after remember and so being put in remembrance made by D. Whyte to wit Whereas M. Fisher vpon some occasion or other had sayd That although a generall Councell might erre in the premisses yet not in the Conclusion D. Whyte obiected saying That in all scieÌ„ces the conclusioÌ„ is no more certayne theÌ„ the Premisses therfore if the premisses in a general councell be fallible the conclusion cannot be infallible To which M. Fisher answered saying Although in sciences which depend only vpon the light of Nature the conclusion cannot be more certaine then the premisses yet in a generall councell assisted by the holy Ghost in the finall conclusion or definitiue sentence the conclusion is alwayes infallible although sometimes the premisses be fallible And M. Fisher had great reason to answere in this manner Indeed if to define a matter of Fayth were to conclude the same by way of discourse out of Principles as the Argument doth suppose then if Councels might erre in the Promisses they might likewise erre in their Conclusion and dâ—finitiue sentence But this supposition is false Infallibility in defining being a diuine Assistance not to inferre one thing out of another by way of connexion and consequence but to decree and declare what is conform 〈…〉 to the word of God by way of authority binding the Church so to believe And this definition is euer infallible though all the arguments the Councell bringes by way of discourse in proofe of the definition eyther before or after the same is made be not still demonstratiue Another obiection M. Fisher hath since that time remembred to wit that D. White alleaged something out of Abulensis in Matt. 7. 19. which M. Fisher differred to make answere vnto vntil he might see the Author himself hauing had experience inough how falsely many Ministers the Authors and how false their Note-Bookes be Now M. Fisher hath seene the booke and findeth the words cited by D. White to contayne two parts one as contrary to D. White as the other seemeth contrary to M. Fisher that the whole discourse of Abulensis in that place sheweth that euen that part which seemeth contrary to M. Fisher doth nothing preudice M. Fishers cause as will appeare to any that will duly ponder all that is there sayd of the Authority of the Church in defining what bookes be and what be not Canonicall For Abulensis expressly declareth that all and only those bookes are to be accounted Canonicall which the church doth define to be canonicall and the reason why he did in his priuate opinion thinke one or two Bookes not to be canonicall which we do now hold for canonicall is for that the Church had not then so cleerely defined them to be Canonicall as it hath done since A 〈…〉 sts wrot that passage as there are diuers other Bookes held for Canonicall euen by Protestants which haue not beene so esteemed by some of the Ancient Fathers in regard the church had not then so clearely defined them to be canonicall as is hath done in after times A third obiection was made by D. White about the worship of Images which D. White would needs affirme to be an Innouation and grossâ— Error of Papists Which M. Fisher denied and sayd that the worship meaning the same worship which is due to the Prototypon is not giuen by vs to the Image it selfe This obiection D. White vrged no further the first day but the next day of meeting he vrged those words of Bellarmine Datur veneratio ipsi imagini M. Fisher anwered that Bellarmine did not meane that the same worship which was due to the Prototypon was giuen to the Image it selfe but an inferior degree of worship and that also for the Prototypons sake Then D. White betooke himselfe to Suares saying That Suares did hold that the same worship which was giuen to the Prototypon was giuen to the Image M. Fisher answering sayd You do not vnderstand our Authors For sayd M. Fisher they that seeme to giue most giue the least to Images for those that say that one and the same worship is giuen to the Image and that which is represented by it hold the Image to be incapable of any part of worship and so the whole to pertayne to the thing Wheras others who distinguish one honour to be due to the thing and another farre inferior to be giuen to the Image giue something as M. Fisher explicated in the example of the respect one beareth to the picture of his friend which although it be not capable of that friendly respect and affection which by looking vpon it he exciteth in himselfe towards his friend represented by it yet is it capable of an inferiour degree of respect as to be set in a more worthy and eminent place c. then it should be if it were the picture of some other who were not ones friend These be the chiefe Passages of this Conference between D. White and M. Fisher so far as hath come to my notice who haue vsed so much diligence in inquiring the truth of this matter as I haue no doubt but for substance I haue not omitted any thing that may much import considering what the occasion and subiect of the Conference was to wit that Paper written by M. Fisher in which he proued the Roman Church and those who agree in Fayth with it to be that Company of whome euery one must learne what is the truth in all points and questions of Fayth necessary to saluation which paper not being substantially confuted as it was not by any thing sayd by D. White or any other at that time or after D. Whyte is yet obliged to make a better answere if he meane to giue satisfaction either to Catholiques or Protestants in this most important point of a perpetually visible church of which all forts must learne true diuine infallible Faith necessary to Saluation FINIS A RELATION OF THE Conference between a certain B. M. Fisher defended against the said B. his Chaplayne The Preface GENTLE Reader I think it needful to let thee vnderstand that whereas the Chaplaine of a certayne B. sayth in the Preface of his Answere to a Relation of what passed betweene the said B. and M. Fisher That the Iesuite spread abroad papers of this Conference which were full of partiality to his cause more full of calumney against the B. the truth is that the Iesuite did not at all so much as in speach much lesse in papers publish this or either of the other two Conferences which he had with D. White vntill he was forced vnto it by false
not to goe so far that it should labour to shake the foundation it selfe of the Church S. August Ser. 14. de verbis Apost cap. 12. g Out of this place we may gather that all points defined are fundamental All points defined are as S. Austen speaketh made firme by full authority of the Church But all points made firme by full authority of the Church are fundamentall in such sense as the Iesuite taketh the word fundamentall that is in S. Austens language such as cannot be denyed or doubtfully disputed against without shaking the foundation of the Church For denying or doubtfully disputing against any one why not against another another and so against all sith all are made firme to vs by one and the same diuine reuelation sufficiently applyed by one and the same full authority of the Church which being weakened in any one cannot be to firme in any other h By the word Fundamentall is vnderstood not only those Primae Credibilia or prime Principles which do not depend vpon any former grounds for then all the Articles of the Creed were not as both the B. and D. White say they are fundamentall points but all which do so pertaine to supernaturall diuine infallible Christian faith by which Faith Christ the only prime foundation of the Church doth dwell in our hearts 1. Cor. 3. 11. which Fayth is to the Church the substance basis and foundation of all good things which are to be hoped for Heb. 11. as that they being once confirmed or made firme by full authority of the Church if they are wittingly willingly and especially obstinately denyed or questioned al the whole frame and in a sort the foundation it self of all supernaturall diuine Christian Faith is shaken i The Chaplaine granteth that there are quaedam prima Credibilia or some prime Principles in the bosome whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded vp So as euery point of the Creed is not a prime Foundation and therefore the B. himself did not vnderstaÌ„d the word fundamentall so strictly as if that which in one respect is a foundation may not in another respect to wit as included in and depending vpoÌ„ a more prime Principle be accouÌ„ted a superstructure k If the B. meane that Onely those points are fundamentall which are expressed in the Creed of the Apostles I meruayle how he can afterwards account Scriptures wherof no expresse mention is made in the Creed to be the foundation of their Faith But if he meane that not only those are fundamentall which are expressed but also all that is infolded in the Articles of the Creed Then not Scriptures onely but some at least of Church Traditions vnwritten may be accounted fundamentall to wit all those that are inwrapped in these two Articles I belieue in the holy Ghost The holy Catholique Church as all those are which being first reuealed by the holy Ghost vnto the Apostles haue byn by successiue Tradition of the Church assisted by the same holy Ghost deliuered vnto vs one of which is That the Bookes of Scriptures themselues be diuine and infallible in euery part which is a foundation so necessary as if it be doubtfully questioned all the Faith built vpon Scripture falleth to the ground And therefore I meruayle how the B. can say as he doth afterwards in the Relation That Scriptures Onely and not any vnwritten Tradition was the foundation of their Faith l The reason why the Iesuite did specially vrge M. Rogers booke was for that it was both set out by publique authority and beareth the Title of the Catholique doctrine of the Church of England Our priuate Authors are not allowed for ought I know in such a like sort to take vpon them to expresse our Cath. doctrine in any matter subiect to question m By Protestants publick doctrine in this place the Iesuite meant as he vnderstood the B. to meane onely of English Protestants for the words going before making mention only of the English Church do limit the generall word Protestants to this limited sense n This Answer hath reference to that sense which the question had of Onely English Protestantes and not of all English Protestants out of such as the B. and others are who by office are teachers of Protestant doctrine who do either sweare to the booke of Articles or by subscribing oblige themselues to teach that and no contrary doctrine But if the Chaplain to discredit the Relation will needs inforce a larger extent of the sense contrary to the meaning of him that made the answere and him that asked the Question who vnderstood one another in that sense which I haue declared he must know that although none do sweare or subscribe besides the English clergy to the Book of Articles yet all who wil be accounted members of or to haue communion with one and the same English Protestant church are bound eyther to hold all those Articles or at least not to hold contrary to any one of them in regard the English Protestant church doth exclude euery one from their church by Excommunication ipso facto as appeareth in their book of Canons Can. 5. Who shall hold any thing contrary to any part of the said Articles So as in this respect I do not see why any one who pretendeth to be of one and the same Protestant communion with the church of England can be sayd not to be obliged to hold one and the same doctrine which is in the book of Articles not onely as the chaplaine sayth in chiefest doctrines which like a cheuerell point may be enlarged to more by those who agree in more and straitned to fewer by those who agree in fewer points but absolutly in all points and not to hold contrary to any one or any the least part of any one of them Such a shrew as it seemes is the church of England become no lesse then the chaplaine saith the church of Rome to haue bene in denying her blessing and denouncing Anathema against all that dissent although most peaceably in some particulers remote inough from the foundation in the Iudgment of the purer sort both of forraine and home-bred Protestants o The Chaplaine saith The Church of England grounded her positiue Articles vpon Scripture c. True if themselues in their owne cause may be admitted for competent Iudges in which sort some other Nouellist will say that he groundeth his positiue Articles vpon scriptures and his Negatiue refuse not only our Catholique but also Protestant doctrines As for example Baptizing of Infants vpon this Negatiue ground it not expressely at least euidently affirmed in Scriptures nor directly at least not demonstratiuely concluded out of it In which case I would gladly know what the Chaplaine would answere to defend this doctrine to be a point of Faith necessary for the saluation of poore Infants necessitate medij as all Catholique Deuines hold I answere with S. Austen Aug. l. 1. contra Cresc c. 31. Scripturarum Ã
authority of men assisted by Gods spirit approued to be true copies of that which was first written by the Holy Ghosts Pen-men before we can giue infallible credit vnto them I see no reason why the like twofold consideration of the Tradition of the present church may not be admitted especially when as the promise of Christ and his holy Spirits continuall presence and assistance Luc. 10. 16. Math. 28. 19. 20. Ioan. 14. 16. was made no lesse but rather more expressly to the Apostles and their successours the lawfully-sent Pastours and Doctours of the Church in all ages in their teaching by word of mouth then in writing or reading or printing or approuing copies of what was formerly written by the Apostles Perhaps the Chaplaine will aske mee how I know that any church or company of men of this age or any age since the Apostles haue promise of christ and his holy spirits assistance I answer that I know it both by Tradition and Scripture considered in the twofold manner aforesaid both which without any vitious circle mutually confirme the authority of ech other as a Kings Embassadors word of mouth and his Kings letter beare mutuall witnesse of ech other And I do not want other both outward and inward arguments or motiues of Credibility which are sufficient not only to confirme the Fayth of belieuers but also to perswade well disposed Infidells that both the one and the other were sent from God and that one is the infallible word of God speaking in and by his Legats the lawfully-sent preachers of the Church The other the infallible word of God speaking in and by his letters the holy scriptures which he hath appointed his said legats to deliuer and expound vnto vs and which among other things do warrant that we may heare and giue credit to these Legats of Christ as to Christ the King himself r The Chaplain saith As it is true that this question was asked 〈◊〉 it is false that it was asked in this forme or so answered I answer that the Iesuite doth not say that the La. asked this question in this or any other precise forme of words but onely saith she was desirous to heare whether the B. would graunt the Roman Church to be the Right Church which to haue ben her desiâ—e the Iesuit is sure as hauing particulerly spoken with her before and wished her to insist vpon this point Secondly he is sure that she did not propound the question in that precise forme insinuated by the Chaplayne vz. whether the Romane Church be a true Church as if she meant to be satisfied with hearing the B. say that the Rom. church is a true church and the Greek church another and the Protestant another This I say could not be her Question for that she was persuaded that all these were not true and right and that there was but One Holy Catholique church and her desire was to heare whether the B. would graunt the Rom. church not only that which is in the Citty or Diocesse of Rome but all that agreed with it to be it Thirdly what precise forme of words the La. did vse the Iesuite did not remember perfectly and therefore did not aduenture to set downe but by the B. his Answer which he perfectly remenbred so set downe in these words It was he thinketh that her question was whether the Roman church was not the right church vz. once or in tyme past before Luther and others made a breach from it To which question so vttered or so vnderstood as it seemes by the Answere and the ensuing discourse made by the B. it was vnderstood the B. might truely certainly did answere as is related to wit not It is but It was vz. once or in tyme past the right Church for so the Chaplaine doth heere confesse pag. 37. The time was c. that you and we were all of one belief Out of which answere it may be the B. suspected that the La. would inferre If once it were the right what hindereth it now to be sith it did not depart from the Protestant Church but the Protest Church departed from it And therefore as in the Text he was willing to graunt that the Protestants made a Rent or diuision from it c. s The Chaplaine hauing told vs that the B. could be hartily angry saith The B. neuer said nor thought that Protestants made this rent The cause of the schisme is yours c. I answere that the Iesuite is sure that whatsoeuer the B. thought which may be was as the Chaplain now expresseth to wit that we had giuen cause to the Protestants to do as they did yet he did say either ijsdem or aequipollentibus verbis iust as is in the Relation For the Iesuite did in fresh memory take speciall notice of this passage in regard it concerned a most important point which being vrged by him in the first Conference against D. White in these words Why did you make a schisme from vs Why doe you persecute vs the Doctour slipped ouer that of the schisme without denying it to haue ben made by them or laying the cause to vs and only answered to the other saying We do not persecute you for Religion The Iesuite therefore say did as he had reason take speciall notice in fresh memory and is sure he related at least in sense iust as was vttered by the B. And I aske the Chaplain what reason the B. had to discourse so long as he did endeauoring to shew what reason Protestants had to make that rent or diuision or if he like not these words that discession to vse Caluins phrase or departure not only from the church of Rome but also as Caluis lib. Epist. ep 141. confesseth à toto mundo from the whole world if he had not as the Iesuite related confessed that Protestants being once members of the Roman Church separated themselues from it as the world knowes they did when they got the name of Protestants for protesting against it Now for the Chaplains ascribing the Cause of the schisme to vs in that by excommunication we thrust them from vs he must remember that befoâ—e this they had diuided themselues by obstinate holding and teaching opinions contrary to the Roman Fayth and practise of the Church which in S. Bernards iudgment serm de resur is most great pride Quae maior superbia c. What greater pride then that one man Luther for example should prefer his Iudgment not only before a thousand Austens and Cyprians and King Harry-Churches but before the whole Congregation of all christian churches in the world which in S. Austen his Iudgment is most insolent madnes for contra id disputare c. to dispute against that which the vniuersall church doth practise is saith S. Austen most insolent madnes What then Is it not onely by way of doubtfull disputation but by solemne and publick protestation to condemne the generall practise of the church
as superstitious and the doctrine as erroneous in Fayth yea as hereticall and euen Antichristian All this considered the B. hath no cause to be hartily angry either with the Iesuite for relating or with himself for granting Protestants to haue made a rent or diuision from the Rom. church but might with a safe conscience yet further grant as one did was it not He to an Honorable person That it was ill done of those who did first make the sâ—paration Which is most true both in regard there can be no iust cause to make a schisme and diusion from the whole Church for the whole Church cannot vniuersally erre in doctrine of Fayth and other iust cause there is none and also for that those who first made the separation Luther and his Associates gaue the first cause in manner aforesayd to the Rom. church to excommunicate them as by our Sauiours warrant she might when they would not heare the church which did both at first seeke to recall them from their nouelâ— opinions and after their breach did permit yea inuite them publikely with safe conduct to Rome to a Generall Councell and freely to speake what they could for themselues And I make no doubt so farre is the Rom. Church from being cause of continuance of the schismes or hinderance of Re-union that it would yet if any hope may be giuen that Protestantes will sincerely seeke nothing but truth and peace giue them a free hearing with most ampie safe conduct which is more then euer we English catholiques could obtayne although we haue made offers diuers times to come to publique Dispute first in Queene Elizabeth her dayes and also in his Maiesties that now is only requiring the Princes word for our safeâ—y and equality of Conditions of the dispute Vnto which offer our Aduersaries neuer did nor euer will giue good Answere As one saith Honestum responsum nullum dabunt praeter vnum quod numquam dabunt Regina Rex spondet Aduola Camp inrat Acad. red t This question the Iesuite made chiefly against that part of the B. his last speach in which he said There were errours in doctrine for if the B. meant as the Iesuite vnderstood him to meane that there were errours of doctrine of Fayth in the Generall Church neuer did any lawfull competent Iudge so censure neither can it so be No power in Earth or Hell it self can so far preuayle against the Generall Church of Christ built vpon a Rock as to make it or the pastours thereof erre generally in any one point of diuine truth Christs promises stand Matth 16. 28. Luc. 22. Ioan. 14. 16. and will neuer permit this no not in Antichrists dayes Particuler Pastors and Churches may fall into Heresy or Apostasy but the whole Church cannot It may sometyme not expresly teach or know all diuine truthes which afterwards it may learne by study of Scriptures and otherwayes but it neuer did nor can vniuersally by its full authority teach any thing to be diuine truth which is not and much lesse any thing to be a matter of Fayth which is contrary to diuine truth either expressed or inuolued in Scriptures rightly vnderstood So as no reformation of Fayth can be needfull in the Generall Church but only in particuler Churches in which case also when the need is onely questionable particuler Pastours or Churches must not take vpon them to iudge and condemne others of errour in Fayth but as S. Irenaus intimateth must haue recourse to that Church which hath more powerfull Principality the Church of Rome and to her Bishop being Cheife Pastour of the whole Church as being Successour to S. Peter To whom Christ promised the Keyes Math. 16. For whom Christ prayed that his Fayth might not faile Luc. 22. and whom he charged to confirme his brethren and to feed and gouerne the whole flock lambes and sheep loan 21. people and Pastours subiects and superiours which he shall neuer refuse to do in such sort as that this neglect shall be a iust Cause for any particuler man or Church to make a schisime or separation of himself and others from the whole Generall Church vnder pretence of Reformation either of manners or of Fayth Protestants therefore did ill in first deuiding themselues from the Generall Church and do still ill in continuing deuided from it Neither can those Protestants be excused from intolerable pride insolent madnes who presume to be Accusers Witnesses Iudges Executioners of the sentence pronounced by themselues against the Church in Generall and against the principall and Mother Church and the B. of Rome which is and ought to be their Iudge in this case For although it be against equity that Subiects and Children should be accusers witnesses iudges and executioners against their Prince and Mother in any case yet it is not absurd that in some case the Prince or Mother may accuse witnesse iudge and if need be execute Iustice against vniust or rebellious subeuects or euill children u It is true when the Question is about the Generall Fayth of the church the matter may be made most firme if the church in a Generall CouÌ„cell with the full authority of her cheif Pastour and all other Pastours whome all people must obey Rom. 13. Hebr. 13. decree what is to be held for diuine truth by Visum est spiritui sancto nobis Act. 15. and by adding Anathema to such as resist this Truth For if this be not firme and infallible what can be so firme and well founded in the church which vnder pretext of seeming euideÌ„t Scripture or demonstration may not be shaken and called in question by an erring disputer For if all Pastours being gathered togeather in the name of christ praying vnanimiter for the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost making great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures and other grounds of Fayth and hearing ech Pastour declare what hath been the ancient Tradition of his church shall in fine conclude and decree in manner aforesaid what is to be held for diuine truth If I say the Councell in this decree may erre and may be controlled by euery particuler or any particuler vnlearned or learned man or church pretending euident text of Scripture or cleere demonstration supple Teste Iudice seipsis what can remaine firme or certaine vpon Earth which may not by a like pretence be coÌ„trolled or at least by one or other called in question A Generall councell therefore being lawfully called continued and confirmed is doubtles a most competent iudge of all controuersies of Fayth But what is to be done when a Generall councell cannot be called as many times it cannot by reason of manifold impedimeÌ„ts or if being called all will not be of one mind As among Protestants and others who admit no Infallible meanes rule or iudge beside Onely Scripture which ech man will interprete as seemeth best to his seuerall priuate Iudgment or spirit it is scarse to
formall reason in all and applyed sufficiently by the same meanes to all would easily belieue all But so long as they do not belieue all in this sort but will as all Heretiques do make choyse of what they will and what they will not belieue without relying vpoÌ„ the Infallible authority of the Cath. Church they cannot haue that One Soule-sauing Fayth which all good Catholique Christians haue in any one article of Fayth For although they belieue the same truth which other good Catholiques do in some Articles yet not belieuing them for the same formall reason of diuine reuelation sufficiently applyed by Infallible Church-authority but either for some other formall reason or at least not for this reason sufficiently applyed they cannot be sayd to haue one and the same Infallible diuine Fayth which other good catholique christians haue who do belieue those Articles not for any other formall reason beside the diuine reuelation applyed sufficiently and made knowne to them not by their owne fancie or the fallible authority of humaine deductions but by the infallible authority of the church of God that is of men infallibly assisted by the Spirit of God as all lawfully called continued and confirmed Generall councells are assisted Whence I gather that although euery thing defined to be a diuine truth in Generall councells is not absolutly necessary to be expresly knowne and actually belieued as some other truthes are by all sorts yet no man may after knowledge that they are thus defined doubt deliberatly and much lesse obstinatly deny the truth of any thing so defined For euery such doubt and denyall is a breach from that one sauing Fayth which other good christians haue in regard it taketh away infallible credit from the church and so the diuine reuelation being not by it sufficiently applyed it cannot according to the ordinary course of Gods prouidence breed infallible belief in vs for as S. Paul Rom. 10. saith How shall they belieue vnles they heare how shall they heare without a Preacher how shall they preach to wit infallibly vnles they be sent to wit from God and infallibly assisted by his spirit And if a whole Generall councell defining what is diuine truth be not belieued to be sent and assisted by gods spirit and consequently of Infallible credit what man in the world can be said to be of infallible credit or if such a Councell lawfully called continued and confirmed may erre in defining any one diuine truth how can we be Infallibly certaine of any other truth defined by it for if it may erre in one why not in another and another and so in all or how can we according to the ordinary course be infallibly assured that it erreth in one and not in another when it equally by one and the same authority defineth both to be diuine truthes for if we leaue this to be examined by any priuate man this examination not being infallible had need to be examined by another and this by another without end or euer coming to infallible Certainty necessarily required in that One Fayth which is necessary to saluation and to that peace and Vnity which ought to be in the Church It is not therefore as the Chaplain would perswade the fault of councells definitions but the pride of such as will preferr and not submit their priuate Iudgments that lost continueth the losse of peace and vnity of the Church and the want of certainty in that one aforesaid soule-sauing Fayth the which how far it doth extend is indeed as the Chaplain pag. 73. confesseth no work for his penne but is to be learned of that one Holy Catholique Apostolique alwayes Visible and Infallible Roman Church of which the La. once doubting resteth now fully satisfied that in it she may learne all truth necessary to saluation and that out of it there is no ordinary meanes sufficient to teach her the right way of saluation And therefore the Iesuit might well say as he did in the Relation that the La. was by this a former conference satisfied of the truth of Roman Religion g The Chaplain vpon this last clause saith that he is sure she wil be better able to answer for her coming to church theÌ„ for her leauing the church of England following the superstitions and Errours of the Church of Rome But he neither proueth nor can proue that it is lawfull for one perswaded especially as the Lady is to goe to the Protestant Church which were to halt on both sides to serue two Maisters to dissemble with God and the world to professe outwardly a Religion in conscience knowne to be false neyther doth he or can he proue any superstition or errour to be in Romane Religion but by presuming with intolerable pride to make himself or some of his fellowes iudge of Controuersies and by taking authority to censure all to be superstition and errour which suteth not with his fancy although it be generally held or practised by the vniuersall church which in S. Augustins Iudgment is most insolent madnes Ephes. 4. 11. Matt. 16. 1â— Luc. â—2 3◠〈◊〉 â—0 18.