Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	believe_v	faith_n	tradition_n	5,923	5	9.2715	5	true

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

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

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

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

nobis tenetur veritas cùm id facimus quòd vniuersae placet Ecclesiae quam earundem scripturerum commend at authoritas We hold the verity of Scriptures when we do that which pleaseth the whole Church which the authority of the same scriptures doth commend But what answere the chaplaine can make I cannot easily guesse vnles with vs he acknowledg authority of church-church-tradition to be necessary in this case p The Iesuite did not aske this question as doubting of the diuine authority of Scripture but to make it seene that beside scripture which the B. sayd was the Onely foundation of Faith there must be admitted some other foundation to wit Vnwritten Tradition and this of infallible authority to assure vs infallibly that these Bookes are diuine which to be diuine is one point infallibly belieued by diuine Faith and yet cannot be infallibly proued out of Onely Scripture therefore Onely Scripture cannot be sayd as the B. said to be the Onely foundation of Fayth or of euery point belieued by Faith I hope the Chaplaine who is so carefull to auoyd all suspition of being familiar with impiety as he would haue no question moued about this point vpon any termes or pretence will not be so impious as to say That to belieue these bookes to be diuine scripture is not a point of diuine Faith or that this point being so important as it is to be most firmely belieued is belieued by diuine Faith without any ground or foundation or without a sufficiēt infallible diuine foundatiō of Gods word written or vnwritten Sith therfore this is a point of Faith hath a foundation yea an infallible foundation it is not against either art or equity or piety for confutation of Error and confirmation of Truth to enquire what particuler foundation of Gods word written or vnwritten doth assure vs infallibly that these particuler bookes containe the sole and whole truth of God belieued by christian Fayth Neyther need any be troubled or endangered by this question but such as not finding any sufficient foundation in gods word written do pertinaciously resolue not to belieue any thing to be Gods word which is not written Those that belieue that there is a word of God partly written and partly vnwritten according to that of S. Paul 2. Thess. 2. Hold the Traditions whether by our word or Epistle do easily without too much turning in a wheele or circle answere the question See the Reply to M. Wotton M. White in the Introduction of which mention is made in the Relation where this and diuers other important matters pertayning to the drift of this Conference are handled at large q The Chaplaine saith that some body tould him that the B. vntied the knot But why doth not the Chaplaine tell how he did vntie the knot It seemeth the knot was not well vntied when the Iesuite had a Reply so ready as is insinuated by his only going againe and reading in the Book which he had so rudely writen Although a Praecognitum in faith need not be so cleerly knowne as a praecognitum in science yet there must be this proportion that as primum praecognitum the first thing foreknowne in a science must be primò cognitum first knowne must not need another thing pertayning to that science to be priùs cognitum knowne before it So if in Faith the Scriptures be the first and only foundation and consequently the first thing knowne primùm praecognitum it must be in Faith primò cognitum first knowne and must not need any other thing pertayning to Faith to be priùs cognitum knowne before it so church-Church-Tradition which is one thing pertayning to Fayth could not as the Chaplain saith it is and as indeed it is be knowne first and be an Introduction to the knowledge of Scripture Moreouer like as sciences which suppose a principle proued in a higher science cannot haue certainty of that principle but either by hauing seene that principle euidently proued by other principles borrowed of that higher science or by giuing credit to some that haue seene or haue by succession receiued it from others that haue seene it euidently so proued So Faith cannot haue certainty of her first principles but either by seeing proof from the knowledg of the Blessed which ordinarily no mā now seeth or by giuing credit immediatly to some who haue seene as to Christ who cleerly saw or to the Apostles to whom cleere reuelation I say cleere in attestante was made or by giuing credit to others who by succession haue had it from the first seers In which last case the certainty of these principles can be no greater then is the authority of that succession If it be meerely humane and fallible the science and Faith is humane and fallible Neither can either science or Faith be diuine and infallible vnlesse the authority of that succession be at least in some sort diuine and infallible The chaplain therefore who as it seemeth will not admit church-Tradition to be in any sort diuine and infallible while it doth introduce the beliefe of scriptures to be diuine bookes cannot sufficiently defend the Faith introduced of that point to be infallible vnles he admit an infallible impulsion of the priuate spirit ex parte subiecti without any infallible sufficiently applied reason ex parte obiecti which he seemeth not not hath reason to doe 〈◊〉 this were to open the gap to Enthusiasms of all vpstart Anabaptists and would take away due proportion of Obiect and Subiect and the sweet order of things which diuine prouidence hath appointed It may be that if he would but consider the Tradition of the Church not only as of a Company of fallible men in with sort the authority of it is but humaine and fallible but also as it is the Tradition of a Company which by it owne light sheweth it self to be assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit farre more cleerely then Scripture by it owne light doth shew it selfe to be the infallible word of God he would find no difficulty in that respect to account the authority of church-Church-Tradition to be infallible and consequently not only able to be an Introduction but also an infallible motiue reason or at least condition ex Parte obiecti to make both it self and the bookes of Scripture appeare infallibly though obscurely to our soule disposed and illuminated by Gods spirit to haue in them diuine and infallible authority and to be worthy of diuine and infallible credit sufficient to breed in vs diuine and infallible Fayth Neither do I see why the Chaplain may not consider the Tradition of the present Church these two waies as well as the present scriptures printed and approued by men of this age For if the scriptures printed and approued by men of this age must be considered not onely as printed or approued by men in regard the credit giuen to them thus considered can be no more then humane but also as printed and by

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

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

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

principall and fundamentall points of Faith 2. M. Fisher might haue asked Whether Onely the words of the Creed are needfull to be held as a sufficient foundation of Fayth or the Catholique senses If onely the wordes then the Arrians and other condemned Heretikes may be sayd to haue held all the fundamentall points sufficient to Saluation which is contrary to the iudgement of Antiquity and is most absurd If the Catholique sense then the question must be who must be iudge to determine which is the catholique sense and whether it be not most reasonable and necessary that the Catholique Church it selfe rather then any particuler man or Sect of men should teach the true sense When especially the holy Ghost was promised to the catholique church and not to any particuler man or Sect of men differing in doctrine from it to teach it all Truth 3. M. Fisher might haue asked whether all points fundamentall were expressed in the creed or not If they be not by what other rule shall one know what is a point fundamentall If all which is fundamentall be expressed in the creed then to belieue only Scripture or to belieue that there is any Scripture at all is not fundamentall or necessary to Saluation but to belieue the catholique church and consequently the truth of all such doctrines of Fayth which she generally teacheth or defineth in her generall councells is fundamentall So as we may say with S. Athanasius Whosoeuer will be saued must belieue the catholique Fayth that is the Fayth taught by the catholique church and this not only in part or in a corrupt sense but in all points and in catholique sense For as the same S. Athanasius saith vnles one belieue the said Catholique faith integram inuiolatam entiere and inuiolate without doubt he shall perish euerlastingly All these questions M. Fisher might haue asked but he at that present only asked Whether all articles of the Creed were held by D. Whyte to be fundamentall To which Question D. Whyte answered That all was fundamentall M. Fisher asked Whether the article of christs descending into hell were fundamentall D. Whyte said Yes Why then said M. Fisher did M. Rogers affirme That the Church of England is not yet resolued what is the right sense of that Article It was answered that M. Rogers was a priuate man M. Fisher replyed That his Booke in the title professeth to be set out by publique authority To which M. Fisher might haue added That the Booke so set out by publique authority beareth title of the Catholique or Vniuersall doctrine of the church of England by which addition is shewed a difference betwixt this book of M. Rogers and some others which were obiected to be set out by licence of the catholique side for these our books are only licenced to come out in the name of such or such a priuate author and as books declaring his priuate opinions but this of M. Rogers was authorized and graced with the title of the Catholique doctrine of the church of England and therfore ought by Protestants to be more respected then other priuate mens books M. Fisher not thinking it necessary to presse this difference returned againe to D. Whytes first answere to the maine argument in which he hauing said That it was sufficient to shew a visible succession of such as held points fundamentall did implicitely graunt it necessary that a succession should be shewed of such visible Pastours as did hold all points which at least himself held to be fundamentall or necessary to saluation Whereupon M. Fisher bad D. Whyte name a continuall companie or succession of visible Protestants different from the Romane Church which they call Papists holding all points which he accounted fundamentall D. Whyte expresly graunted That he could not shew such a visible succession of Pastours and Doctours differing in doctrine from the Romane church who held all points which he accounted fundamentall Which his ingenuous confession I desire the Reader to note applying it to the argument which M. Fisher proposed shewing that Onely the Roman church hath had such a succession For if as the argument vrgeth one such succession hath bene and none differing in doctrine from the Roman can be shewed by D. Whyte being accounted a prime Protestant Controuersist who may teach such as D. Featly as was lately professed by D. Featly himself we may absolutely conclude that no such visible succession was of Protestants so farre as they differ in doctrine from the Roman church and consequently till they assigne some other which they can neuer do they must acknowledge the Romane to be the only church or at least a church which hath had a visible succession teaching the vnchanged Faith of christ in all ages in all points at least fundamentall which being acknowledged worthily might M. Fisher aske as he did aske D. Whyte Why Protestants made a schisme from the Romane church and why Protestants did persecute Romane catholiques contrary to the custome of the ancient Fathers who still kept vnity with other churches although in their opinion holding errours vntill the catholique church by full authority defined them to be errours in Faith and that after such definition of the church which was yet neuer made against the Romane church they would still obstinatly persist in errour as appeareth in S. Cyprians case To these demaunds made by M. Fisher D. Whyte answered We do not persecute you for Religion About which answere I desire the gentle Reader to obserue that M. Fisher asked two Questions 1. Why Protestants made a schisme from the Romane church 2. Why Protestants did persecute Romane catholiques To the first of these questions being about Schisme D. Whyte answered not a word and yet this was the most important Question sufficient to shew Protestants to be in a damnable state vnles they repent and returne to vnity with the Roman church For on the one side it cannot be denyed but that schisme or separation of ones selfe from church-Vnity is a most damnable sinne which cannot be made lawfull for any cause nor cannot without repentāce returning to Vnity be washed away euen with martyrdome it selfe as the ancient Fathers confesse And on the other side it is euident euen confessed by some Protestants that Protestants did separate themselues from the Romane Church which is confessed to be the mother Church and which cannot be shewed to haue separated it selfe from a former church yet extant as the true church of christ must alwayes be visibly extant Neither can there be shewed any other reason why Protestants did make and continue this their separation then were or might haue bene alledged by Heretiques and Scismatiques of ancient times separating themselues from the catholique Roman church For setting asyde all temporall respects which doubtles were but were very insufficient and vnworthy causes why some did first and do yet continue this separation there cannot be imagined any pretended cause which may not be reduced to

these two heads to wit corruption of Manners or corruption of Doctrine Corruption of manners is not a just cause to make one leaue the Faith Sacraments and rites of the church our Sauiour hauing sufficiently forewarned what is to be done in this case when he said Vpon the chaire of Moyses the Scribes and Pharisees have sitten all therefore that they say vnto you obserue and do but according to their works do not For by this is shewed that the separation which in other places of Scripture is commanded is not meant so as if it were to be made by neglecting or contradicting the doctrine of lawfully authorized Pastours or by corporally absenting ones selfe from communicating with them in necessary Sacraments and church Rites but only spiritually to departe from the imitation of their ill manners The second to wit corruption of Doctrine pertayning to the common Faith of the catholique Church neither did nor can happen to the whole visible church christ hauing promised that the holy Ghost shal be alwaies with it to teach it all Truth and that Hell-gates shall neuer so preuaile against it as to ouerthrow in it the fundation of all goodnes to wit true Faith And for other errours in such questions as are not determined by full authority of the said catholique church S. Austens rule is to be obserued whom when he saith Ferendus est disputator errans neither must one for the errour of a few leaue the society and communion of all neither must one or a few presuming vpon their owne priuate reading and interpreting of scripture or their priuate spirit which is or may be the comō pretext of all Heretiques censure condemne the doctrine or practise of the vniuersall Catholique Church to be erroneous which to doe is by S. Bernards sentence Intollerable Pride and in S. Austans iudgment Insolent madnes The beginning therefore and continuance of the Schisme and separation of the Protestants from the Catholique Romane Church in which euen as Caluin confesseth there was made a discession departure from the whole world is very damnable and altogether inexcusable Which perhaps was the cause why D. Whyte passed ouer that part of the Question touching this Schysme with silence and onely answered as is aboue said to the other parte saying We do not persecute you for Religion To which answere M. Fisher replyed saying You do vs wrong for my self being a prisoner was never taxed with any state matter but do suffer for Religion L. M. B. made another answere saying You of your side did first persecute Protestants M. Fisher answered that we Catholiques hold all points in which Protestants differ from vs in doctrine of faith to be fundamentall and necessary to be belieued or at least not denyed and so may haue cause to punish them who deny or contradict But Protestants who believe catholiques to hold right in all points which themselues esteeme fundamentall have no reason to persecute vs for supposed errours in points not fundamentall which Protestants do not account damnable For better cleering wherof M. Fisher asked D. White whether he thought errour in a point not fundamentall to be damnable D. White said No vnles one hold it against his conscience M. Fisher asked How one could hould an errour against his conscience meaning that one could not inwardly in his conscience believe that be true which he knew in his conscience to be an errour D. White answered That by peruersity of will he might hould an errour against the knowne truth Which answere is true if he meane that one who knoweth the truth at this instant may after by peruersity of Will incline the Vnderstanding to hold the contrary errour But that at the same instant he should know the truth actually and yet actually hold in the same instant the contrary errour in his conscience or inward knowledg is more then I think any Philosopher can explicat For this were to know and not know and to belieue two contraries Truth and Errour about the same obiect in the same subiect the inward conscience at one and the same instant which is impossible M. B. meruayling at D. Whites answere asked him againe the same question saying May one be saued that holdeth errour in points of Faith not fundamentall supposing he hould not against his conscience D. White sayd Yes Those faith M. B. who suffering for conscience hould errour in Faith against their conscience are worthy to be damned M. Fisher hauing obserued that D. White had insinuated that one might be damned for holding errour in points of Faith not fundamenall in case he hould them against his conscience said If it be damnable to hold errours in points not fundamentall in case one hold them willfully against his conscience à fortiori it is damnable to hold the like errours wilfully and obstinatly against the known iudgment and conscience of the Church For as S. Bernard saith Qua major superbia quàm vt vnus homo iudicium suum praeferattoti Congregationi What greater pride then that one man should preferre his iudgment or conscience before the iudgment and conscience of the whole Church D. Whyte said he remembred that sentence of S. Bernard but it is not remembred that he gaue any good answere either to that sentence or to the argument confirmed by it Neither indeed can he giue any good answere in regard it is certaine that the iudgment conscience of the whole Church or Congregation of so many faithfull wise learned and vertuous men assisted by the promised Spirit of truth is incomparably more to be respected and preferred before the iudgment and conscience of any priuate man as appeareth by that of Christ our Sauiour who without excepting any who pretendeth to follow his conscience and without distinguishing the matter in which he pretendeth to follow it into points fundamentall not fundamentall absolutely affirmeth He that will not heare that is belieue and obey the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen Publican Hence Protestants who preferre their priuate Iudgment and Conscience before the iudgment and conscience of the Catholique Church in interpreting Scriptures or otherwise may learne in what state they remaine so long as they do thus being by the Censure of S. Bernard extremely Proud and in the indgement of S. Austen insolently madde and by the sentence of Christ himselfe to be accounted no better then Heathens and Publicans It seemeth that D. Whyte did not deeply ponder this point or els was willing to passe ouer it as a Cat ouer hote coales and so he betooke himselfe to oppugne another part of M. Fishers paper in which is sayd that No company of visible Pastours deliuering vnchanged doctrine could be shewed in all ages besydes those of the Romane Church D. Whyte denyed this to be true and notwithstanding he had before said that he could not shew any companie differing in doctrine from the Roman Church holding in all ages all fundamentall