THE Occasion of this Con­ference, was a certaine writ­tē Paper, giuen by M Fisher to an Hon ^ble Lady, who de­sired somthing to be briefly writtē to proue the Catholique Roman Church, & Faith, to be the only right.

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.

[Page 14] 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 [Page 15] 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 [Page 16] 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 [Page 17] 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 [Page 18] 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 [Page 19] implicite Faith, but must expressely know them; it is most necessary, that all Protestants should out of Scripture) which they pretend to be their onely Rule of Faith) find, and conclude with vnanimous con­sent certainly, what is, and what is not a fundamen­tall point of Faith, necessary to saluation. For whiles some hould more, some lesse to be fundamentall, and none of them giueth (out of Scripture) a sufficient rule by which it may be discerned, which is, and which is not fundamentall; how can ech particuler Protestant rest assured, that he belieueth expresly all points funda­mentall, or so much as is necessary, and sufficient to make him assured of saluation. But to returne to the Relation. D. Whyte, hauing reiected M. Fishers demand, requiring a Catalogue, definition or description out of Scripture (in which all Protestants will agree) said: That all those points were fundamentall, which were contained in the Creed of the Apostles.

M. Fisher might haue asked him diuers questions vpon this answere. 1. What text of scripture taught him, that all the points contained in the Apostles Creed were fundamentall in the sense aforesaid? Or, That this Creed was composed by the Apostles, as a summary of Faith, contayning points needfull (at least necessitate Praecepti) to be expresly belieued by all men? The Church indeed so teacheth, but the Scripture hath not any text which doth expressly say so, or whence by necessarie consequence so much may be gathered; and therefore according to Protestant principles (per­mitting nothing to be belieued but Onely Scripture) the Apostles Creed ought not to be beleiued, as a rule of any point of Faith, and much lesse a rule contai­ning all principall and fundamentall points of Faith.

2. M. Fisher might haue asked, Whether Onely [Page 20] 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, Ioan. 14. & 16. 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 [Page 21] 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, Rogers in his doctrine of the Church of En­gland, Art. 3. 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 [Page 22] 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 [Page 23] 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, [Page 24] 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, Matth. 21. 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 shalbe 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, Aug. de verb. apost. Ser. 14. 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 [Page 25] 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, Caluin l. Ep. epist. 141. 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?

[Page 26] 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 [Page 27] 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, Bern. serm. 5. de resurrect. 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, Matt. 1 [...]. 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 [Page 28] then Heathens and Publicans.

It seemeth that D. Whyte did not deeply ponder this point, or els was willing to passe ouer it (as a Cat ouer hote coales) and so he betooke himselfe to oppugne another part of M. Fishers paper, in which is sayd, that; No company of visible Pastours deliuering vnchan­ged doctrine, could be shewed in all ages, besydes those of the Romane Church.

D. Whyte denyed this to be true, and (notwith­standing he had before said that he could not shew any companie differing in doctrine from the Roman Church, holding in all ages all fundamentall points) said, that both the Greeke Church, and the Prote­stant Church had such a succession of visible Pa­stours: which two sayings, how D. Whyte will re­concile, pertayneth to him to declare.

M. Fisher replyed, and tould him that the Greeke Church changed, and erred in a point of Faith, to wit, about the holy Ghost. A like, or greater change he might, and in likelyhood would, haue tould him to hauc bene in many points held by the Protestant Church, if he had not bin interrupted by L. K. who asked, Whether notwithstanding that errour of the Greeke Church, Ignorant man might not be saued?

M. Fisher answered to L. K. his question, saying: Some ignorant men may be excused from actuall sinne, in holding that errour, as, through inuincible ignorance, one holding some errour against the holy Trinity it self, may be excused. Yet for other actuall sinnes, they might be damned for want of meanes ne­cessary for remission of them. This answere was meant by M. Fisher of such ignorant men, who (al­though by inuincible ignorance excused from the actuall sinne of positiue Infidelity, Heresy & Scisme) [Page 29] wanted true supernaturall Faith, Hope and Charity, out of which an act of true Contrition springeth; or wanted the true, and lawfull vse of the Sacrament of Pennance, & Priestly Absolution; which being need­full to obtaine pardon of sinne, may easily be wanting to such people as commit other sinnes against the light of nature, or against those good motions of Grace, which now and then Almighty God giueth to all sorts, who consequently (through this their owne fault) are not illuminated with true supernaturall Faith, but are permitted still to remaine in Infidelity, or Heresy, or Schisme, or in a negatiue disposition of want of all Faith, deuotion, and desire of vnion with God, and such good men who truly serve god in his true Church: of which sort of ignorant people, it is to be doubted there be but to many in all (especially In­fidel, Hereticall, or Schismaticall) Countries. But hence doth not follow, neither did M. Fisher euer meane to affitme, that all ignorant Graecians, Prote­stants, or of any other sort of Schismatiques, Here­tiques, or Infidels are damned; for if on the one side this their ignorance be inuincible, so as to excuse them from the actuall sinne of their Schisme, Heresy, and Infidelity; and on the other syde, they by Almighty Gods speciall grace, be preserued from other actuall mortall sinne, and by the same grace be excited ex­traordinarily to Faith, Hope, Charity, and to true Contrition for all finne, they may be saued: But this being extraordinary, no man ought ordinarily presume, or rely on it, especially so, as to neglect the ordinary meanes, knowne to be in the vnity of the Catholique Roman Church.

After this D. White excepted against another point of M. Fishers paper, in which was sayd: That the Roman [Page 30] Church had still held vnhanged doctrime of Fayth in all points &c. And for instances of change made, he obiected Transubstantiation, Images, Communion vnder one kind, Sa­crament of pennance &c. These points he slieghtly be­gan to touch, but did not (as the paper required) name when, and by whome the change was made in these points, but sayd; It was not needful to shew these cir­cumstances. As for example (sayth he) the Pharisies held errour, in saying, that the gold of the Altar was more holy then the Altar, which was a change in do­ctrine, & yet you cannot shew when, and by whome this change was made.

To this M. Fisher answered, that although he could not on the suddaine tell when, and by whome this Change was made; yet he did not doubt but that with study he might find it out. And so indeed, he might haue named the Author of the Sect of Pharisies, who first brought in that error, and the time when that Sect began, which is inough. For we do not presse Prote­stants to tell the very day, or houre in which euery one of our supposed Errors were brought in; but to name the first Author of any erroneous doctrine, or of any Sect of men who were specially noted for teaching such a peculiar doctrine, and about what yeare, or Age that Sect of men, first began; and who they were, who then noted them to teach such doctrine, contrary so the formerly receaued Fayth of the vniuersall Church; as must be, and is vsually no­ted, when especially any such notorious matters as those which D. White obiected, were by any man, or any sect of men, taught contrary to the formerly receaued Faith of the vniuersall church.

Sith therfore, the aforesaid circumstances are vlually noted in other such kind of changes, and that [Page 31] it is morally impossible, that such great changes and so vniuersally spread ouer the world, should be made ether in an instant, or in succession of time, and that not one, or other writer would haue made mention of the change, and when, where, and by whome it was made, as they do of all other such matters; D. White (who obiected such great changes of doctrine to haue beene made in the Roman church, accusing hereby greuiously her, which consessedly was once the true Mother church,) is obliged and bound, not only to proue this his accusation, by shewing the for­sayd circumstances, in good Authors, if he will not be accounted an vnnaturall and false calumniator of his true Mother-church: but he must also shew ano­ther continually visible church, which neuer did ad­mit any any such change in doctrine of Faith, if he will not impiously deny the truth of the Prophesyes and Promises of Scripture, wherby we learne, that Hell gates shall not preuaile against the church: And that christ himself, and his holy spirit will alwaies be with the church teaching it, and consequently enabling it to teach vs all truth, and making it the pillar and ground of truth, and consequently free from all error in matters of Fayth.

But D. White can neuer proue his accusation by shewing out of good Authors the aforesayd circum­stances of the change of the Roman church, in do­ctrine of Fayth, nor can shew any other continually visible church, which did not admit change in do­ctrine of Fayth. Let him therfore consider, whether it be not better to recall his false vnnaturall accusa­tion of his Mother the Roman church, being sorry for it, with purpose here after humbly to heare, be­lieue, obey, and follo wher doctrine and direction, [Page 32] rather then to incurre, not only the foresayd censure of men, but also of christ himselfe, who sayth; He that will not heare the Church, let him be to thee as an heathen & Publican: that is, cast out of the fauour of God, and all good men, both in this present life, and also, if he do not in time repent, in the future eternall life.

These be the chiefe points which I haue gathered out M. Fishers first Relation, which he shewed to D. Whyte with an intēt that he should put him in mind if any thing were not remembred, or misremembred: But the Doctour at that time did not, nor could truly say, that any thing was safely 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 sciēces the conclusiō is no more certayne, thē 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 [Page 33] 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 d [...]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 [Page 34] 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 gross [...] 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 [Page 35] 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.

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 To wit absolutly & to rely vpō their priuate iudgment, so, as to ad­uenture Saluation vpō it alone, or chiefly. iudge of particulers, without depending vpon the Iudgment of the true Church.

[Page 42] 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, 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 pūctuall 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. 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, [Page 43] to wit, That there must be a Continuall Visible Church as they had heard grā ­ted 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 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. 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 [Page 44] schollers then I, to maintaine the Catholique cause.

Then the Question about the Greek Church being 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, euē to his meanest Aduer­saries, & therfore not likely to haue vsed thē to the B. but at most, that he would euince, by argument, or such like. propo­sed, I said as before, that it had erred. The B. said, that the er­rour was not in a point 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 remēber 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. Fun­damentall.

Wherupon I was forced to repeate, what I had formerly brought against D. VVhyte con­cerning points fundamentall, first The Chaplains corrupt Copie hath righting, inst [...]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 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. reading the sentence of [Page 45] S. Augustine; Ferēdus est dis­putator errans &c. Out of which is 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. proued that all pointes defined by the Church are 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. fundamē ­tall.

Secondly, I required to knowe, what points the Bishop woulde account [Page 46] 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. fundamētall? He said; All the points in the 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. 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 [Page 47] descending into Hell? The B. sayd, that M. Rogers was but a priuate man. But (said I,) if 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. Ro­gers, writing as he did by publique authority be ac­counted onely a priuate man, in what Booke may we find the 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. Protestāts publique Doctrine?

The B. answered; That to the Booke of Articles 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 wilbe 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. they were all sworne: [Page 48] and the 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-tradition to be necessary in this case. Scriptures on­ly, not any vnwrittē Tra­dition was the foundation of their Fayth.

[Page 46] I asked, how 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. 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 [Page 50] 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 The Chaplaine saith, that some body tould him, that the B. vntied the knot; But why doth not the Chaplaine tell how he did vntie the knot? It seemeth the knot was not well vntied, when the Iesuite had a Reply so ready, as is insinuated, by his only going againe and reading in the Book which he had so rudely writen. Although a Prae­cognitum in faith need not be so cleerly knowne as a praecognitum in science; yet there must be this proportion, that as primum praecognitum, the first thing fore­knowne in a science, must be primò cognitum, first knowne, & must not need another thing pertayning to that science to be priùs cognitum, knowne before it: So if in Faith, the Scriptures be the first and only foundation, and consequently the first thing knowne, primùm praecognitum, it must be in Faith primò cognitum, first knowne, and must not need any other thing pertayning to Faith to be priùs cognitum, knowne before it; & so Church-Tradition, which is one thing pertayning to Fayth, could not (as the Chaplain saith it is, and as indeed it is) be knowne first, and be an Introduction to the knowledge of Scripture. Moreo­uer like as sciences which suppose a principle proued in a higher science, cannot haue certainty of that principle, but either by ha­uing seene that principle euidently proued by other principles bor­rowed of that higher science, or by giuing credit to some that haue seene, or haue by succession receiued it from others that haue seene it euidently so proued▪ So Faith cannot haue certainty of her first prin­ciples, but either by seeing proof from the knowledg of the Blessed, which ordinarily no mā now seeth, or by giuing credit immediatly to some who haue seene, as to Christ who cleerly saw, or to the Apostles to whom cleere reuelation (I say cleere in attestante) was made; or by giuing credit to others who by succession haue had it from the first seers. In which last case the certainty of these princi­ples can be no greater then is the authority of that succession. If it be meerely humane and fallible, the science and Faith is humane and fallible. Neither can either science or Faith be diuine and infallible, vnlesse the authority of that succession be at least in some sort di­uine and infallible. The chaplain therefore, who (as it seemeth) will not admit church-Tradition to be in any sort diuine and infallible, while it doth introduce the beliefe of scriptures to be diuine bookes, cannot sufficiently defend the Faith introduced of that point to be infal­lible, vnles he admit an infallible impulsion of the priuate spirit ex parte subiecti, without any infallible sufficiently applied reason ex parte obiecti, which he seemeth not, not hath reason to doe [...] this were to open the gap to Enthusiasms of all vpstart Anabaptists, and would take away due proportion of Obiect and Subiect, and the sweet order of things which diuine prouidence hath appointed. It may be, that if he would but consider the Tradition of the Church, not only as of a Company of fallible men, in with sort the autho­rity of it is but humaine and fallible, but also as it is the Tradition of a Company; which (by it owne light) sheweth it self to be assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit, farre more cleerely then Scripture (by it owne light) doth shew it selfe to be the infallible word of God; he would find no difficulty in that respect to account the autho­rity of Church-Tradition to be infallible, and consequently not only able to be an Introduction, but also an infallible motiue reason or at least condition ex Parte obiecti, to make both it self, and the bookes of Scripture appeare (infallibly, though obscurely) to our soule disposed and illuminated by Gods spirit, to haue in them di­uine and infallible authority, and to be worthy of diuine and infal­lible credit, sufficient to breed in vs diuine and infallible Fayth. Neither do I see why the Chaplain may not consider the Tra­dition of the present Church these two waies, as well as the present scriptures printed and approued by men of this age. For if the scri­ptures printed and approued by men of this age must be conside­red, not onely as printed or approued by men, in regard the credit giuen to them thus considered can be no more then humane; but also as printed, and by authority of men assisted by Gods spirit ap­proued to be true copies of that which was first written by the Ho­ly Ghosts Pen-men, before we can giue infallible credit vnto them; I see no reason, why the like twofold consideration of the Tradi­tion of the present church may not be admitted, especially when as the promise of Christ and his holy Spirits continuall presence and assistance ( Luc. 10. 16. Math. 28. 19. 20. Ioan. 14. 16.) was made no lesse (but rather more) expressly to the Apostles and their suc­cessours, the lawfully-sent Pastours and Doctours of the Church in all ages, in their teaching by word of mouth; then in writing, or reading, or printing, or approuing copies of what was formerly written by the Apostles. Perhaps the Chaplaine will aske mee, how I know that any church or company of men of this age, or any age since the Apo­stles, haue promise of christ and his holy spirits assistance? I answer that I know it both by Tradition and Scripture (considered in the twofold manner aforesaid) both which without any vitious circle, mutually confirme the authority of ech other (as a Kings Embas­sadors word of mouth, and his Kings letter beare mutuall witnesse of ech other); And I do not want other both outward and in­ward arguments or motiues of Credibility, which are sufficient not only to confirme the Fayth of belieuers, but also to perswade well disposed Infidells, that both the one and the other were sent from God, and that one is the infallible word of God, speaking in and by his Legats, the lawfully-sent preachers, of the Church; The other, the infallible word of God speaking in and by his letters the holy scriptures, which he hath appointed his said legats to deliuer and expound vnto vs, and which among other things do warrant that we may heare and giue credit to these Legats of Christ, as to Christ the King himself. Ans­were [Page 51] 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.

[Page 52] [Page 53] From this the La. called vs, & desiring to heare, 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 desi [...]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. whether the B. would grant the Roman Church [Page 54] [Page 55] to be the right Church? The B. graunted, That it was. Further he 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 befo [...]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 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. 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 reforme, it was lawfull for particuler churches to re­forme themselues.

[Page 56] [Page 57] I 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. 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.

[Page 58] [Page 59] I also asked; Who ought to iudge in this case? The B. sayd: 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 Coū ­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 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 be hoped that all, or the maior part will euer so agree, as to remaine constant in one and the same mind:) Hath christ our Lord in this case prouided no meanes, no rule, no iudge, which may Infallibly determine and end controuersyes, & procure vnity and certainty of belief being so necessary for the honor of God, and the good of his church? Must people for want of such a iudge, rule or meanes, con­tinue not only moneths and yeares, but whole Ages in vncertainty and disiunity of Fayth, and in perpetuall Iarres about euen maine matters of diuine truth? There is no earthly Kingdome that (in case matters cannot be composed by Parlament, which cannot be called vpon all occasions, and at all tymes) hath not beside the law-bookes, some liuing Magistrates and iudges, and aboue all one vi­sible King, the highest Magistrate and Iudge, who hath authority sufficient to end controuersies, and procure peace and vnity, and certainty of Iudgments, about all temporall affayres: And shall we thinke that christ the wisest King hath prouided in his kingdome, which is the church, onely the Law-bookes of Holy Scriptures, and no liuing visible Magistrats and Iudges, and aboue all One cheife Magistrate, and iudge, so assisted with his spirit and prouidence, as may suffice to end controuersies, and breed vnity and certainty of Fayth, which neuer can be while euery man may interprete Holy Scripture, the Law-booke as he list? 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 [Page 60] hold Errour. That said the B. was not a The chaplain saith, that the B. said not only so, but that, it was no Generall Councell. I answere, that if the B. said so, it was onely for want of memory that the Iesuite did not relate it so: for the Exceptions which the B. did or can make against the lawfulnesse or generallnesse of the Councell of Trent, may be made by Arrians against the councell of Nice. It is not necessary to the lawfulnesse and generallnesse of a Councell that all Bishops of the world be actually present, and actually sub­scribe or yield assent; but that such promulgation be made as is mo­rally sufficient to giue notice that such a Councell is called, and that all may come if they will, and that a competent number, at least the maior part, of those which be present, yield assent to the decree. lawfull Coun­cell, So, sayd I, would [Page 61] As Protestants do thinke that the councell of Trent is not lawfull, for hauing (in their Iudgment) departed from the letter & sense of Scripture: so did the Arians thinke of the councell of Nice. And as Protestants do iustifie that some were sent from the Pope to Trēt, and that the Pope was President: So doubtlesse did the Arians mislike, that at Nice the Pope had Legats, who did carry his messages, and one of them in his place sate as President. the Arrians say of the Coūcell of Nice. The B would not admit the case to be like, pretending that the Pope made Bi­shops of The Chaplain saith, that the B. did not say, that the Pope made Bishops of pur­pose &c. I answere, that the Iesuite doth not say that the B. expresly said to; but that (by insinuation) he did pretend so much, which in effect the chaplaine seemeth to graunt, when he saith ( pag. 40.) the B. said, the Pope made himself a strōg partie in it. For although these words may be taken in another sense, yet they may also be taken in that sense which the Iesuite by the circumstances of the B. his speach) did then vnderstand, and expresse in his Relation: for that a great number of Italian Bishops, which the Chaplain saith the B. alled­ged as a proof, may very well import, that the B. cōceiued the Pope to haue made more Italian Bishops then of other Countryes, of pur­pose to haue a strong faction. But this proof was so weake, as the Iesuite might well say, it was no proofe, nor worthy of answere, or of looking into the book for it; it being only a surmise of Aduer­saries, who are apt to interprete euery thing to the worst. Italian Bishops might be more, as being neerer, (as in Greeke Councells more Grecians were present) without any factious Combination with the Pope, in any other sort then all the Cath. Bishops in the world, who are as much vnited with the Pope for matters of Fayth, defined in the Councell, as any Italian Bishop. Neither can the B. proue, that any Catholique French, or Spa­nish, or of any other Country, or the schismaticall Greekes did agree with Protestants in those points which were defined in the Coun­cell, especially, after it was confirmed by the Pope. For they all, euen Grecians, did, & do at this day vnanimously oppose Protestāts, as ap­peareth by the Censure of Hieremias the Grecian Patriarch. So as if such a free Councell as the B. and others wished, were gathered out of East and West, Protestants (doubtles) would be condemned for Heretiques, and their negatiue refutes and denialls of ancient Arti­cles, for Heresies, by more then the double maior Part compared to those who would take their part. For although (as all Heretiques vse to do.) Protestants perswade themselues, Scriptures to be euident for their opinions, and that with euident demon̄trations they should be able to conuince all the world, that they teach truth, and nothing but truth; yet they would find innumerable others as learned (to say no more,) and as well studyed in Scripture, and skilfull in ma­king demonstrations, who are of another mind. purpose for his side: but this the B. proued not.

[Page 62] In fine, The B. wished, that a lawfull I meruaile, in what sort the B. will describe such a Gene­rall Councell; and how it should be gathered; and what Rules are in it to be obserued, which are morally likely so to be obserued as to make an end of cōtrouersies, better then our catholique Generall councels. Generall. Councell were called to end Controuersies. The persons present said, The [Page 63] 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 The Chaplaine saith, that the B. added a Caution (which the Iesuit omitteth) saying: The determination of a Generall coūcell erring, was to stand in force, and haue externall obedience at least yielded to it, till euidence of Scri­pture, or a demonstration to the con­trary made the errour appeare, and vntill thereuppon another Councell of equall Authority did reuerse it. I answere, that added Cau­tion (which eyther was not then added, or not remembred by the Iesuite) maketh the B. his Answere far worse, then as the Iesuit did relate. For whe­reas the Iesuite relateth onely thus, Although it may erre; this caution maketh the case to be, that it doth actually erre. And whereas the Iesuite relateth, That we (not knowing whe­ther it do erre or not, but only that it may erre,) are bound to hold it till another come to reuerse it; this caution doth put the case so, as if the determination of a Generall Coūcell actually erring, were (not ipso iure inua­lide, but) such as is to stand in force, & to haue externall obedience at least yielded vnto it, till (not onely morall certainty, but) eui­dence of Scripture, or a demonstration to the contrary make the er­rour appeare; and after the errour appeareth, yet we must continue this yeilding of obedience: And how long? Vntill thereupon a Councell (and not euery Councell, but) of equall authority do re­uerse it, which perhaps will not be found in a whole Age. Verily I can not belieue, that the B. vpon better aduisement will allow this Caution, or giue any thankes to his Chaplain for setting it downe, but will commend the lesuite for relating his speach more truely, and at least lesse disgracefully. 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, [Page 64] Shee Heere againe the Cha­plain taxeth the Iesuite saying, That the B. did not answer thus in particuler. But the Iesuite is sure he did; and it appeareth to be so by the Iesuits wordes who said to the La. Marke that. Vnto which the B. replied saying, She may be better saued in it then you; which Reply sheweth that the B. had said, that she in particuler might be saued in the Roman Fayth. Otherwise, if his first Answere had ben as the chaplaine would now make, the B. should haue said, The ig­norant may be saued in it, but neither you, nor she. But the Iesuite is sure that this Answere of the B. and Reply of the Iesuite ( Marke that) was iust as he related, without any such addition, as now the chaplain doth relate; and that if such a Caueat were added, it was after the end of the conference, and not in the Iesuits presence. Out of this last passage the Chaplain obserueth that Catholiques take aduantage, and make vse of the argument drawne from Prote­stants granting, That one liuing and dying a Rom. Catholique may be saued; accounting it secure so to liue and die, euen by confession of Aduer­saries. The force of which argument he endeauoureth to weaken by saying, that although Protestants grant it to be possible, yet they say withall that it is not secure, but hard &c. But he must remember, that when Protestants graunt, that in the Rom. Fayth and Church there is ground sufficient, and consequently possibility of saluation; this is a free confession of the Aduersaries argument themselues, and therefore is of force against them, and is to be thought to be extorted from them by the force of truth it self. But when Protestants do say▪ that saluation is more securely and easily had in Protestant Fayth & Church, then in the Romane; this onely is their partiall priuate opinion in their owne behalf, which is of no weight, especially when Romane Catholiques farre more in number, and farre more spread in place, and of much longer continuance in tyme, and for vertue and learning at least equall, or rather much exceeding Pro­testants, do confidently, and vnanimously, and with authority and reason proue, that (according to the ordinary Course of Gods pro­uidence) Out of the Cath. Romane Church, there is no possibility of saluation. And therefore, who will not thinke it safer to adhere to the Cath. Romane Fayth and Church, in which all both Catholiques and best learned Protestants do promise possibility of saluation without doubt, then to the Protestant Church, sith all Roman Catholiques do threaten damnation to all who obstinately adhere vnto it; and dye in it? The which threat, doth not proceede out of malice, or want of Charity, but is grounded in Charity; as are the like threats of Christ our Sauiour, and Holy Fathers, who knowing that there is but One True Fayth, and One True Church, out of which there is no saluation, do out of their Charitable care of our soules good, so commend to vs the beliefe of that Fayth, and the cleauing to that Church, as they pronounce, He that shall not belieue, shall be condemned. ( Mar. 16.) and, He that will not heare the Church, and haue it for his Mo­ther, is to be accounted as a Heathen and Publican (Matth. 18.) and cannot haue God to be his Father; accounting it more charity to fore warne vs by these threats, of our perill, that we may feare and auoide it, then to put vs in a false security, and so to let vs runne into danger, for want of foresight of it. Those examples which the Chaplaine giues of the Donatists gi­uing true Baptisme in the opinion of all, and Protestants holding a kind of Reall Presence not denied by any, are nothing like our case. For in these cases there are annexed other reasons of certainly knowne perill of damnable schisme and heresie, which we should incurre by cōsenting to the Donatists deniall of true Baptisme to be among Catholiques; and to the Protestants denyall, or doubting of the true substantiall presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But in our case there is confessedly no such perill of any damnable Heresy, schisme, or any other sinne, in resoluing to liue and die in the Ca­tholique Rom. Church: and in case some Protestants should say, that there is perill of damnation in liuing and dying Roman Catholi­ques; the authority of them that say there is perill, being so few (in comparison of those who say there is none,) and so passionate and partially affected men, who are in this their saying contradicted by their owne more learned brethren, ought not to be respected more then a Scarre-crowe. But the authority of those who allow salua­tion to such as do liue and die Roman Catholiques, being so many, so ancient, so vertuous, so learned, and some no way partially affe­cted, out opposite to the Romā Church, ought to be accoūted of ex­ceeding great weight, & may worthily perswade any wise man that it is most secure to liue and dye a Roman Catholique, and conse­quently that in so important a matter this most secure course of li­uing and dying in the Roman Church, ought in all reason to be chosen, and that so pretious a Iewell as the Soule is, ought not to be left to the hazard of loosing heauen, and falling into hell, by re­lying vpon ones ownes opinion, or the opinion of those few new Protestant Doctours, who acknowledg that their whole congrega­tiō may erre: & much more therfore may they thinke that ech mem­ber therof may be deceiued, in following his owne, or any other mans opinion. might. I bad her mark that. She (sayd the B.) may be bet­ter saued in it, then you. [Page 65] [Page 66] D. White Heere the Chaplain taxeth the Iesuite for falsly relating D. Whites Answer, and saith he hath spoken with D. White, who auowes this, & no other Answere: He was asked in the Conference, whether Papists errours were fundamentall? To this he gaue answere by a distinction of persons, which held and professed the errours; Na­mely, that the errours were fundamentall reductiuè, by a reducent, if they who imbraced them did pertinaciously adhere vnto them, hauing sufficient meanes to be better informed: Nay further, that they were materially in the kind and nature of them▪ leauen, drosse, haye, and stubble; yet he thought with­all, that such as were misled by education, or long Custome, or ouer-valuing the soueraigntie of the Romane Church, and did in simplicity of heart im­brace them, might by their generall Repentance, & faith in the merits of Christ▪ attended with Charity and other vertues, finde mercy at Gods hands. But that he should say, signanter & expressè, that none of yours or your fellowes er­rours were damnable, so long as you hold them not against your Conscience, that he vtterly disauowes &c. To this the Iesuite answereth; first, that he did not in this his Re­lation say, that D. White did signanter, and expresly say these precise words, None of yours, or your fellowes errours are damnable. Secondly, he saith, that D. White did 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., said I, hath secured me, that none of our errours are damnable, so long as we hold them not against our Cōscience, [Page 67] [Page 68] and I hold none against my Cōscience. The Lady asked, Whether she might be saued in the Protestant Fayth? Vpon my 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. soule [Page 69] (said the B.) you may. Vpon my Heere I note, that the Ie­suite was as confident for his part, as the B. for his; but with this difference, that the B. had not sufficient reason of his Confidence as I haue declared; But the Iesuite had so much reason both out of expresse scriptures and Fathers, and the infallible authority of the Church, that the B. himself then did not, nor his Chaplaine now doth not, taxe the Iesuit of any rashnes: but the Chaplain expresly graunteth that, There is but one sauing Faith, and the B. did (as was related) graunt that the La. might be saued in the Rom. Fayth; which is as much as the Iesuite did take vpon his soule. Onely the chaplain saith, without any proofe, that we haue many dangerous errours: but he neither tels vs which they be, nor why he thinketh them dangerous, but leaueth vs to look to our owne soules, and so we do, and haue no cause to doubt; because we do not hold any new deuise of our owne, or any other man, or any thing contrary, but all most conformable to scriptures interpreted by Vnion, con­sent of Fathers, and definitions of Councells. Which being so, the B. and his chaplaine had need to looke to their soules, for if there be but one sauing Fayth, as the Chaplain graunteth, (and he hath reason, because S. Paul sayth ( Ephes. 4.) Vna fides, One Fayth: and S. Leo, ( serm. de Natiuit.) Nisi vna est fides, non est, vnlesse it be One, it is not Fayth) and this One Fayth was once the Roman, which also yet is (as the B. graunteth) a sauing Fayth; (or else he ought not to haue granted, that one may be saued liuing & dying in it:) I see not how they can haue their soules saued without they entirely imbrace this Fayth, being the Cath. Fayth, which as S. Athanasius ( in Symb.) affirmeth, vnles one hold entiere (that is euery point of it,) and inuiolate, (that is, belieuing all in right sense, and for the true formall reason of diuine reuelation sufficiently applied to our vnderstāding by the Infallible authority of the Cath. Church proposing to vs by her Pastours this reuelation) without doubt he shall perish for euer. In which sort if the B. and his chaplain did belieue any one Article, they (finding the same formall reason in all, and applyed sufficiently by the same meanes to all) would easily belieue all. But so long as they do not belieue all in this sort, but will, as all Heretiques do, make choyse of what they will, and what they will not belieue, without relying vpō the Infallible au­thority of the Cath. Church, they cannot haue that One Soule-sauing Fayth, which all good Catholique Christians haue, in any one ar­ticle of Fayth. For although they belieue the same truth, which other good Catholiques do in some Articles, yet not belieuing them for the same formall reason of diuine reuelation, sufficiently applyed by Infallible Church-authority, but either for some other formall reason, or at least not for this reason sufficiently applyed, they can­not be sayd to haue one and the same Infallible diuine Fayth which other good catholique christians haue, who do belieue those Arti­cles, not for any other formall reason beside the diuine reuelation applyed sufficiently and made knowne to them (not by their owne fancie, or the fallible authority of humaine deductions,) but by the infallible authority of the church of God, that is of men infallibly assisted by the Spirit of God, as all lawfully called, continued, and confirmed Generall councells are assisted. Whence I gather, that although euery thing defined to be a di­uine truth in Generall councells, is not absolutly necessary to be ex­presly knowne and actually belieued (as some other truthes are) by all sorts; yet no man may (after knowledge that they are thus defined) doubt deliberatly, and much lesse obstinatly deny the truth of any thing so defined. For, euery such doubt and denyall is a breach from that one sauing Fayth, which other good christians haue, in regard it taketh away infallible credit from the church; and so the diuine reuelation being not by it sufficiently applyed, it can­not according to the ordinary course of Gods prouidence breed in­fallible belief in vs; for as S. Paul Rom. 10. saith, How shall they belieue vnles they heare, how shall they heare without a Preacher, how shall they preach (to wit infallibly) vnles they be sent, to wit, from God, and infallibly assisted by his spirit? And if a whole Generall councell defining what is diuine truth be not belieued to be sent, and assisted by gods spirit, and consequently of Infallible credit, what man in the world can be said to be of infallible credit? or if such a Councell lawfully called, continued, and confirmed may erre, in defining any one diuine truth, how can we be Infallibly certaine of any other truth defined by it? for if it may erre in one, why not in another and ano­ther, and so in all? or how can we (according to the ordinary course) be infallibly assured, that it erreth in one, and not in another, when it equally, by one and the same authority, defineth both to be diuine truthes? for if we leaue this to be examined by any priuate man, this examination not being infallible had need to be examined by ano­ther, and this by another, without end, or euer coming to infallible Certainty, necessarily required in that One Fayth which is necessary to saluation, and to that peace and Vnity which ought to be in the Church? It is not therefore (as the Chaplain would perswade) the fault of councells definitions (but the pride of such as will pre­ferr, and not submit their priuate Iudgments) that lost, & continueth the losse of peace and vnity of the Church, and the want of cer­tainty in that one aforesaid soule-sauing Fayth: the which how far it doth extend is indeed (as the Chaplain pag. 73. confesseth) no work for his penne, but is to be learned of that one Holy Catho­lique, Apostolique, alwayes Visible, and Infallible Roman Church, of which the La. once doubting, resteth now fully satisfied, that in it she may learne all truth necessary to saluation, and that out of it there is no ordinary meanes sufficient to teach her the right way of saluation. And therefore the Iesuit might well say, as he did in the Relation, that the La. was by this & a former conference, satisfied of the truth of Roman Religion. my Soule, sayd I, There is but one sauing Fayth, and that is the Roman.

[Page 70] [Page 71] [Page 72] 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 The Cha­plain vpon this last clause saith, that he is sure she wilbe bet­ter able to ans­wer for her co­ming to church thē for her lea­uing the church of England, & fol­lowing the superstitions and Errours of the Church of Rome▪ But he neither proueth, nor can proue that it is lawfull for one (perswa­ded especially as the Lady is) to goe to the Protestant Church, which were to halt on both sides, to serue two Maisters, to dis­semble with God and the world, to professe outwardly a Religion in conscience knowne to be false; neyther doth he, or can he proue any superstition or errour to be in Romane Religion; but by presu­ming with intolerable pride to make himself, or some of his fel­lowes iudge of Controuersies, and by taking authority to censure all to be superstition and errour, which suteth not with his fancy, although it be generally held or practised by the vniuersall church, which in S. Augustins Iudgment, is most insolent madnes. Church; for which she was after very sorie, as some of her friends can testifie.

[Page 73] 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 Romā 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, Ephes. 4. 11. and [Page 74] for whose Fayth Christ prayed, Matt. 16. 1 [...]. enioyning him to confirme his brethren, Luc. [...]2. 3 [...]. and to whose care and go­uernent Christ committed his whole flock of lam­bes, [...] [...]0. 18. 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.