Selected quad for the lemma: faith_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
faith_n	catholic_n	church_n	profess_v	6,124	5	9.0713	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A00797	True relations of sundry conferences had between certaine Protestant doctours and a Iesuite called M. Fisher (then prisoner in London for the Catholique fayth:) togeather with defences of the same. In which is shewed, that there hath alwayes beene, since Christ, a visible church, and in it a visible succession of doctours & pastours, teaching the vnchanged doctrine of fayth, left by Christ and his apostles, in all points necessary to saluation and that not Protestants, but only Roman Catholiques haue had, and can shew such a visible church, and in it such a succesion of pastours and doctours, of whome men may securely learne what pointe of fayth are necessary to saluation. / By A.C.	A. C.; Sweet, John, 1570-1632, attributed name.; Floyd, John, 1572-1649, attributed name.; Fisher, John, 1569-1641, attributed name.	1626 (1626)	STC 10916.5; ESTC S118355	64,677	92

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

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 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 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 M. Fisher explicated in the example of the respect one beareth to the picture of his friend which although it be not capable of that friendly respect and affection which by looking vpon it he exciteth in himselfe towards his friend represented by it yet is it capable of an inferiour degree of respect as to be set in a more worthy and eminent place c. then it should be if it were the picture of some other who were not ones friend These be the chiefe Passages of this Conference between D. White and M. Fisher so far as hath come to my notice who haue vsed so much diligence in inquiring the truth of this matter as I haue no doubt but for substance I haue not omitted any thing that may much import considering what the occasion and subiect of the Conference was to wit that Paper written by M. Fisher in which he proued the Roman Church and those who agree in Fayth with it to be that Company of whome euery one must learne what is the truth in all points and questions of Fayth necessary to saluation which paper not being substantially confuted as it was not by any thing sayd by D. White or any other at that time or after D. Whyte is yet obliged to make a better answere if he meane to giue satisfaction either to Catholiques or Protestants in this most important point of a perpetually visible church of which all forts must learne true diuine infallible Faith necessary to Saluation FINIS A RELATION OF THE Conference between a certain B. M. Fisher defended against the said B. his Chaplayne The Preface GENTLE Reader I think it needful to let thee vnderstand that whereas the Chaplaine of a certayne B. sayth in the Preface of his Answere to a Relation of what passed betweene the said B. and M. Fisher That the Iesuite spread abroad papers of this Conference which were full of partiality to his cause more full of calumney against the B. the truth is that the Iesuite did not at all so much as in speach much lesse in papers publish this or either of the other two Conferences which he had with D. White vntill he was forced vnto it by false

thankes to his Chaplain for setting it downe but will commend the lesuite for relating his speach more truely and at least lesse disgracefully C Heere againe the Chaplain taxeth the Iesuite saying That the B. did not answer thus in particuler But the Iesuite is sure he did and it appeareth to be so by the Iesuits wordes who said to the La. Marke that Vnto which the B. replied saying She may be better saued in it then you which Reply sheweth that the B. had said that she in particuler might be saued in the Roman Fayth Otherwise if his first Answere had ben as the chaplaine would now make the B. should haue said The ignorant may be saued in it but neither you nor she But the Iesuite is sure that this Answere of the B. and Reply of the Iesuite Marke that was iust as he related without any such addition as now the chaplain doth relate and that if such a Caueat were added it was after the end of the conference and not in the Iesuits presence Out of this last passage the Chaplain obserueth that Catholiques take aduantage and make vse of the argument drawne from Protestants granting That one liuing and dying a Rom. Catholique may be saued accounting it secure so to liue and die euen by confession of Aduersaries The force of which argument he endeauoureth to weaken by saying that although Protestants grant it to be possible yet they say withall that it is not secure but hard c. But he must remember that when Protestants graunt that in the Rom. Fayth and Church there is ground sufficient and consequently possibility of saluation this is a free confession of the Aduersaries argument themselues and therefore is of force against them and is to be thought to be extorted from them by the force of truth it self But when Protestants do say that saluation is more securely and easily had in Protestant Fayth Church then in the Romane this onely is their partiall priuate opinion in their owne behalf which is of no weight especially when Romane Catholiques farre more in number and farre more spread in place and of much longer continuance in tyme and for vertue and learning at least equall or rather much exceeding Protestants do confidently and vnanimously and with authority and reason proue that according to the ordinary Course of Gods prouidence Out of the Cath. Romane Church there is no possibility of saluation And therefore who will not thinke it safer to adhere to the Cath. Romane Fayth and Church in which all both Catholiques and best learned Protestants do promise possibility of saluation without doubt then to the Protestant Church sith all Roman Catholiques do threaten damnation to all who obstinately adhere vnto it and dye in it The which threat doth not proceede out of malice or want of Charity but is grounded in Charity as are the like threats of Christ our Sauiour and Holy Fathers who knowing that there is but One True Fayth and One True Church out of which there is no saluation do out of their Charitable care of our soules good so commend to vs the beliefe of that Fayth and the cleauing to that Church as they pronounce He that shall not belieue shall be condemned Mar. 16. and He that will not heare the Church and haue it for his Mother is to be accounted as a Heathen and Publican Matth. 18. and cannot haue God to be his Father accounting it more charity to fore warne vs by these threats of our perill that we may feare and auoide it then to put vs in a false security and so to let vs runne into danger for want of foresight of it Those examples which the Chaplaine giues of the Donatists giuing true Baptisme in the opinion of all and Protestants holding a kind of Reall Presence not denied by any are nothing like our case For in these cases there are annexed other reasons of certainly knowne perill of damnable schisme and heresie which we should incurre by cōsenting to the Donatists deniall of true Baptisme to be among Catholiques and to the Protestants denyall or doubting of the true substantiall presence of Christ in the Eucharist But in our case there is confessedly no such perill of any damnable Heresy schisme or any other sinne in resoluing to liue and die in the Catholique Rom. Church and in case some Protestants should say that there is perill of damnation in liuing and dying Roman Catholiques the authority of them that say there is perill being so few in comparison of those who say there is none and so passionate and partially affected men who are in this their saying contradicted by their owne more learned brethren ought not to be respected more then a Scarre-crowe But the authority of those who allow saluation to such as do liue and die Roman Catholiques being so many so ancient so vertuous so learned and some no way partially affected out opposite to the Romā Church ought to be accoūted of exceeding great weight may worthily perswade any wise man that it is most secure to liue and dye a Roman Catholique and consequently that in so important a matter this most secure course of liuing and dying in the Roman Church ought in all reason to be chosen and that so pretious a Iewell as the Soule is ought not to be left to the hazard of loosing heauen and falling into hell by relying vpon ones ownes opinion or the opinion of those few new Protestant Doctours who acknowledg that their whole congregatiō may erre much more therfore may they thinke that ech member therof may be deceiued in following his owne or any other mans opinion d Heere the Chaplain taxeth the Iesuite for falsly relating D. Whites Answer and saith he hath spoken with D. White who auowes this no other Answere He was asked in the Conference whether Papists errours were fundamentall To this he gaue answere by a distinction of persons which held and professed the errours Namely that the errours were fundamentall reductiuè by a reducent if they who imbraced them did pertinaciously adhere vnto them hauing sufficient meanes to be better informed Nay further that they were materially in the kind and nature of them leauen drosse haye and stubble yet he thought withall that such as were misled by education or long Custome or ouer-valuing the soueraigntie of the Romane Church and did in simplicity of heart imbrace them might by their generall Repentance faith in the merits of Christ attended with Charity and other vertues finde mercy at Gods hands But that he should say signanter expressè that none of yours or your fellowes errours were damnable so long as you hold them not against your Conscience that he vtterly disauowes c. To this the Iesuite answereth first that he did not in this his Relation say that D. White did signanter and expresly say these precise words None of yours or your fellowes errours are damnable Secondly he saith that D. White did

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

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

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