TRUE RELATIONS OF SUNDRY Confwerences had betweencertaine Protest 〈…〉 and a JESVIT called 〈…〉 sooner in Lond●● for the Cathol 〈…〉 Faith 〈…〉 togeath 〈…〉 Defences of the 〈…〉 IN WHICH Is showed, that there hath always been, since 〈…〉 Church, and in it a Visible Successio 〈…〉 Doctors 〈…〉 Pastors', Teaching the unchanged Doctrine of ●●yth, left 〈◊〉 Christ and his Apostles, in 〈◊〉 pains necessary to Sal●●tio● AND THAT Not Protestants, b●● only Roman Catholics have had and 〈…〉 Church and in it such 〈…〉 and Doctors, of 〈…〉 men may 〈…〉 what pois 〈…〉 faith are necessary to Salvation.  
By A. C.  
〈…〉  Rom. 16. v. ●● 
Permissu Superiorum M. DC. XXVI.   

The Preface of the Publisher of these Relations.  
GENTLE READER,  
I have thought good to present to thy view these Relations, together with the defences of them; not doubting but if thou peruse and ponder them well, they will turn to thy benefit more ways than one. First, supposing thou never heardst any thing of these conferences but in general, or perhaps hast heard particulars falsely related by some who are partially affected, or misinformed; thou mayest by this my labour be certified of the truth, and hereby enabled to do a work of Charity, in freeing others from ignorance and error, and contradicting such false rumours as thou mayst chance to understand to have been spread abroad, whether in speech, or in print, about this matter.  
Secondly, if thou be not thyself already resolved a right in matter of Faith necessary to salvation, thou mayest gain no small help towards a sound settling of thy mind; first, in the true knowledge & belief of that One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which is mentioned in the Apostles, and the Nicene Creed; & by means of it, in every other article, & point of that true Catholic Faith, which S. Athanasius in his Creed signifieth to be so necessary to salvation, that whosoever doth not hold it entire( that is, in all points) and inviolate,( that is, in the true, unchanged, and incorrupted sense, in which Christ, & his Apostles left it, as a sacred Depositum, to be kept always in the Church) without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.  
Thirdly, if thou be already rightly resolved, thou mayst receive confirmation in thy Faith, and consolation, in considering how plainly it is proved, that there is no other Church, nor consequently Faith, which can( with any probable colour) be pretended to be truly Christian & Catholic, besides that which always was, & yet is, the Roman, or united with the Roman Church, and Faith.  
Lastly, having once thy mind thus settled, and confirmed in the right Roman, Christian Catholic Faith, and thereby freed from wavering in uncertainty and doubtfulness about any particular point of Faith, thou needst not spend time in endless Disputes about Controversies of Faith, nor be always reading, and learning ( as many curious people be now adays, & never coming to settled, & well-grounded knowledge, or belief of all points of Faith) but mayst bestow thy time, 
2. Pet. 1.  as S. Peter counselleth those who be faithful Christians, when he saith: Employing all care, minister ye in your Faith, Virtue( by which you may live conformably to that Faith) and in Virtue, Knowledge( by which you may discern practically good from ill) and in Knowledge, Abstinence( from all that is ill) & in Abstinence, Patience( in regard there will not want some pain to be suffered, whiles you labour to abstain from ill) and in Patience, Piety( or Devotion, out of which will spring spiritual comfort, enabling you to endure patiently all kind of pain) and in Piety, Love of the fraternity( or brotherhood, & unity of the whole Church, not suffering yourselves with a preposterous piety of private feeling devotion, to hate, or separate from the common Doctrine, Sacrifice, Sacraments, Service, Rites or Ceremonies of the Catholic Church) and in Love of the fraternity, Charity( or love of God; which charity of it be well grounded, & rooted in your hart, it will doubtless move you to labour, as the same S. Peter further adviseth) by good Works( and not by only Faith, 
Ibid.  or apprehension that your sins be forgiven; or that you be just, or the children of God, or of the number of the Elect) to make sure your Vocation and Election, which doing, you shall not( as the same Apostle promiseth) sin at any time; 
Ibid.  and there shallbe ministered unto you abundantly, an entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour jesus-christ.  
Some may perhaps marvel, Why these Relations come out so late, it being now long since the Adversaries have given out false Reports, both in speeches, and print? For answer hereof, it must be considered, that besides the ordinary difficulties which Catholics in England have, either to write for want of convenient place, time, commodity of books, and conferring which others, or to print; there have been some special extraordinary impediments which have hindered the same. As namely, that M. Fisher was straightly charged, upon his Allegiance, from his Majesty, that then was living, not to set out, or publish what passed in some of these Conferences, until he gave Licence; which made both M. Fisher, & his friends to forbear, hoping( as was promised by him who delivered his majesty's message) that D. white and others were not to publish any thing, 
L. K.  until they meeting with M. Fisher, should treat, and agree, & under their hands confirm what was said on both sides; which his Majesty perusing, would grant licence to publish. The which meeting M. Fisher expected a long while, & once went to D. Whytes House, to know what he would say about the Relation which he had set out; but found him unwilling to make any such treaty & agreement, nor would himself set out in print, or writing, what he thought to be the true Relation, as knowing by likelihood that he could not set out the truth, without disadvantage of his cause, or not without impairing, or at least not advancing his own credit so much, as he desired.  
If any marvel, why in these Relations so little is said of the second Day's Conference with Doctor white, the reason is, because in a manner all the speech of that meeting, was between his Majesty, and M. Fisher, who beareth that dutiful respect to his Sovereign, that he will not permit any thing said by him, to be published now after his death, which he had so specially forbidden to be published in the time of his life. For if this cause had not been, it had been also now published as well as the rest; there being nothing in it, which M. Fisher should be ashamed off, or by which any prejudice might come to the Catholic Cause: for if there had been any such matter, D. White( who in general terms doth in his Preface seek to disgrace M. Fisher, saying, he vanished away with disgrace) would not have omitted to set down in particular some, at least one, blame-worthy Argument, or Answer. But of this, as also of D. Featlyes' endeavouring to disgrace M. Fisher, by objecting falsly-supposed Untruths, Contradictions &c. more is to be said in another place; and therefore not being willing to hold thee, Gentle Reader, any longer from the consideration of the first Occasion of all this business, I commit thee to the Protection of Almighty God.  
Thy hearty Wellwisher, and servant in Christ. W. I.   

THE TABLE Of the principal Contents, and Chapters of the ensuing Relations.  

THE Occasion of a certain Conference had between D. Francis White, and M. john Fisher. pag. 1.  
A Relation of what passed between D. white, and M. Fisher, about a certain Paper, given by the said M. Fisher to an Honourable Lady, wherein was proved the Catholic Roman Church and Faith to be the right. pag. 13.  
A Relation of the Conference between a certain Bishop, and M. Fisher; defended against the said B. his Chaplain. pag. 37. & 41.  
An Answer to a Pamphlet, entitled, The Fisher catched in his own Net. In which is showed that the Protestant Church was not so visible in all Ages, as the true Church ought to be; and consequently is not the true church, of which men may learn Infallible Faith, necessary to Salvation.  
CHAP. 1. About the first occasion of the Conference; in which is showed that M. Fisher did not seek it, nor provoke his Adversaries by any challenge unto it, nor did intend to have it so public, as by his Adversary's fault it proved. pag. 1.  
A Copy of the first Paper, which M. Fisher wrote and delivered to an old Gentleman, before the meeting. pag. 7.  
A copy of the second Paper, written by M. Fisher before the said meeting. pag. 10.  
CHAP. II. About that which passed in the conference itself. pag. 12.  
CHAP. III. Of the issue of the conference. pag. 43.  
CHAP. FOUR containing a Review, and Reflection upon the Premises. Together with diverse Observations concerning the Occasion, Meaning, Method, & Manner of proceeding in the foresaid conference. pag. 46. & seqq.  
An Appendix unto the former Answer, refuting diverse Untruths objected by D. white and D. Featly, against M. Fisher's Relations, & writings. pag. 73.  
A Reply to D. white, and D. Featly, who have undertaken to show a visible Protestant Church in all Ages, by naming, proving, & defending visible Protestant's in all Ages out of good Authors. The first Part. In which is showed, that neither they, nor any other have performed this undertaken Task, in such method and manner, as M. Fisher's Question( proposed unto the said Doctors in a former Conference) required: And much less have they, or can they, or any other show such a visible Protestant Church in all Ages and Nations, as Christ's true Church is( in the Prophecies, and Promises of holy Scripture) described. Whence it followeth, that the Protestant Church is not the true Church of Christ. pag. 1.  
CHAP. I. About the utility of M. Fisher's Question( requiring Names of visible Protestants in all Ages out of good Authors) for finding out the true Church, and by it, the true Faith. pag. 9  
CHAP. II. In which M. Fishers Question is explicated, and D. Whytes and D. Featly Answer given in the Conference, is showed to have been very deficient. pag. 13.  
CHAP. III. In which is showed, how many Ministers, after the Conference aforesaid, have endeavoured to make Answer: And that none have sufficiently answered M. Fisher's Question. pag. 17.  
CHAP. FOUR About M. Bernard's Answer, entitled, Look beyond Luther. pag. 19  
CHAP. V. Concerning M. Rogers his Answer to M. Fishers five Propositions. pag. 22.  
A true Copy of M. Fisher's five propositions aforesaid. pag. 24.  
CHAP. VI Concerning W. C. his idle Dialogue. pag. 36.  
An Argument proving, that he that denyeth the Authority of the Church in any one point, taketh away infallible Certainty. pag. 39  
CHAP. VII. About a certain Treatise of the Visibility of the true Church. pag. 51.  
CHAP. VIII. About a Book entitled, Luther's Predecessors, set forth by a Nameless Author. pag. 61.  
CHAP. IX. Concernining D. Whytes Answer. pag. 65.  
CHAP. X. A Reply to D. Featly his Answer to M. Fisher's Question. pag. 71.  
Certain shifts, and Tergiversations used by D. Featly. pag. 79.  
CHAP. XI. About D. Usher's Sermon preached before his Majesty ●0. of june, 1624. pag. 123.  
CHAP. XII. Containing a Confutation of the Pamphlet, called, The Protestant Calendar. pag. 136.  
The second Part of the Reply to D. white, and D. Featly. In which is showed, that the Catholic Roman Church can name, prove, & defend visible Professors of her Faith in all Ages. And that she only, and such as agree in Faith with her, is the True visible Catholic Church, out of which there is no salvation. pag. 143.  
CHAP. I. In which is showed, that the Roman Church hath had visible Professors, whose Names may be showed in all Ages. pag. 145.  
CHAP. II. In which is showed, that out of the Catholic Roman Church, there is no salvation. pag. 152.  
A Discourse wherein is demonstrated by Reasons drawn out of Scriptures & ancient Fathers, that out of the Unity of the Roman Church, there is no Salvation. pag. 153.  
The first Argument thereof. pag. 157.  
The second Argument. pag. 158.    

Faults escaped in the printing.  

In the Relations of the Conferences.  Page, Line, Fault, Correction. 24 31 whom when deal whom 26 5 be true to be true 33 7 being a divine coming from a divine Ibid 11 this definition so this definition 44 24 of faith of points of faith 45 23 to be firm be firm 49 4 it not is not 51 1 & 2 so rudely formerly Ibid. 13 known foreknown 56 15 for contra for if contra Ibid. 18 What then? Is it What then is it? 57 2 to Rome to come 61 14 do justify do not like 64 ult. argument against 66 15 out opposite but opposite 70 12 union unanime  

In the Answer to the Fisher catched. etc.  4 17 questions question 8 ult. solloweth followeth 16 12 repotteth reporteth 23 11 sense: Whereof sense whereof 39 18 desired desired 59 16 heahen heathen 60 28 with which 67 26 pre-present present 71 6 Prostant Protestant.  

In the Reply to D. white, and D. Featly.  1 17 offerings ofspringes 4 18 pages ages 6 6 denied not confessed not 8 11 different deficient 11 5 pretended produced 14 31 or defend and defend 15 8 The Proofs Moreover the Proofs 21 18 first fifth 28 4 is of are of 32 12 of the argument against the argument Ibid. 31 possessors professors 33 2 the M. the same M. 36 7 pretenteth pretendeth 41 21 to move doth move 45 22 ( especially obstinately) deal ult. parenthesim and read( especially obstinately against the known faith of the Church) any one etc. 68 26 precept of positive etc. read, positive and negative precept of profession etc. 69 18 infer answer 74 20 Mayor Minor 84 ult. to be good not to be good 96 9 do not denominate. read, do not( as the Name Protestant doth) denominate &c. 67 ult. every piously disposed. read, every intelligent, and piously disposed etc. 108 21 points, to take points. To take etc. 109 29 but say and say 117 32 it seemeth It seemeth 118 1 notable not able 119 9 hunreds hundreds 131 29 found in sound in 140 27 be nameth he nameth 146 3 Fayh Faith 147 19 Traditions. The Traditions; the 151 19 defined defined 153 13 had,) deal parenthesim. 163 31 uncharitable uncharitably   

THE OCCASION OF A Certain Conference had between D. Francis White, and M. john Fisher.  
THE Occasion of this Conference, was a certain written Paper, given by M Fisher to an Honble Lady, who desired something to be briefly written to prove the Catholic Roman Church, & Faith, to be the only right.  

The Copy of this Paper is as followeth.  
FIRST, It is certain, 
Ephes. 4. Heb. 11.  that there is one, and but one, true, divine, infallible Faith, without which none can please God, or attain Salvation.  
2. This one, true, divine, infallible Faith, is wholly grounded upon the authority of God's word; and in this it differeth not only from all humane sciences bred by a clear sight, or evident demonstration, and from humane opinion proceeding from probable arguments or conjectures, & from humane Faith built upon the authority of Pythagoras his Ipse dixit, or the word of any other man; but also from all other divine knowledge, had, either by clear vision of the divine Essence, which Saints have in heaven, or by clear revelation of divine Mysteries, which some principal persons, to wit, patriarchs, and prophets, and Apostles had on earth; and also from that Theological discursive knowledge, which learned men attain unto, by the use of their natural wit, in deducing Conclusions, partly out of the foundations of supernatural Faith, partly out of principles of natural reason: From all these kinds of knowledge( I say) that one true, divine, and infallible Faith differeth, in that it is grounded wholly upon the authority of the Word of God, as humane fallible Faith is grounded upon the authority of the Word of Man.  
3. This Word of God, upon which divine infallible faith is grounded, is not only the word of God Increate, or the prime Verity, but also the word Created, or Revelation proceeding from that prime Verity, by which the truth of Christian mysteries, by Christ( who is true God) was first made manifest to the Apostles, and other his Disciples; partly by the exterior preaching of his own mouth, but chiefly by the inward revelation of his eternal heavenly Father, and by the inspiration of the holy Ghost. Secondly, It was made known to others living in those days, partly by outward preaching, partly by the writings of the aforesaid Apostles, and Disciples, to whom Christ gave lawful mission & commission to teach, saying Teach all nations, 
Matth. 28..  promising that himself would be with them all days, 
joan. 16.  unto the end of the world; 
Luc. 10.  and that his holy Spirit should assist them, and teach them,( and consequently make them able to teach others) all Truth, in such sort, as whosoever should hear them, should hear Christ himself, and so should be made docibles Dei, and as the Prophet foretold, docti à Domino, and as S. Paul speaketh of some, Epistola Christi, the epistle of Christ, written not with ink, but with the spirit of God. Whence appeareth, that not only the Word Increate, but also the Word Created, may be truly said to be the Foundation of our Faith; and not only that Word which was immediately inspired by the heavenly Father, or by the holy Ghost, in the hearts of the Apostles, and other Disciples, who lived in our Saviour's days; but also the Word, as well preached, as written by the Apostles, and also that Word, which by the preaching and writing of the Apostles, was by the holy Ghost imprinted in the hearts of the immediate hearers, who were thereupon said to be the Epistles of Christ, as I have already noted.  
4. This Word of God( which I call Created, to distinguish it from the word Increate) being partly preached, partly written, partly inspired or imprinted in manner aforesaid) was not to cease at the death of the Apostles and Disciples and their immediate hearers, 
1. Tim. 2.  but by the appointment of God( who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth,) was to be derived to posterity; not by new immediate revelations, or Enthusiasms, nor by sending Angels to all particular men, but by a continuated succession of Visible Doctors, and Pastors, and lawfully-sent Preachers in all ages, who partly by Transcripts of what was written first by the Apostles; but chiefly by Vocal preaching of the same doctrine, without change, which the Pastors of every age successively one from another received of their predecessors, as they who lived in the age next to the Apostles days, received it from the Apostles, as a sacred Depositum, to be kept and preserved in the Church, maugre all the assaults of hely gates, which according to Christ's promise, shall never preva-le against the Church Whence followeth, that not only for 400. or 500 or 600. years, but in all ages since Christ, there was, is, and shallbe the true Word of God preached by visible Doctors, Pastors, and lawfully sent Preachers, so guided by Christ and his holy spirit, that by them people of every Age were, are, and shallbe sufficiently instructed in true, divine, infallible Faith, in all things necessary to Salvation; to the intent, that they may not be little ones, wavering, 
Ephes. 4.  nor carried about with every wind of new doctrine; which being contrary to the old and first received, must needs be false.  
5. Whereas by this which is already said( which if need be, may be morefully proved) it appeareth first, that there is one, true, divine, infallible Faith, necessary to salvation. Secondly, that this Faith is wholly grounded upon the word of God. Thirdly, that this word of God, is not only the word Increate, but also the word Created, either inwardly inspired, or outwardly preached, or written, & continued, without change in one, or other continued succession of Visible Pastors, Doctors, and lawfully-sent Preachers, rightly teaching, by the direction of Christ, and his holy spirit, the said word of God whereas( I say) all this doth most evidently appear by this which is already said.  
That I may prove the Roman Church only, and those who consent and agree in doctrine of Faith with it, to have that one, true, divine, infallible Faith, which is necessary to salvation,  
Thus I dispute. 
 If it be needful, that there should be one, or other continual succession of Visible Pastors, in which, and by which the unchanged word of God, upon which true, divine, infallible Faith is grounded, is preserved and preached; and no other succession besides that of the Roman Church, and others, which agree in Faith with it, can be showed( as if any such were, may be showed) out of approved Histories, or other ancient monuments; Then without doubt, the Roman Church only, and such as agree with it in Faith, have that true, divine, infallible Faith, which is necessary to salvation.  
But there must be one, or other such succession of Visible Pastors; and no other can be showed out of approved Histories or ancient monuments, besides that of the Roman Church only, and such others as agree with it in Faith. Ergo.  
The Roman Church only, and such others as agree with it in Faith, hath true, divine, infallible Faith, necessary to salvation.  
The Consequence of the Mayor cannot with reason be denied, and if it be, it shallbe proved.  
The Minor hath two parts. The first whereof is plain, by that which is already said, and if need be it shallbe more fully proved out of holy Scriptures.  
The second part, may be made manifest, first out of Histories, secondly out of the confession of Protestants.   

The second Argument.  
If the Roman Church had the right Faith, and never changed any substantial part of Faith: Then it followeth, that it hath now that one true, divine, infallible Faith, which is necessary to salvation.  
But the Roman Church once had the right Faith, and never changed any substantial part of Faith. Ergo.  
The Roman Church now hath the right Faith; and consequently Protestant's, so far as they disagree with it, have not the right soule-saving Faith.  
The Mayor is evident.  
The Minor hath two parts. The first is clear out of S. Paul, Rom. 1. and is confessed by Protestants.  
The second part, I prove thus: 
 If the Roman Church changed any substantial part of Faith, than there may be showed the point changed, the person which was the Author of that change, the time when, and place where the change was made; & others may be named, who persisting in the ancient Faith, continued opposition against the innovation and change, as may be showed in other like, and less changes, and namely in Luther's, and Caluins change.  
But these circumstances cannot be showed. Ergo. No change.  
If my Adversary's name any point, which they affirm to have been changed. 1. This will not suffice, unless they name the other circumstances of the Author, time, place, and who persisting in the former unchanged Faith, opposed and continued opposition against it, as against a Novelty, and Heresy; as we can do in other changes, and namely in that which was by Luther and Calvin.  
2. These points, which they say were changed after the first 600. years, may be showed them to have been held, by more ancient approved Authors, in the same sense, in which they are held by the Roman Church; which doth argue, that there was no such change made.    

A brief Relation of what passed between D. White, and M. Fisher, about the foresaid written Paper.  
THIS foresaid paper passing from one to another, came to some hands, who gave it to D. Francis white to answer, and to prepare himself to oppugn it in a Conference with M. Fisher: who when he wrote it, & gave it to the Lady, did not think, or suspect that any such great matter should have been made of it, as after proved, M. D. white having( as he confessed after to M. Fisher) had this paper about ten days in his hands, studying what to say to it, came as he was apppointed to the place of meeting, and M. Fisher being then a Prisoner, was also sent for. At the hour and place prefixed, both the one, and the other( as they were bidden) sat down before a few, but very Honourable Persons, whose names I will only( as M. Fisher first did) express in these ensuing letters. L. K. L. M. B. L. B. & M. B. Then D. white drew out a copy of the aforesaid written paper, and asked M. Fisher whether he wrote it. Unto which M. Fisher answered, I wrote such a thing, & if it be a true copy, I will defend it.  
Then D. white read the first point of the said paper, in which was said: This is one, and has one, was, divine Faith etc. This saith D. white, is true, if Faith be understood explicit, or implicit. Which to be the true sense M. Fisher assented.  
Then D. White read the second point, in which was said, That this true, divine Faith, was wholly provided upon the word of God etc. This also D. White yielded to be true.  
Then D. White read the third point, in which was said, That this word of God, upon which Faith was grounded, is not only the Word increate, but also the Word Created, to wit, the divine revelation made manifest, partly by Christ's 〈◊〉 preaching, partly by the holy Ghosts inward inspiration in 〈◊〉 hearts of the Apostles etc.  
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 inspiration of the holy Ghost was promised, & given 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 Canonical Scriptures. Others that were Pastors and Doctors, had it in an inferior degree, yet so, as by it they were enabled to teach infallibly, and without change, the substance of all points needful to salvation, especially when in a general Council, after discussion of the matter, they did conclude as the Apostles and Seniors did, Visum est spiritui sancto & nis. It seemeth good to the holy Ghost, and us. The people also had a measure of the same spirit, sufficient to enable them to conceive rightly and to believe steadfastly the teaching of their Pastors.  
D. white did not disallow the substance of this answer, but only made a verbal Objection, saying: The Apostles had inspiration, Pastors and People only illumination.  
M. Fisher answered, that both Apostles & Pastors had inspiration and illumination, in regard the motion of the holy Ghost, as received in the understanding, is called Illumination, and as received in the will, it is called Inspiration.  
L. K. bad them leave that verbal controversy, and proceed in the matter. D. white excepted against that part of the paper, wherein was said, That the word of God was partly written, partly unwritten, and would have nothing to be the word of God, but what is written in Scripture.  
M. Fisher to justify that part of the paper, first alleged that Text of S. Paul, Hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by our Word, or Epistle. 2. He made these two ensuing arguments( to prove that more is to be believed by divine Faith then is written in Scripture.)  
It is necessary to believe, by divine Faith, that Genesis, Exodus, and other particular Books are Canonical, and divine Scripture.  
But this to be so, is not assuredly known by the only Word written. Ergo etc.  
Moreover Protestants hold, and believe this proposition: Nothing is to be believed by Christian Faith, but what is contained in Scripture:  
But this Proposition, is not contained in the word written. Ergo. Something is believed even by Protestants which is not contained in the written Word, and therefore they must admit for a ground of Faith some Word of God not written.  
D. white answered: Although at that time when S. Paul wrote the text alleged, some part of God's word was not written, yet afterwards all needful to be believed, was written. This D. white said, but did not, not cannot prove, especially out of any part of the written Word.  
D. Woyte alleged this text, Omnis scriptura divinit 〈…〉 inspirata, utilis est&c. But( as M. Fisher then told him) this Text doth not prove the point which is to be proved. For this text doth not say, that all which is divinely inspired, was written, or that Genesis, Exodus, and other particular books, are divinely inspired, or that nothing is to be believed which is not contained in scripture; but only saith, That all, or every Scripture divinely inspired, is profitable.  
D. white said: Scripture is not only 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 therefore being profitable to all these offices, it may be said to be sufficient.  
M. Fisher replied: Although wood be profitable to make the substance of the house, to make wainscot, to make tables and stools, and other furniture, yet hence doth not follow, that wood alone is sufficient to build and furnish a house. I will notsay, that here D. White was at a Nonplus, because I understand that word Nonplus, doth not please him; but the truth is that to this D. white did make no answer. And for my part I profess, I do not see what answer he could have made to the purpose, and worthy of that Honourable, and understanding Audience.  
D. white therefore without saying any thing to this instance, seemed to be weary, and giving the paper to M. Fisher, had him read on.  
M. Fisher taking the paper, read the fourth Point, in which was said, 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 company of visible Pastors, Doctors, and lawfully-sent preachers successively in all ages etc. All which to be true being at last granted, or not denied by D. white, M. Fisher proposed the first of the two arguments set down in the aforesaid Paper. viz.  
If there must be in all ages one, or other continual succession of visible Pastors, Doctors, and lawfully-sent Preachers by whom the unchanged word of God, upon which Faith is grounded, was preserved &c preached in all ages since Christ; and no other is visible, or can be showed, besides those of the Roman Church, and such as agree in Faith with them; Then none, but the Pastors of the Roman Church, and such as agree in Faith with them, have that one, infallible, divine, unchanged Faith which is necessary to salvation.  
But there must be such a visible succession, & none such can be showed different in Faith from the Pastors of the Roman Church. Ergo.  
Only the Pastors of the Roman Church; and such as agree in Faith with them, preserve and teach that one, infallible, divine, unchanged Faith which is necessary to salvation.  
D. white answered, That it was sufficient to show a succession of visible Pastors, teaching unchanged doctrine in all points fundamental, although not in points not fundamental.  
M. Fisher replied saying: First, that if time permitted, he could prove all points of divine Faith, to be fundamental( 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 aliis quaestionibus non diligenter digestis, nondum plena authoritate Ecclesia firmatis, ibi ferendus est error; non tantùm progredi debet, ut ipsum fundamentum quatere moliatur. In which S. Auston insinuateth, that to err in any questions defined by full authority of the Church, is to shake the foundation of Faith, or to err in points fundamental. But M. Fisher not having the book at hand( and fearing to be tedious in arguing upon a text which he had not ready to show) passed on: and secondly required D. white to give him a Catalogue of all points fundamental, or a definition or description( well proved out of Scripture, and in which all Protestants will agree) by which one may discern which be, and which be not points fundamental.  
D. white rejected this demand, as thinking it unreasonable to require of him a Catalogue, or definition, or description of Points fundamental, out of Scripture, in which all Protestants will agree. But( considering in what sense D. white did understand this distinction of points fundamental, and not fundamental( to wit, that none could be saved who did not believe all points fundamental rightly; and that none should be damned for not believing other points, unless he did wilfully against his conscience deny, or not believe them;) M. Fishers demand was both reasonable and most necessary; for sith all Protestants agree in holding it necessary to be certain of their salvation; and that none can be saved, who do not believe all points fundamental; and that in these points, one must not content himself with implicit Faith, but must expressly know them; it is most necessary, that all Protestants should out of Scripture) which they pretend to be their only Rule of Faith) find, and conclude with unanimous consent certainly, what is, and what is not a fundamental point of Faith, necessary to salvation. For whiles some hold more, some less to be fundamental, and none of them giveth( out of Scripture) a sufficient rule by which it may be discerned, which is, and which is not fundamental; how can each particular Protestant rest assured, that he believeth expressly all points fundamental, or so much as is necessary, and sufficient to make him assured of salvation. But to return to the Relation. D. white, having rejected M. Fisher's demand, requiring a Catalogue, definition or description out of Scripture( in which all Protestants will agree) said: That all those points were fundamental, which were contained in the Creed of the Apostles.  
M. Fisher might have asked him diverse questions upon this answer. 1. What text of scripture taught him, that all the points contained in the Apostles Creed were fundamental in the sense aforesaid? Or, That this Creed was composed by the Apostles, as a summary of Faith, containing points needful( at least necessitate Praecepti) to be expressly believed by all men? The Church indeed so teacheth, but the Scripture hath not any text which doth expressly say so, or whence by necessary consequence so much may be gathered; and therefore according to Protestant principles( permitting nothing to be believed but Only Scripture) the Apostles Creed ought not to be believed, as a rule of any point of Faith, and much less a rule containing all principal and fundamental points of Faith.  
2. M. Fisher might have asked, Whether Only the words of the Creed are needful to be held, as a sufficient foundation of Faith, or the Catholic senses. If only the words; then the Arrians, and other condemned Heretics may be said to have held all the fundamental points sufficient to Salvation; which is contrary to the judgement of Antiquity, and is most absurd. If the Catholic sense; then the question must be, who must be judge to determine which is the catholic sense? and whether it be not most reasonable, and necessary, that the Catholic Church itself, rather than any particular man, or Sect of men, should teach the true sense? When especially, 
joan. 14. & 16.  the holy Ghost was promised to the catholic church( and not to any particular man, or Sect of men, differing in doctrine from it) to teach it all Truth.  
3. M. Fisher might have asked, whether all points fundamental were expressed in the creed, or not? If they be not, by what other rule shall one know, what is a point fundamental? If all which is fundamental be expressed in the creed, then to believe only Scripture, or to believe that there is any Scripture at all, is not fundamental, or necessary to Salvation; but to believe the catholic church( and consequently the truth of all such doctrines of Faith, which she generally teacheth, or defineth in her general counsels) is fundamental. So as, we may say with S. Athanasius, Whosoever will be saved, must believe the catholic Faith( that is, the Faith taught by the catholic church) and this not only in part or in a corrupt sense, but in all points, and in catholic sense. For as the same S. Athanasius saith, unless one believe the said Catholic faith( integram inviolatam▪) entiere and inviolate, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. All these questions M. Fisher might have asked, but he at that present only asked, Whether all articles of the Creed, were held by D. white to be fundamental?  
To which Question D. white answered, That all was fundamental.  
M. Fisher asked, Whether the article of christs descending into hell, were fundamental?  
D. white said, Yes.  
Why then( said M. Fisher) did M. Rogers affirm, That the Church of England is not yet resolved, 
Roger's 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 private man. M. Fisher replied: That his Book in the title professeth to be set out by public authority. To which M. Fisher might have added. That the Book so set out by public authority, beareth title of the Catholic, or Universal doctrine of the church of England; by which addition is showed a difference betwixt this book of M. Rogers, and some others, which were objected to be set out by licence of the catholic side: for these our books are only licenced to come out in the name of such, or such a private author, and as books declaring his private opinions: but this of M. Rogers was authorized, and graced with the title of the Catholic doctrine of the church of England, and therefore ought by Protestants to be more respected, than other private men's books.  
M. Fisher not thinking it necessary to press this difference, returned again to D. Whytes first answer to the main argument, in which he having said, That it was sufficient to show a visible succession of such as held points fundamental, did implicitly grant it necessary, that a succession should be showed of such visible Pastors as did hold all points, which at least himself held to be fundamental, or necessary to salvation. Whereupon M. Fisher bad D. white name a continual company, or succession of visible Protestants( different from the Roman Church which they call Papists) holding all points which he accounted fundamental.  
D. white expressly granted, That he could not show such a visible succession of Pastors and Doctors( differing in doctrine from the Roman church) who held all points which he accounted fundamental. Which his ingenuous confession, I desire the Reader to note, applying it to the argument which M. Fisher proposed, showing that Only the Roman church hath had such a succession. For if, as the argument urgeth, one such succession hath been, and none differing in doctrine from the Roman can be showed by D. white( being accounted a prime Protestant Controversist, 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 far as they differ in doctrine from the Roman church, and consequently till they assign some other( which they can never do) they must acknowledge the Roman to be the only church, or at least a church which hath had a visible succession, teaching the unchanged Faith of christ in all ages, in all points, at least fundamental: which being acknowledged, worthily might M. Fisher ask( as he did ask) D. white, Why Protestants made a schism from the Roman church? and why Protestants did persecute Roman catholics, contrary to the custom of the ancient Fathers, who still kept unity with other churches, although in their opinion holding errors;( until the catholic church by full authority defined them to be errors in Faith) and that after such definition of the church( which was yet never made against the Roman church) they would still obstinately persist in error; as appeareth in S. Cyprians case. To these demands made by M. Fisher, D. white answered; We do not persecute you for Religion. About which answer I desire the gentle Reader to observe, that M. Fisher asked two Questions. 1. Why Protestants made a schism from the Roman church? 2. Why Protestants did persecute Roman catholics?  
To the first of these questions being about Schism, D. white answered not a word, and yet this was the most important Question, sufficient to show Protestants to be in a damnable state, unless they repent and return to unity with the Roman church. For on the one side, it cannot be denied, but that schism or separation of ones self from church-Vnity, is a most damnable sin, which cannot be made lawful for any cause, nor cannot without repentance, & returning to Unity, be washed away, even with martyrdom itself, as the ancient Fathers confess: And on the other side it is evident( & even confessed by some Protestants) that Protestants did separate themselves from the Roman Church, which is confessed to be the mother Church, and which cannot be showed to have separated itself from a former church yet extant, as the true church of christ must always be visibly extant; Neither can there be showed any other reason, why Protestants did make, and continue this their separation, than were, or might have been alleged by Heretics, and schismatic of ancient times, separating themselves from the catholic Roman church: For setting aside all temporal respects, which doubtless were( but were very insufficient and unworthy) 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 leave the Faith, Sacraments, and rites of the church, our Saviour having sufficiently forewarned what is to be done in this case, 
Matth. 21.  when he said; Upon the chair of Moses the Scribes and Pharisees have sitten; all therefore that they say unto you, observe, and do, but according to their works do not. For by this is showed 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 Pastors, or by corporally absenting ones self from communicating with them in necessary Sacraments, and church Rites, but only spiritually to depart from the imitation of their ill manners. The second, to wit, corruption of Doctrine, pertaining to the common Faith of the catholic Church, neither did, nor can happen to the whole visible church; christ having promised, that the holy Ghost shallbe always with it, to teach it all Truth; and that Hell-gates shall never so prevail against it, as to overthrow in it the foundation of all goodness, to wit, true Faith. And for other errors in such questions as are not determined by full authority of the said catholic church, S. Austin's rule is to be observed, 
Aug. de verb. apost. Ser. 14.  whom when he saith, Ferendus est disputator errans: neither must one for the error of a few, leave the society and communion of all; neither must one or a few, presuming upon their own private reading, and interpreting of scripture, or their private spirit( which is or may be the common pretext of all Heretics) censure & condemn the doctrine, or practise of the universal Catholic Church to be erroneous: which to do, is by S. Bernard's sentence, Intolerable Pride, and in S. Austans judgement, Insolent madness.  
The beginning therefore and continuance of the Schism, and separation of the Protestants from the Catholic Roman Church( in which even, as Calvin confesseth, 
Calvin 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. white passed over that part of the Question( touching this Schysme) with silence, and only answered, as is above said, to the other part saying: We do not persecute you for Religion.  
To which answer M. Fisher replied, saying: You do us wrong, for myself being a prisoner was never taxed with any state matter, but do suffer for Religion. L. M. B. made another answer, saying: You of your side, did first persecute Protestant's.  
M. Fisher answered, that we Catholics hold all points, in which Protestants differ from us in doctrine of faith to be fundamental, and necessary to be believed, or at least not denied, and so may have cause to punish them who deny, or contradict. But Protestants, who believe catholics to hold right in all points which themselves esteem fundamental, have no reason to persecute us, for supposed errors in points not fundamental, which Protestants do not account damnable. For better clearing whereof M. Fisher, asked D. White, whether he thought error in a point not fundamental to be damnable?  
D. White, said, No, unless one hold it against his conscience.  
M. Fisher asked, How one could hold an error 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 error.  
D. White answered, That by perversity of will he might hold an error against the known truth. Which answer is true, if he mean, that one who knoweth the truth at this instant, may after by perversity of Will, incline the Understanding to hold the contrary error. But that, at the same instant, he should know the truth actually, and yet actually hold, in the same instant, the contrary error in his conscience, or inward knowledge, is more than I think any Philosopher can explicat. For this were to know, and not know, and to believe two contraries, Truth, and Error, about the same object in the same subject, the inward conscience at one, and the same instant, which is impossible.  
M. B. marveling at D. Whites answer asked, him again the same question, saying: May one be saved that holdeth error in points of Faith, not fundamental, supposing he hold not against his conscience?  
D. White said; Yes.  
Those( faith M. B.) who suffering for conscience hold error in Faith against their conscience, are worthy to be damned.  
M. Fisher having observed, that D. White had insinuated, that one might be damned for holding error in points of Faith not fundamenall, in case he hold them against his conscience, said; If it be damnable to hold errors in points not fundamental, in case one hold them wilfully against his conscience: à fortiori, it is damnable to hold the like errors wilfully and obstinately, against the known judgement, and conscience of the Church. For as S. Bernard saith: Quadratus major superbia, 
Bern. serm. 5. de resurrect.  quam ut unus homo iudicium suum praeferattoti Congregationi? What greater pride, than that one man should prefer his judgement( or conscience) before the judgement( and conscience) of the whole Church?  
D. white said, he remembered that sentence of S. Bernard: but it is not remembered that he gave any good answer, either to that sentence, or to the argument confirmed by it. Neither indeed can he give any good answer, in regard it is certain, that the judgement & conscience of the whole Church( or Congregation of so many faithful, wise, learned, and virtuous men, assisted by the promised Spirit of truth) is incomparably more to be respected, and preferred before the judgement, and conscience of any private man; as appear by that of Christ our Saviour, who( without excepting any who pretendeth to follow his conscience, and without distinguishing the matter in which he pretendeth to follow it, into points fundamental, & not fundamental) absolutely affirmeth, 
Matt. 1●.  He that will not hear( that is, believe and obey) the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen & Publican.  
Hence Protestant's( who prefer their private judgement and Conscience before the judgement and conscience of the Catholic Church, in interpreting Scriptures, or otherwise) may learn, in what state they remain, so long as they do thus, being by the Censure of S. Bernard, extremely Proud, and in the judgement of S. Austen insolently mad, and by the sentence of Christ himself, to be accounted no better than Heathens and Publicans.  
It seemeth that D. white did not deeply ponder this point, or else was willing to pass over it( as a Cat over hot coals) and so he betook himself to oppugn another part of M. Fisher's paper, in which is said, that; No company of visible Pastors delivering unchanged doctrine, could be showed in all ages, besides those of the Roman Church.  
D. white denied this to be true, and( notwithstanding he had before said that he could not show any company differing in doctrine from the Roman Church, holding in all ages all fundamental points) said, that both the Greek Church, and the Protestant Church had such a succession of visible Pastors: which two sayings, how D. white will reconcile, pertaineth to him to declare.  
M. Fisher replied, and told him that the Greek Church changed, and erred in a point of Faith, to wit, about the holy Ghost. A like, or greater change he might, and in likelihood would, have told him to have been in many points held by the Protestant Church, if he had not been interrupted by L. K. who asked, Whether notwithstanding that error of the Greek Church, Ignorant man might not be saved?  
M. Fisher answered to L. K. his question, saying: Some ignorant men may be excused from actual sin, in holding that error, as, through invincible ignorance, one holding some error against the holy Trinity itself, may be excused. Yet for other actual sins, they might be damned for want of means necessary for remission of them. This answer was meant by M. Fisher of such ignorant men, who( although by invincible ignorance excused from the actual sin of positive Infidelity, Heresy & Schism) wanted true supernatural Faith, Hope and Charity, out of which an act of true Contrition springeth; or wanted the true, and lawful use of the Sacrament of Penance, & Priestly Absolution; which being needful to obtain pardon of sin, may easily be wanting to such people as commit other sins against the light of nature, or against those good motions of Grace, which now and then Almighty God giveth to all sorts, who consequently( through this their own fault) are not illuminated with true supernatural Faith, but are permitted still to remain in Infidelity, or Heresy, or Schism, or in a negative disposition of want of all Faith, devotion, and desire of union 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, Heretical, or Schismatical) Countries. But hence doth not follow, neither did M. Fisher ever mean to affitme, that all ignorant Grecians, Protestants, or of any other sort of Schismatics, Heretics, or Infidels are damned; for if on the one side this their ignorance be invincible, so as to excuse them from the actual sin of their Schism, Heresy, and Infidelity; and on the other side, they by Almighty Gods special grace, be preserved from other actual mortal sin, and by the same grace be excited extraordinarily to Faith, Hope, Charity, and to true Contrition for all fin, they may be saved: But this being extraordinary, no man ought ordinarily presume, or rely on it, especially so, as to neglect the ordinary means, known to be in the unity of the Catholic Roman Church.  
After this D. White excepted against another point of M. Fisher's paper, in which was said: That the Roman Church had still held unhanged doctrime of Faith in all points etc. And for instances of change made, he objected Transubstantiation, Images, Communion under one kind, Sacrament of penance etc. These points he slightly began to touch, but did not( as the paper required) name when, and by whom the change was made in these points, but said; It was not needful to show these circumstances. As for example( saith he) the pharisees held error, in saying, that the gold of the Altar was more holy than the Altar, which was a change in doctrine, & yet you cannot show when, and by whom this change was made.  
To this M. Fisher answered, that although he could not on the sudden tell when, and by whom this Change was made; yet he did not doubt but that with study he might find it out. And so indeed, he might have named the Author of the Sect of pharisees, who first brought in that error, and the time when that Sect began, which is enough. For we do not press Protestant's to tell the very day, or hour in which every 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 year, or Age that Sect of men, first began; and who they were, who then noted them to teach such doctrine, contrary so the formerly received Faith of the universal Church; as must be, and is usually noted, when especially any such notorious matters as those which D. White objected, were by any man, or any sect of men, taught contrary to the formerly received Faith of the universal church.  
Sith therefore, the aforesaid circumstances are ulually noted in other such kind of changes, and that it is morally impossible, that such great changes and so universally spread over the world, should be made either in an instant, or in succession of time, and that not one, or other writer would have made mention of the change, and when, where, and by whom it was made, as they do of all other such matters; D. White( who objected such great changes of doctrine to have been made in the Roman church, accusing hereby greviously her, which consessedly was once the true Mother church,) is obliged and bound, not only to prove this his accusation, by showing the foresaid circumstances, in good Authors, if he will not be accounted an unnatural and false calumniator of his true Mother-church: but he must also show another continually visible church, which never did admit any any such change in doctrine of Faith, if he will not impiously deny the truth of the Prophecies and Promises of Scripture, whereby we learn, that Hell gates shall not prevail against the church: And that christ himself, and his holy spirit will always be with the church teaching it, and consequently enabling it to teach us all truth, and making it the pillar and ground of truth, and consequently free from all error in matters of Faith.  
But D. White can never prove his accusation by showing out of good Authors the aforesaid circumstances of the change of the Roman church, in doctrine of Faith, nor can show any other continually visible church, which did not admit change in doctrine of Faith. Let him therefore consider, whether it be not better to recall his false unnatural accusation of his Mother the Roman church, being sorry for it, with purpose here after humbly to hear, believe, obey, and folo where doctrine and direction, rather than to incur, not only the foresaid censure of men, but also of christ himself, who saith; He that will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as an heathen & Publican: that is, cast out of the favour of God, and all good men, both in this present life, and also, if he do not in time repent, in the future eternal life.  
These be the chief points which I have gathered out M. Fishers first Relation, which he showed to D. white with an intent that he should put him in mind if any thing were not remembered, or misremembred: But the Doctor at that time did not, nor could truly say, that any thing was safely related; only he said, 1. That himself did not remember a point or two, which both M. Fisher and M. B. did perfectly remember to have been so as is here related. 2. He said, that something more was said then is related, which M. Fisher did not deny, but was willing to add any thing, that D. white could put him in mind of, or that himself should after remember: and so being put in remembrance made by D. white, to wit, Whereas M. Fisher upon some occasion or other, had said, That although a general Council might err in the premises, yet not in the Conclusion, D. white objected, saying: That in all sciences the conclusion is no more certain, than the Premises, & therefore if the premises in a general council be fallible, the conclusion cannot be infallible. To which M. Fisher answered, saying; Although in sciences which depend only upon the light of Nature, the conclusion cannot be more certain than the premises; yet in a general council, assisted by the holy Ghost, in the final conclusion, or definitive sentence, the conclusion is always infallible, although sometimes the premises be fallible.  
And M. Fisher had great reason to answer in this manner. Indeed if to define a matter of Faith were to conclude the same by way of discourse out of Principles, as the Argument doth suppose; then if Counsels might err in the Promises they might likewise err in their Conclusion, and definitive sentence. But this supposition is false, Infallibility in defining, being a divine Assistance, not to infer 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 ever infallible, though all the arguments the Council brings by way of discourse in proof of the definition either before or after the same is made, be not still demonstrative.  
Another objection M. Fisher hath since that time remembered( to wit) that D. White alleged something out of Abulensis in Matt. 7. 19 which M. Fisher differred to make answer unto, until he might see the Author himself, having had experience enough, how falsely many Ministers the Authors, and how false their Note-Bookes be. Now M. Fisher, hath seen the book, and findeth the words cited by D. White to contain 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 even that part which seemeth contrary to M. Fisher, doth nothing preudice M. Fisher's cause, as will appear to any that will duly ponder all that is there said of the Authority of the Church, in defining what books be, and what be not Canonical. For Abulensis expressly declareth, that all, and only those books are to be accounted Canonical. which the church doth define to be canonical: and the reason why he did( in his private opinion) think one, or two Books not to be canonical, which we do now hold for canonical, is, for that the Church had not then so clearly defined them to be Canonical, as it hath done since A 〈…〉 sts wrote that passage as there are diverse other Books held for Canonical, even by Protestants, which have not been so esteemed by some of the Ancient Fathers, in regard the church had not then so clearly defined them to be canonical, as is hath done in after times.  
A third objection was made by D. White about the worship of Images, which D. White would needs affirm to be an Innovation, and gross● Error of Papists: Which M. Fisher denied, and said, that the worship( meaning the same worship which is due to the Prototypon) is not given by us to the Image itself. This objection D. White urged no further the first day; but the next day of meeting, he urged those words of Bellarmine, Datur veneratio ipsi imagini. M. Fisher anwered, that Bellarmine did not mean that the same worship, which was due to the Prototypon, was given to the Image itself, but an inferior degree of worship, and that also for the Prototypons sake.  
Then D. White betook himself to Suares, saying: That Suares did hold, that the same worship which was given to the Prototypon, was given to the Image. M. Fisher answering, said: You do not understand our Authors: For, said M. Fisher, they that seem to give most, give the least to Images; for those that say that one and the same worship is given 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 pertain to the thing: Whereas others who distinguish one honour to be due to the thing, and another far inferior to be given to the Image, give 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 upon it, he exciteth in himself towards his friend represented by it; yet is it capable of an inferior degree of respect, as to be set in a more worthy and eminent place etc. then it should be, if it were the picture of some other, who were not one's friend.  
These be the chief Passages of this Conference between D. White, and M. Fisher, so far as hath come to my notice, who have used so much diligence in enquiring the truth of this matter, as I have no doubt, but for substance I have not omitted any thing that may much import, considering what the occasion, and subject of the Conference was; to wit, that Paper written by M. Fisher, in which he proved the Roman Church, and those who agree in Faith with it, to be that Company, of whom every one must learn what is the truth, in all points and questions of Faith necessary to salvation: which paper not being substantially confuted, as it was not, by any thing said by D. White, or any other at that time or after, D. white is yet obliged to make a better answer, if he mean to give satisfaction either to Catholics or Protestants in this most important point of a perpetually visible church, of which all forts must learn true, divine, infallible Faith, necessary to Salvation.  
FINIS.   

A RELATION OF THE Conference between a certain B. & M. Fisher, defended against the said B. his chaplain.  

The Preface.  
GENTLE Reader, I think it needful to let thee understand, that whereas the Chaplain of a certain B. saith:( in the Preface of his Answer to a Relation of what passed between the said B. and M. Fisher,) That the jesuit spread abroad papers of this Conference, which were full of partiality to his cause, more full of calumny against the B. the truth is, that the jesuit did not at all, so much as in speech, & much less in papers publish this, or either of the other two Conferences, which he had with D. White, until he was forced unto it, by false Reports given out about them, to his private disgrace, and to the prejudice of the Catholic Cause. Neither then did he spread papers abroad, but only delivered a very few Copies to special 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 answer and countermand such false Reports, as they had heard, or might hear. Which being so, I do not see, how the Chaplain can free himself from the faults of partiality and Calumny, whereof he doth accuse the jesuit, unless he do( by some other proofs better than his own, or his Master's bare affirmation) prove, that the jesuit spread such papers; showing also particularly 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 jesuits Relation, and impugned by the Chaplain( as neither having sufficient leisure, nor commodity of Books requisite for such a work;) but the Relation to have been sincere and true, free from partiality, more free from calumny, I undertake to defend. For which purpose I think best to set down the jesuits Relation( for the most part as I find it in the Chaplains printed Copy) in greater letters, and in a lesser letter the Chaplains chiefest exceptions, and my answer unto them.  
I think the jesuit himself for his own particular respect, could be content to let pass this partial 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 Catholic Faith, and for that peculiar order of life which he professeth, under the name of the Society of JESUS; comforting himself with the example of Christ his Apostles, 
Act. 5. 41.  who rejoiced that they were thoughts worthy to suffer Contumely, for the name of jesus. In this respect I say, I suppose the jesuit himself could be content, that nothing were said to the Chaplains Censure: But considering the hurt which may come to the common cause by his unjust disgrace, I have thought it necessary to defend the sincerity and truth of his Relation, and some of the chief heads of doctrine contained in it, to the intent that hereby men may be moved better to trust what he hath written heretofore, or may write hereafter, in defence of the Catholic Faith & Church; & less trust his Adversaries, who without just cause do so much endeavour to calumniate his person, or writings.    

M. Fisher's Relation of the Conference, between a certain B. and himself.  
THE occasion of this Conference was, for that it was observed, that in a second Conference with D. White, all the speech was about particular matters, & little or nothing about a Continual, Infallible, Visible Church, which was the chief and only point in which a certain Lady required satisfaction, as having formerly settled in her mind, that it was not for her, or other unlearned persons to take upon them to 
a To wit absolutely & to rely upon their private judgement, so, as to adventure Salvation upon it alone, or chiefly.  judge of particulars, without depending upon the judgement of the true Church.  
This La. therefore having heard it granted in the first Conference, that there must be a continual, visible Company ever since Christ, teaching unchanged doctrine, in all points Fundamental, that is, in all points necessary to Salvation, desired to hear this confirmed, and proof brought to show which was that Continual, 
b The Chaplain noting the word, Infallible, to be sometimes put in, sometimes left out, taxeth M. Fisher of speaking distractedly But I note herein, that M. Fisher spoke most advisedly, and with precise care of punctual Truth: for when he speaketh of what was observed, or desired by the La. he putteth in the word Infallible, because he knew it was an infallible Church which she sought to rely upon. But when he speaketh of what D. white or L. K. granted, he leaveth it out, because they did not mention the word Infallible, but only granted a visible Church in all ages teaching unchanged doctrine, in all matters necessary to Salvation.  Infallible, Visible Church, in which one may, and out of which one cannot, attain Salvation. And therefore having appointed a time of meeting betwixt a certain B. and myself, and thereupon having sent for the B and me, before the B. came, the La. & a friend of hers came first to the room where I was, & debated before me the aforesaid Question, and not doubting of the first part, to wit, That there must be a Continual Visible Church as they had heard granted by D. White, L. K. etc. The Question was, which was that Church? The La. friend would needs defend, that not only the Roman, but also the Greek Church was right. I told him, that the Greek Church had plainly changed, and taught false in a point of doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost, and that I had heard say, that even his Majesty should say, The Greek Church having erred against the Holy Ghost, had lost the Holy Ghost. The La. friend not knowing what to answer, called in the Bishop; who sitting down first 
c The Chaplain taxeth the jesuit, as if in this parcel he did insult: and saith it was the B. his modesty to use this excuse, and to say there were a hundred scholars better than he. But I do not see any Insultation, but a simple & true narration of what was said: Neither do I see less modesty in the jesuits preferring a thousand before himself, then in the B. his preferring a hundred before himself.  excused himself as one unprovided, and not much studied in Controversies, and desiring that in case he should fail, yet the Protestant Cause might not be thought ill of, it having a hundred better Scholars to maintain it then he. To which I said, there were a thousand better scholars than I, to maintain the Catholic cause.  
Then the Question about the Greek Church being 
d The Chaplain telleth, that the jesuit said, that what the B. would not acknowledge in this, he would wring & extort from him: But these words, of wring & extorting the jesuit never useth, even to his meanest Adversaries, & therefore not likely to have used them to the B. but at most, that he would evince, by argument, or such like.  proposed, I said as before, that it had erred. The B. said, that the error was not in a point 
e 
The Chaplain faith, the B. was not so peremptory: his speech was, that diverse learned men, & some of your own are of opinion( as the Greeks expressed themselves) it was a question not simply fundamental.  
But the jesuit cannot remember the B. to have said these words; yet if he did, the jesuit did not much miss of the chief point of the B. his meaning, which was by the distinction of Faith fundamental and not fundamental, to defend the error of the Grecians not to be such( although held against the known definitive sentence of the Church) as doth hinder salvation, or exclude them from being members of the true Church. About which see more hereafter.   Fundamental.  
Whereupon I was forced to repeat, what I had formerly brought against D. Whyte concerning points fundamental, first 
f The Chaplains corrupt Copy hath righting, instead of reading the sentence of S. Austen. The whole sentence is set down by the Chaplain thus: This is a thing founded: An erring Disputer is to be borne with all in other questions not diligently digested, not yet made firm by full avauthority of the Church; there error is to be borne with. But it ought not to go so far that it should labour to shake the foundation itself of the Church: S. August. Ser. 14. de verbis Apost. cap. 12.  reading the sentence of S. Augustine; Ferendus est disputator errans etc. Out of which is 
g Out of this place we may gather, that all points defined are fundamental. All points defined are( as S. Austen speaketh) made firm by full authority of the Church. But all points made firm by full authority of the Church are fundamental, in such sense as the jesuit taketh the word fundamental, that is( in S. Austin's language) such as cannot be denied, 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 firm to us by one and the same divine revelation, sufficiently applied by one and the same full authority of the Church: which being weakened in any one, cannot be to firm in any other.  proved that all points defined by the Church are 
h By the word Fundamental, is understood not only those Primae Credibilia, or prime Principles, which do not depend upon any former grounds, for then all the Articles of the Creed were not( as both the B. and D. White say they are) fundamental points; but all which do so pertain to supernatural, divine, infallible, Christian faith( by which Faith Christ the only prime foundation of the Church, doth dwell in our hearts,( 1. Cor. 3. 11.) & which Faith 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 firm by full authority of the Church) if they are wittingly, willingly and especially obstinately denied or questioned, all the whole frame and in a sort the foundation itself of all supernatural divine Christian Faith is shaken.  fundamental.  
Secondly, I required to know, what points the Bishop would account 
i The Chaplain granteth, that there are quaedam prima Credibilia, or some prime Principles, in the bosom whereof, all other Articles lay wrapped and folded up; So as every point of the Creed is not a prime Foundation, and therefore the B. himself did not understand the word fundamental so strictly, as if that which in one respect is a foundation, may not in another respect( to wit, as included in, and depending upon a more prime Principle) be accounted a superstructure.  fundamental? He said; All the points in the 
k If the B. mean, that Only those points are fundamental, which are expressed in the Creed of the Apostles; I marvel how he can afterwards account Scriptures, whereof no express mention is made in the Creed, to be the foundation of their Faith. But if he mean, that not only those are fundamental which are expressed, but also all that is enfolded in the Articles of the Creed; Than not Scriptures only, but some at least of Church- Traditions unwritten may be accounted fundamental, to wit, all those that are enwrapped in these two Articles, I believe in the holy Ghost, The holy Catholic Church: as all those are, which being first revealed by the holy Ghost unto the Apostles, have been by successive Tradition of the Church( assisted by the same holy Ghost) delivered unto us; one of which is, That the Books of Scriptures themselves be divine, and infallible in every part: which is a foundation so necessary, as if it be doubtfully questioned, all the Faith built upon Scripture falleth to the ground. And therefore I marvel how the B. can say, as he doth afterwards in the Relation, That Scriptures Only, and not any unwritten Tradition, was the foundation of their Faith.  Creed were such.  
I asked, how then it happened that M. Rogers saith, that the English Church is not yet resolved what is the right sense of the Article of Christ his descending into Hell? The B. said, that M. Rogers was but a private man. But( said I,) if 
l The reason why the jesuit did specially urge M. Roger's book, was for that it was both set out by public authority, and beareth the Title of the Catholic doctrine of the Church of England. Our private Authors are not allowed( for aught I know) in such a like sort, to take upon them to express our Cath. doctrine in any matter subject to question.  M. Rogers, writing as he did by public authority be accounted only a private man, in what Book may we find the 
m By Protestants public doctrine in this place, the jesuit meant, as he understood the B. to mean, only of English Protestants; for the words going before making mention only of the English Church, do limit the general word, Protestants, to this limited sense.  Protestant's public Doctrine?  
The B. answered; That to the Book of Articles 
n 
This Answer hath reference to that sense which the question had of Only English Protestants, 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 swear to the book of Articles, or by subscribing oblige themselves to teach that, and no contrary doctrine. But if the Chaplain( to discredit the Relation) will needs enforce a larger extent of the sense, contrary to the meaning of him that made the answer, and him that asked the Question, who understood one another in that sense which I have declared; he must know, that although none do swear or subscribe besides the English clergy to the Book of Articles, yet all who willbe accounted members of, or to have communion with one and the same English Protestant church, are bound either 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 every 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 said not to be obliged to hold one, and the same doctrine which is in the book of Articles, not only as the chaplain saith, in chiefest doctrines( which like a chevril point may be enlarged to more by those who agree in more, and straitened to fewer by those who agree in fewer points) but absolutely 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 seems) is the church of England become,( no less than the chaplain saith, the church of Rome to have been) in denying her blessing, and denouncing Anathema against all that dissent( although most peaceably) in some particulars, remote enough from the foundation, in the judgement of the purer sort, both of foreign and homebred Protestants.   they were all sworn: and the 
o The Chaplain saith, The Church of England grounded her positive Articles upon Scripture etc. True; if themselves in their own cause may be admitted for competent judges; in which sort some other Novellist will say, that he groundeth his positive Articles upon scriptures; and his Negative refuse not only our Catholic, but also Protestant doctrines. As for example, Baptising of Infants, upon this Negative ground, it not expressly( at least evidently) affirmed in Scriptures, nor directly( at least not demonstratively) concluded out of it. In which case I would gladly know, what the Chaplain would answer, to defend this doctrine to be a point of Faith, necessary( for the salvation of poor Infants) necessitate medij, as all Catholic Divines hold? I answer with S. Austen, Aug. l. 1. contra Cresc. c. 31. Scripturarum à nobis tenetur veritas, cum id facimus quòd universae 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 answer the chaplain can make, I cannot easily guess, unless with us he acknowledge authority of church-tradition to be necessary in this case.  Scriptures only, not any unwritten Tradition was the foundation of their Faith.  
I asked, how 
p The jesuit did not ask this question as doubting of the divine authority of Scripture, but to make it seen, that beside scripture, which the B. said was the Only foundation of Faith, there must be admitted some other foundation, to wit, Unwritten Tradition, and this of infallible authority, to assure us infallibly that these Books are divine; which to be divine is one point infallibly believed by divine, Faith, and yet cannot be infallibly proved out of Only Scripture; therefore Only Scripture cannot be said( as the B. said) to be the Only foundation of Faith, or of every point believed by Faith. I hope the Chaplain( who is so careful to avoid all suspicion of being familiar with impiety, as he would have no question moved about this point upon any terms or pretence) will not be so impious as to say, That to believe these books to be divine scripture, is not a point of divine Faith; or that this point( being so important as it is, to be most firmly believed) is believed by divine Faith, without any ground or foundation; or without a sufficient infallible, & divine foundation of God's word, written or unwritten. Sith therefore 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 inquire what particular foundation of God's word, written or unwritten, doth assure us infallibly, that these particular books contain the sole, and whole truth of God, believed by christian Faith. Neither need any be troubled, or endangered by this question, but such as not finding any sufficient foundation in gods word written, do pertinaciously resolve, not to believe any thing to be God's word which is not written. Those that believe that there is a word of God, partly written and partly unwritten( 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 wheel, or circle, answer the question. See the Reply to M. Wotton & M. White in the Introduction( of which mention is made in the Relation,) where this, and diverse other important matters pertaining to the drift of this Conference, are handled at large.  he knew Scripture to be Scripture, and in particular Genesis, Exodus etc. These are believed to be Scripture, yet not proved out of any place of Scripture. The B. said, That the Books of Scripture are principles to be supposed, and needed not to be proved. Against this I read what I had formerly written in my Reply to M. john White; wherein I plainly in showed, that this 
q 
The Chaplain saith, that some body told him, that the B. untied the knot; But why doth not the Chaplain tell how he did untie the knot? It seemeth the knot was not well untied, when the jesuit had a Reply so ready, as is insinuated, by his only going again and reading in the Book which he had so rudely written. Although a Praecognitum in faith need not be so clearly known as a praecognitum in science; yet there must be this proportion, that as primum praecognitum, the first thing foreknown in a science, must be primò cognitum, first known, & must not need another thing pertaining to that science to be prius cognitum, known before it: So if in Faith, the Scriptures be the first and only foundation, and consequently the first thing known, primùm praecognitum, it must be in Faith primò cognitum, first known, and must not need any other thing pertaining to Faith to be prius cognitum, known before it; & so Church-Tradition, which is one thing pertaining to Faith, could not( as the Chaplain saith it is, and as indeed it is) be known first, and be an Introduction to the knowledge of Scripture. Moreover like as sciences which suppose a principle proved in a higher science, cannot have certainty of that principle, but either by having seen that principle evidently proved by other principles borrowed of that higher science, or by giving credit to some that have seen, or have by succession received it from others that have seen it evidently so proved▪ So Faith cannot have certainty of her first principles, but either by seeing proof from the knowledge of the Blessed, which ordinarily no man now seeth, or by giving credit immediately to some who have seen, as to Christ who clearly saw, or to the Apostles to whom clear revelation( I say clear in attestante) was made; or by giving credit to others who by succession have had it from the first seers. In which last case the certainty of these principles can be no greater than is the authority of that succession. If it be merely humane and fallible, the science and Faith is humane and fallible. Neither can either science or Faith be divine and infallible, unless the authority of that succession be at least in some sort divine and infallible.  
The chaplain therefore, who( as it seemeth) will not admit church-Tradition to be in any sort divine and infallible, while it doth introduce the belief of scriptures to be divine books, cannot sufficiently defend the Faith introduced of that point to be infallible, unless he admit an infallible impulsion of the private spirit ex parte subiecti, without any infallible sufficiently applied reason ex parte obiecti, which he seemeth not, not hath reason to do 〈◊〉 this were to open the gap to Enthusiasms of all upstart Anabaptists, and would take away due proportion of Object and Subject, and the sweet order of things which divine providence 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 humane and fallible, but also as it is the Tradition of a Company; which( by it own light) showeth itself to be assisted by Christ and his holy Spirit, far more clearly than Scripture( by it own light) doth show itself 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 motive reason or at least condition ex Parte obiecti, to make both itself, and the books of Scripture appear( infallibly, though obscurely) to our soul disposed and illuminated by God's spirit, to have in them divine and infallible authority, and to be worthy of divine and infallible credit, sufficient to breed in us divine and infallible Faith.  
Neither do I see why the Chaplain may not consider the Tradition of the present Church these two ways, as well as the present scriptures printed and approved by men of this age. For if the scriptures printed and approved by men of this age must be considered, not only as printed or approved by men, in regard the credit given to them thus considered can be no more than humane; but also as printed, and by authority of men assisted by God's spirit approved to be true copies of that which was first written by the Holy Ghosts Penmen, before we can give infallible credit unto 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 continual presence and assistance( Luc. 10. 16. Math. 28. 19 20. joan. 14. 16.) was made no less( but rather more) expressly to the Apostles and their successors, the lawfully-sent Pastors and Doctors of the Church in all ages, in their teaching by word of mouth; then in writing, or reading, or printing, or approving copies of what was formerly written by the Apostles.  
Perhaps the Chaplain will ask me, how I know that any church or company of men of this age, or any age since the Apostles, have 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 vicious circle, mutually confirm the authority of each other( as a King's Ambassadors word of mouth, and his King's letter bear mutual witness of each other); And I do not want other both outward and inward arguments or motives of Credibility, which are sufficient not only to confirm the Faith of believers, but also to persuade well disposed Infidels, 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 Legates, 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 legates to deliver and expound unto us, and which among other things do warrant that we may hear and give credit to these Legates of Christ, as to Christ the King himself.   Answer were was not good; and that no other Answer could be made but by admitting some Word of God unwritten, to assure us of this point.  
From this the La. called us, & desiring to hear, 
r 
The Chaplain saith: As it is true, that this question was asked, 〈◊〉 it is false, that it was asked in this form, or so answered. I answer that the jesuit doth not say that the La. asked this question in this, or any other precise form of words, but only saith, she was desirous to hear, whether the B. would grant the Roman Church to be the Right Church: which to have been her desi●e the jesuit is sure, as having particularly spoken with her before, and wished her to insist upon this point.  
Secondly, he is sure, that she did not propound the question in that precise form insinuated by the chaplain, uz. whether the Roman 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 Catholic church; and her desire was to hear, whether the B. would grant the Rom. church,( not only that which is in the City or Diocese of Rome, but all that agreed with it) to be it?  
Thirdly, what precise form of words the La. did use, the jesuit did not remember perfectly, and therefore did not adventure to set down; but by the B. his Answer which he perfectly remembered, & so set down in these words( It was) he thinketh that her question was, whether the Roman church was not the right church?( uz. once, or in time past, before Luther and others made a breach from it?) To which question so uttered, or so understood( as it seems by the Answer, and the ensuing discourse made by the B. it was understood) the B. might truly( & certainly did) answer, as is related( to wit) not, It is; but, It was: uz. once, or in time past the right Church; for so the Chaplain doth here confess pag. 37. The time was &c. that you and we were all of one belief. Out of which answer it may be the B. suspected that the La. would infer: 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 grant, that the Protestants made a Rent or division from it etc.   whether the B. would grant the Roman Church to be the right Church? The B. granted, That it was. Further he 
s 
The Chaplain( having told us that the B. could be heartily angry,) saith: The B. never said nor thought, that Protestants made this rent. The cause of the schism is yours etc. I answer, that the jesuit is sure, that whatsoever the B. thought( which may be was as the Chaplain now expresseth, to wit, that we had given cause to the Protestants to do as they did;) yet he did say( either ijsdem or aequipollentibus verbis) just as is in the Relation. For the jesuit did in fresh memory take special notice of this passage, in regard it concerned a most important point, which being urged by him in the first Conference against D. White in these words, Why did you make a schism from us? Why do you persecute us? the Doctor slipped over that of the schism without denying it to have been made by them, or laying the cause to us, and only answered to the other, saying. We do not persecute you for Religion. The jesuit therefore, say, did, as he had reason, take special notice in fresh memory, and is sure he related at least in sense, just as was uttered by the B.  
And I ask the Chaplain, what reason the B. had to discourse so long as he did, endeavouring to show what reason Protestants had to make that rent or division, or( if he like not these words) that discession,( to use Calvin's 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 jesuit related) confessed that Protestants, being once members of the Roman Church, separated themselves from it, as the world knows they did, when they got the name of Protestants, for protesting against it. Now for the Chaplains ascribing the Cause of the schism to us, in that by excommunication we thrust them from us; he must remember, that before this, they had divided themselves by obstinate holding and teaching opinions contrary to the Roman Faith, and practise of the Church, which in S. Bernard's judgement( serm. de resur.) is most great pride. Quae maior superbia etc. What greater pride, than that one man( Luther for example) should prefer his judgement, not only before a thousand Austin's, and Cyprians, and King Harry-Churches; but before the whole Congregation of all christian churches in the world? which in S. Austen his judgement is most insolent madness; for, contra id disputare etc. to dispute against that which the universal church doth practise, is, saith S. Austen, most insolent madness.  
What then? Is it, not only by way of doubtful disputation, but by solemn and public & protestation, to condemn the general practice of the church as superstitious, and the doctrine as erroneous in Faith, yea as heretical and even Antichristian? All this considered, the B. hath no cause to be heartily angry, either with the jesuit for relating, or with himself for granting Protestants to have made a rent or division from the Rom. church; but might with a safe conscience yet further grant, as one did( was it not He?) to an Honourable person, That it was ill done of those, who did first make the separation, Which is most true, both in regard there can be no just cause to make a schism and diusion from the whole Church( for the whole Church cannot universally err in doctrine of Faith, and other just cause there is none) and also for that those who first made the separation( Luther and his Associates) gave the first cause in manner aforesaid to the Rom. church to excommunicate them, as by our Saviour's warrant she might, when they would not hear the church, which did both at first seek to recall them from their nouel● opinions, and after their breach did permit, yea invite them publicly with safe conduct to Rome to a General Council, and freely to speak what they could for themselves. And I make no doubt,( so far is the Rom. Church from being cause of continuance of the schisms, or hindrance of Reunion) that it would yet( if any hope may be given that Protestants will sincerely seek nothing but truth and peace) give them a free hearing, with most ampie & safe conduct; which is more than ever we English catholics could obtain, although we have made offers diverse times to come to public Dispute, first in Queen Elizabeth her days, and also in his Majesties that now is; only requiring the Prince's word for our safe●y and equality of Conditions of the dispute. Unto which offer our Adversaries never did, nor ever will give good Answer: As one saith; Honestum responsum nullum dabunt praeter unum, quod numquam dabunt; Regina( Rex) spondet, Aduola. Camp. inrat, Acad. red.   granted, that Protestants made a Rent or Division from it.  
Moreover he said, he would ingenuously acknowledge, that Corruption of manners was not a sufficient Cause to justify their departing from it.  
But( said he) besides Corruption of manners, there were Errors in doctrine, which when the General Church would not reform, it was lawful for particular churches to reform themselves.  
I 
t 
This question the jesuit made chiefly against that part of the B. his last speech, in which he said, There were errors in doctrine; for if the B. meant( as the jesuit understood him to mean) that there were errors of doctrine of Faith in the General Church, never did any lawful & competent judge so censure, neither can it so be. No power in Earth or Hell itself can so far prevail against the General Church of Christ, built upon a Rock, as to make it, or the pastors thereof err generally in any one point of divine truth. Christ's promises stand( Matth, 16. & 28. Luc. 22. joan. 14. & 16.) and will never permit this, no not in Antichrists days. Particular Pastors & and Churches may fall into Heresy or Apostasy, but the whole Church cannot. It may sometime not expressly teach, or know all divine truths, which afterwards it may learn by study of Scriptures and otherways; but it never did, nor can universally, by its full authority teach any thing to be divine truth, which is not; and much less, any thing to be a matter of Faith which is contrary to divine truth, either expressed, or involved in Scriptures rightly understood. So as no reformation of Faith can be needful in the General Church, but only in particular Churches; in which case also when the need is only questionable, particular Pastors or Churches must not take upon them to judge, and condemn others of error in Faith, but as S. Irenaus intimateth, must have recourse to that Church which hath more powerful Principality, the Church of Rome, and to her Bishop being Chief Pastor of the whole Church, as being Successor to S. Peter: To whom Christ promised the Keys,( Math. 16.) For whom Christ prayed, that his Faith might not fail:( Luc. 22.) and whom he charged to confirm his brethren; and to feed and govern the whole flock, lambs and sheep( loan. 21.) people and Pastors, subjects and superiors; which he shall never refuse to do in such sort, as that this neglect shall be a just Cause for any particular man or Church to make a schisime or separation of himself and others, from the whole General Church, under pretence of Reformation either of manners, or of Faith.  
Protestants therefore did ill in first dividing themselves from the General Church, and do still ill in continuing divided from it. Neither can those Protestants be excused from intolerable pride & insolent madness, who presume to be Accusers, Witnesses, judges, & Executioners of the sentence pronounced by themselves against the Church in General, and against the principal and Mother Church, and the B. of Rome, which is, and aught to be their judge in this case. For although it be against equity that Subjects and Children should be accusers, witnesses, judges 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, witness, judge, and( if need be) execute justice against unjust or rebellious subevects, or evil children.   asked; Quo judice, did this appear to be so? Which question I asked, as not thinking it equity that Protestants in their own Cause should be Accuers, Witnesses, and judges of the Roman Church.  
I also asked; Who ought to judge in this case? The B. said: 
u 
It is true, when the Question is about the General Faith of the church, the matter may be made most firm, if the church in a General Council with the full authority of her chief Pastor, and all other Pastors( whom all people must obey( Rom. 13. Hebr. 13.) decree, what is to be held for divine truth, by Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis( Act. 15.) and by adding Anathema to such as resist this Truth. For if this be not firm and infallible, what can be so firm and well founded in the church, which under pretext of seeming evident Scripture or demonstration, may not be shaken, and called in question by an erring disputer? For if all Pastors being gathered together in the name of christ, praying unanimiter for the promised Assistance of the Holy Ghost, making great and diligent search and examination of the Scriptures, and other grounds of Faith, and hearing each Pastor 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 divine truth: If( I say) the Council in this decree may err, and may be controlled by every particular, or any particular unlearned, or learned man, or church, pretending evident text of Scripture or clear demonstration( supple, Teste & judice seipsis;) what can remain firm or certain upon Earth, which may not by a like pretence be controlled, or at least( by one or other) called in question?  
A General council therefore being lawfully called, continued and confirmed, is doubtless a most competent judge of all controversies of Faith. But what is to be done, when a General council cannot be called, as many times it cannot by reason of manifold impediments, or if being called, all will not be of one mind;( As among Protestants and others, who admit no Infallible means, rule, or judge beside Only Scripture, which each man will interpret as seemeth best to his several private judgement or spirit, it is scarce to be hoped that all, or the mayor part will ever so agree, as to remain constant in one and the same mind:) Hath christ our Lord in this case provided no means, no rule, no judge, which may Infallibly determine and end controversyes, & procure unity and certainty of belief being so necessary for the honour of God, and the good of his church? Must people for want of such a judge, rule or means, continue not only months and years, but whole Ages in uncertainty and disiunity of Faith, and in perpetual jars about even main matters of divine truth? There is no earthly Kingdom that( in case matters cannot be composed by Parliament, which cannot be called upon all occasions, and at all times) hath not beside the law-bookes, some living Magistrates and judges, and above all one visible King, the highest Magistrate and judge, who hath authority sufficient to end controversies, and procure peace and unity, and certainty of judgements, about all temporal affairs: And shall we think that christ the wisest King hath provided in his kingdom, which is the church, only the Law-bookes of Holy Scriptures, and no living visible Magistrates and judges, and above all One chief Magistrate, and judge, so assisted with his spirit and providence, as may suffice to end controversies, and breed unity and certainty of Faith, which never can be while every man may interpret Holy Scripture, the Lawbook as he list?   A General Council.  
I told him, that a General Council( to wit of Trent) had already judged, not the Roman Church, but the Protestant, to hold Error. That said the B. was not a 
x 
The chaplain saith, that the B. said not only so, but that, it was no General Council. I answer, that if the B. said so, it was only for want of memory that the jesuit did not relate it so: for the Exceptions which the B. did or can make against the lawfulness or generallnesse of the Council of Trent, may be made by Arrians against the council of Nice. It is not necessary to the lawfulness and generallnesse of a Council 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 give notice that such a Council is called, and that all may come if they will, and that a competent number, at least the mayor part, of those which be present, yield assent to the decree.   lawful Council, So, said I, would 
y As Protestants do think that the council of Trent is not lawful, for having( in their judgement) departed from the letter & sense of Scripture: so did the Arians think of the council of Nice. And as Protestants do justify that some were sent from the Pope to Trent, and that the Pope was Precedent: So doubtless did the Arians mislike, that at Nice the Pope had Legates, who did carry his messages, and one of them in his place sat as Precedent.  the Arrians say of the Council of Nice. The B would not admit the case to be like, pretending that the Pope made Bishops of 
z 
The Chaplain saith, that the B. did not say, that the Pope made Bishops of purpose etc. I answer, that the jesuit doth not say that the B. expressly said to; but that( by insinuation) he did pretend so much, which in effect the chaplain seemeth to grant, when he saith( pag. 40.) the B. said, the Pope made himself a strong party in it. For although these words may be taken in another sense, yet they may also be taken in that sense which the jesuit by the circumstances of the B. his speech) did then understand, and express in his Relation: for that a great number of Italian Bishops, which the Chaplain saith the B. alleged as a proof, may very well import, that the B. conceived the Pope to have made more Italian Bishops then of other Countries, of purpose to have a strong faction. But this proof was so weak, as the jesuit might well say, it was no proof, nor worthy of answer, or of looking into the book for it; it being only a surmise of Adversaries, who are apt to interpret every thing to the worst. Italian Bishops might be more, as being nearer,( as in Greek Counsels 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 united with the Pope for matters of Faith, defined in the Council, as any Italian Bishop.  
Neither can the B. prove, that any Catholic French, or Spanish, or of any other Country, or the schismatical greeks did agree with Protestants in those points which were defined in the Council, especially, after it was confirmed by the Pope. For they all, even Grecians, did, & do at this day unanimously oppose Protestant's, as appeareth by the Censure of Hieremias the Grecian Patriarch. So as if such a free Council as the B. and others wished, were gathered out of East and West, Protestants( doubtless) would be condemned for Heretics, and their negative refutes and denials of ancient Articles, for Heresies, by more than the double mayor Part compared to those who would take their part. For although( as all Heretics use to do.) Protestants persuade themselves, Scriptures to be evident for their opinions, and that with evident demonntrations they should be able to convince 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 studied in Scripture, and skilful in making demonstrations, who are of another mind.   purpose for his side: but this the B. proved not.  
In fine, The B. wished, that a lawful 
a I marvel, in what sort the B. will describe such a General Council; and how it should be gathered; and what Rules are in it to be observed, which are morally likely so to be observed as to make an end of controversies, better than our catholic General counsels.  General. Council were called to end Controversies. The persons present said, The King was inclined thereunto, and therefore we Catholics might do well to concur.  
I asked the B. whether he thought, a General Council might err? He said, it might. If a General Council may err, what nearer are we then( said I) to Unity after a Council hath determined? yes( said he) although it may err yet we shall be bound to 
b The Chaplain saith, that the B. added a Caution( which the jesuit omitteth) saying: The determination of a General council erring, was to stand in force, and have external obedience at least yielded to it, till evidence of Scripture, or a demonstration to the contrary made the error appear, and until thereupon another Council of equal Authority did reverse it. I answer, that added Caution( which either was not then added, or not remembered by the jesuit) maketh the B. his Answer far worse, then as the jesuit did relate. For whereas the jesuit relateth only thus, Although it may err; this caution maketh the case to be, that it doth actually err. And whereas the jesuit relateth, That we( not knowing whether it do err or not, but only that it may err,) are bound to hold it till another come to reverse it; this caution doth put the case so, as if the determination of a General Council actually erring, were( not ipso iure inualide, but) such as is to stand in force, & to have external obedience at least yielded unto it, till( not only moral certainty, but) evidence of Scripture, or a demonstration to the contrary make the error appear; and after the error appeareth, yet we must continue this yielding of obedience: And how long? Until thereupon a Council( and not every Council, but) of equal authority do reverse it, which perhaps will not be found in a whole Age. Verily I can not believe, that the B. upon better advisement will allow this Caution, or give any thanks to his Chaplain for setting it down, but will commend the lesuite for relating his speech more truly, and at least less disgracefully.  hold it, till another come to reverse it.  
After this, we all rising, The La. asked the B. whether she might be saved in the Roman Faith? he answered, She 
C 
here again the Chaplain taxeth the jesuit saying, That the B. did not answer thus in particular. But the jesuit is sure he did; and it appeareth to be so by the jesuits words who said to the La. Mark that. Unto which the B. replied saying, She may be better saved in it then you; which Reply showeth that the B. had said, that she in particular might be saved in the Roman Faith. Otherwise, if his first Answer had been as the chaplain would now make, the B. should have said, The ignorant may be saved in it, but neither you, nor she. But the jesuit is sure that this Answer of the B. and Reply of the jesuit( Mark that) was just as he related, without any such addition, as now the chaplain doth relate; and that if such a Caveat were added, it was after the end of the conference, and not in the jesuits presence.  
Out of this last passage the Chaplain observeth that Catholics take advantage, and make use of the argument drawn from Protestants granting, That one living and dying a Rom. Catholic may be saved; accounting it secure so to live and die, even by confession of Adversaries. The force of which argument he endeavoureth to weaken by saying, that although Protestants grant it to be possible, yet they say withal that it is not secure, but hard etc. But he must remember, that when Protestants grant, that in the Rom. faith and Church there is ground sufficient, and consequently possibility of salvation; this is a free confession of the Adversary's argument themselves, and therefore is of force against them, and is to be thought to be extorted from them by the force of truth itself. But when Protestants do say▪ that salvation is more securely and easily had in Protestant Faith & Church, then in the Roman; this only is their partial private opinion in their own behalf, which is of no weight, especially when Roman Catholics far more in number, and far more spread in place, and of much longer continuance in time, and for virtue and learning at least equal, or rather much exceeding Protestants, do confidently, and unanimously, and with authority and reason prove, that( according to the ordinary Course of God's providence) Out of the Cath. Roman Church, there is no possibility of salvation. And therefore, who will not think it safer to adhere to the Cath. Roman Faith and Church, in which all both Catholics and best learned Protestants do promise possibility of salvation without doubt, then to the Protestant Church, sith all Roman Catholics do threaten damnation to all who obstinately adhere unto it; and die in it? The which threat, doth not proceed out of malice, or want of Charity, but is grounded in Charity; as are the like threats of Christ our Saviour, and Holy Fathers, who knowing that there is but One True Faith, and One True Church, out of which there is no salvation, do out of their Charitable care of our souls good, so commend to us the belief of that Faith, and the cleaving to that Church, as they pronounce, He that shall not believe, shall be condemned.( Mar. 16.) and, He that will not hear the Church, and have it for his Mother, is to be accounted as a Heathen and Publican( Matth. 18.) and cannot have God to be his Father; accounting it more charity to fore warn us by these threats, of our peril, that we may fear and avoid it, then to put us in a false security, and so to let us run into danger, for want of foresight of it.  
Those examples which the Chaplain gives of the Donatists giving true Baptism in the opinion of all, and Protestants holding a kind of Real Presence not denied by any, are nothing like our case. For in these cases there are annexed other reasons of certainly known peril of damnable schism and heresy, which we should incur by consenting to the Donatists denial of true Baptism to be among Catholics; and to the Protestants denial, or doubting of the true substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But in our case there is confessedly no such peril of any damnable Heresy, schism, or any other sin, in resolving to live and die in the Catholic Rom. Church: and in case some Protestants should say, that there is peril of damnation in living and dying Roman Catholics; the authority of them that say there is peril, 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 own more learned brethren, ought not to be respected more than a Scarecrow. But the authority of those who allow salvation to such as do live and die Roman Catholics, being so many, so ancient, so virtuous, so learned, and some no way partially affected, out opposite to the Roman Church, aught to be accounted of exceeding great weight, & may worthily persuade any wise man that it is most secure to live and dye a Roman Catholic, and consequently that in so important a matter this most secure course of living and dying in the Roman Church, aught in all reason to be chosen, and that so precious a jewel as the Soul is, ought not to be left to the hazard of losing heaven, and falling into hell, by relying upon one's owns opinion, or the opinion of those few new Protestant Doctors, who acknowledge that their whole congregation may err: & much more therefore may they think that each member thereof may be deceived, in following his own, or any other man's opinion.   might. I bade her mark that. She( said the B.) may be better saved in it, than you. D. White 
d 
here the Chaplain taxeth the jesuit for falsely relating D. Whites Answer, and saith he hath spoken with D. White, who avows this, & no other Answer: He was asked in the Conference, whether Papists errors were fundamental? To this he gave answer by a distinction of persons, which held and professed the errors; Namely, that the errors were fundamental reductiuè, by a reducent, if they who embraced them did pertinaciously adhere unto them, having sufficient means to be better informed: Nay further, that they were materially in the kind and nature of them▪ leaven, dross, hay, and stubble; yet he thought withal, that such as were misled by education, or long Custom, or overvaluing the sovereignty of the Roman Church, and did in simplicity of heart embrace them, might by their general Repentance, & faith in the merits of Christ▪ attended with Charity and other virtues, find mercy at God's hands. But that he should say, signanter & expressè, that none of yours or your fellow's errors were damnable, so long as you hold them not against your Conscience, that he utterly disavows &c.  
To this the jesuit answereth; first, that he did not in this his Relation say, that D. White did signanter, and expressly say these precise words, None of yours, or your fellow's errors are damnable. Secondly, he saith, that D. White did not signanter, and expressly make this precise Answer which now he maketh, nor scarce any part of it; as appear by the Relation of the first Conference made by the jesuit in fresh memory, and conferred with D. White himself, who did not at that time contradict it in this point.  
Thirdly, the reason which moved the jesuit to say, that D. White had secured him, as is said in this Relation, was for that D. White in the said first Conference granted, that there must be one or other church, continually visible, which had in all ages taught the unchanged Faith of Christ in all points fundamental; and being urged to assign such a church, D. white expressly granted that he could not assign and show any church different from the Roman, which held in all ages all points fundamental. Whence the jesuit gathered his opinion to be, that the Roman church held and taught in all ages unchanged Faith in all fundamental points, and did not in any age err in any point fundamental. Whereupon the jesuit asked, whether errors in points not fundamental were damnable? D. White answered, they were not, so long as one did not hold them against his conscience; which Answer he repeated again to M. B. ask the same question. Out of all which, the jesuit did collect, that D. Whites opinion was, that the Roman church held all points fundamental, and only erred in points not fundamental, which he accounted not damnable, so long as one did not hold them against his conscience: and thereupon the jesuit might well say, that D. White had given security to him, who holdeth no Faith different from the Roman, nor contrary to his own conscience.  
As for D. Whites saying he could discern but small love of truth, and few signs of grace in the jesuit, I will let it pass as the censure of an Adversary, looking upon the jesuit with eyes of dislike, which is not to be regarded further than to return upon him( not a like censure, but) a charitable wish, that he may have no less love of truth, nor fewer signs of grace, than the jesuit is thought to have, by those who know him better than D. White doth.  , said I, hath secured me, that none of our errors are damnable, so long as we hold them not against our Conscience, and I hold none against my Conscience. The Lady asked, Whether she might be saved in the Protestant Faith? Upon my 
e 
The Chaplain noteth, that the B. was confident, and had reason of his confidence. For saith he, To believe the Scripture and Creed in the sense of the Ancient Primitive Church; to receive the first four General Counsels so much magnified by Antiquity: To believe all points of doctrine generally received, as fundamental, in the Church of Christ, is a Faith, in which to live and dye, cannot but give salvation. And I would fain see, saith the chaplain, any one point maintained by the church of England, that can be proved to depart from the foundation.  
To which I answer, first, that if to say thus be a sufficient cause of confidence, I marvel why the chaplain maketh such difficulty to be confident of the salvation of Rom. Catholics, who believe all this in a far better manner than Protestants do: neither can they be proved to depart from the foundation so much as Protestants do, who denying infallible authority to all the Pastors of the cath. church assembled in a General council, do in effect deny Infallibility to the whole catholic church, which is bound to hear & believe what is defined, and to practise what is prescribed by her Pastors in a general council, and ordinarily doth so believe and practise.  
Secondly I ask, how Protestants, who admit no certain and infallible means and rule of Faith, beside only Scripture, can be infallibly sure that they believe the same entier scripture and creed, and the four first General counsels etc. in the same uncorrupted sense which the Primitive Church believed? What text of scripture doth tell, that Protestants who now live, do believe all this, or that all this is expressed in those particular Bibles, or in the writings of the Fathers or Counsels which now are in the Protestants hands, or that Protestants do rightly understand the sense of all which is expressed in their books according to that which was understood by the Primitive Church, and the Fathers which were present at the four first General Counsels? Or that all, and only those points which Protestants do account to be fundamental and necessary to be expressly known by all, were so accounted by the Primitive 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 seek some other Infallible rule and means, by which he may know these things infallibly, or else he hath no reason to be so confident, as to adventure his soul, that one may be saved living and dying in the Protestant Faith.   soul ( said the B.) you may. Upon my 
f 
here I note, that the jesuit 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 have declared; But the jesuit had so much reason both out of express scriptures and Fathers, and the infallible authority of the Church, that the B. himself than did not, nor his Chaplain now doth not, tax the jesuit of any rashness: but the Chaplain expressly granteth that, There is but one saving Faith, and the B. did( as was related) grant that the La. might be saved in the Rom. Faith; which is as much as the jesuit did take upon his soul. Only the chaplain saith, without any proof, that we have many dangerous errors: but he neither tells us which they be, nor why he thinketh them dangerous, but leaveth us to look to our own souls, and so we do, and have no cause to doubt; because we do not hold any new device of our own, or any other man, or any thing contrary, but all most conformable to scriptures interpreted by Union, consent of Fathers, and definitions of Counsels.  
Which being so, the B. and his chaplain had need to look to their souls, for if there be but one saving Faith, as the Chaplain granteth,( and he hath reason, because S. Paul saith( Ephes. 4.) una fides, One Faith: and S. Leo,( serm. de Nativit.) Nisi una est fides, non est, unless it be One, it is not Faith) and this One Faith was once the Roman, which also yet is( as the B. granteth) a saving Faith;( or else he ought not to have granted, that one may be saved living & dying in it:) I see not how they can have their souls saved without they entirely embrace this Faith, being the Cath. Faith, which as S. Athanasius( in Symb.) affirmeth, unless one hold entiere( that is every point of it,) and inviolate,( that is, believing all in right sense, and for the true formal reason of divine revelation sufficiently applied to our understanding by the Infallible authority of the Cath. Church proposing to us by her Pastors this revelation) without doubt he shall perish for ever. In which sort if the B. and his chaplain did believe any one Article, they( finding the same formal reason in all, and applied sufficiently by the same means to all) would easily believe all. But so long as they do not believe all in this sort, but will, as all Heretics do, make choice of what they will, and what they will not believe, without relying upon the Infallible authority of the Cath. Church, they cannot have that One Soule-saving Faith, which all good Catholic Christians have, in any one article of Faith. For although they believe the same truth, which other good Catholics do in some Articles, yet not believing them for the same formal reason of divine revelation, sufficiently applied by Infallible Church-authority, but either for some other formal reason, or at least not for this reason sufficiently applied, they cannot be said to have one and the same Infallible divine Faith which other good catholic christians have, who do believe those Articles, not for any other formal reason beside the divine revelation applied sufficiently and made known to them( not by their own fancy, or the fallible authority of humane 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 General counsels are assisted.  
Whence I gather, that although every thing defined to be a divine truth in General counsels, is not absolutely necessary to be expressly known and actually believed( as some other truths are) by all sorts; yet no man may( after knowledge that they are thus defined) doubt deliberately, and much less obstinately deny the truth of any thing so defined. For, every such doubt and denial is a breach from that one saving Faith, which other good christians have, in regard it taketh away infallible credit from the church; and so the divine revelation being not by it sufficiently applied, it cannot according to the ordinary course of God's providence breed infallible belief in us; for as S. Paul Rom. 10. saith, How shall they believe unless they hear, how shall they hear without a Preacher, how shall they preach( to wit infallibly) unless they be sent, to wit, from God, and infallibly assisted by his spirit? And if a whole General council defining what is divine truth be not believed to be sent, and assisted by god's spirit, and consequently of Infallible credit, what man in the world can be said to be of infallible credit? or if such a Council lawfully called, continued, and confirmed may err, in defining any one divine truth, how can we be Infallibly certain of any other truth defined by it? for if it may err 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 divine truths? for if we leave this to be examined by any private man, this examination not being infallible had need to be examined by another, and this by another, without end, or ever coming to infallible Certainty, necessarily required in that One Faith which is necessary to salvation, and to that peace and Unity which ought to be in the Church? It is not therefore( as the Chaplain would persuade) the fault of counsel's definitions( but the pride of such as will prefer, and not submit their private judgements) that lost, & continueth the loss of peace and unity of the Church, and the want of certainty in that one aforesaid soule-saving Faith: the which how far it doth extend is indeed( as the Chaplain pag. 73. confesseth) no work for his pen, but is to be learned of that one Holy Catholic, Apostolic, always Visible, and Infallible Roman Church, of which the La. once doubting, resteth now fully satisfied, that in it she may learn all truth necessary to salvation, and that out of it there is no ordinary means sufficient to teach her the right way of salvation. And therefore the jesuit 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 Soul, said I, There is but one saving Faith, and that is the Roman.  
Upon this, and the precedent Conference, the Lady rested fully satisfied in her judgement( as she told a friend) of the truth of the Roman Churches Faith: Yet upon frailty, & fear to offend the King▪ she yielded to go to 
g 
The Chaplain upon this last clause saith, that he is sure she willbe better able to answer for her coming to church then for her leaving the church of England, & following the superstitions and Errors of the Church of Rome▪ But he neither proveth, nor can prove that it is lawful for one( persuaded especially as the Lady is) to go to the Protestant Church, which were to halt on both sides, to serve two Masters, to dissemble with God and the world, to profess outwardly a Religion in conscience known to be false; neither doth he, or can he prove any superstition or error to be in Roman Religion; but by presuming with intolerable pride to make himself, or some of his fellows judge of Controversies, and by taking authority to censure all to be superstition and error, which suiteth not with his fancy, although it be generally held or practised by the universal church, which in S. Augustins judgement, is most insolent madness.   Church; for which she was after very sorry, as some of her friends can testify.  
I beseech sweet jesus, to give grace to every one that offendeth in this sort, to see, repent, and get pardon of their faults past, and light of true Faith in time to come; for obtaining whereof they had need to pray to God for it, and with a great desire to seek after it, and with humility to submit their will and judgement to those whom God hath appointed to teach it; To wit, such Doctors and Pastors as by a visible continual succession, have without change brought it from christ and his Apostles, even until these our days; and shall by a like succession carry it along, even until the end of world. The which succession not being found in any other church, differing in doctrine from the Roman Church, I wish the Chaplain & his Lord, and every other man carefully to consider; whether it be not more Christian and less brainsick, to think that the Pope, being S. Peter's successor, with a General Council should be judge of Controversies, & that the Pastoral judgement of him( upon whom as upon a firm rock Christ did build his Church, 
Ephes. 4. 11.  and for whose Faith Christ prayed, 
Matt. 16. 1●.  enjoining him to confirm his brethren, 
Luc. ●2. 3●.  and to whose care and governent Christ committed his whole flock of lambs, 
〈◊〉 ●0. 18.  and sheep) should be accounted Infallible, rather than to make every man that can read Scripture Interpreter of Scriptures, Decider of Controversies, Controller of General Counsels, and judge of his judges: Or to have no judge of Controversies of Faith, to permit every man to believe as he list, as if there were no Infallible certainty of Faith to be expected on earth; The which were to induce instead of One saving Faith, a babylonical Confusion of so many Faiths as fantasies, or no true christian Faith at all. From which evils sweet JESUS deliver us. Amen.  
FINIS.