T R V E

O F  S V N D R Y

I N  W H I C H

A N D  T H A T

By A. C.

I beseech you, Brethren, marke them which cause diuisions and offences, cov-
trary to the Doctrine you haue learned, & auoyd them. Rom. 16. v. 17.

___________

   Secondly, If thou be not thyself already resolved aright 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 and belief of that one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is mentioned in the Apostles’, and the Nicene, Creed; and by means of it, in every other article and 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 and 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 mayest 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 and Catholic, besides that which always was, and 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 needest not spend time in endless disputes about controversies of faith, nor be always reading and learning, as many curious people be now-a-days, and never coming to settled and well-grounded knowledge or belief of all points of faith; but mayest bestow thy time, as S. Peter counselleth those who be faithful Christians, when he saith, [xxii] "Employing all care, minister ye in your faith, virtue,"[2 Pet. i.] 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; "and in abstinence, patience," in regard there will not want some pain to be suffered, while 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 and 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, if it be well grounded and rooted in your heart, it will doubtless move you "to labour," as the same S. Peter further adviseth, "by good works," [2 Pet. i.] and not by only faith 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; and there shall be ministered unto you abundantly, an entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." [ibid.]

   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 with others, or to print, there have been some special extraordinary impediments which have hindered the same. As, namely, that M. Fisher was straitly 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 and his friends to forbear, hoping (as was promised by him who delivered his Majesty’s message [L.K.]), that D. White and others were not to publish anvthing, until they, meeting with M. Fisher, should treat and agree, and 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, and once went to D. White’s house, to know what he would say about the Relation which he had set out; but found him unwilling to make any such treaty and 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 D. 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 anything said by him to be published now after his death, which he [xxiii] 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 of, 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, blameworthy argument or answer. But of this, as also of D. Featly’s endeavouring to disgrace M. Fisher, by objecting falsely-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 well-wisher and servant in Christ,

THE occasion of this Conference was a certain written paper, given by M. Fisher to an honourable lady, who desired something to be briefly written, to prove the Catholic Roman Church and faith to be the only right.

The copy of this Paper is as followeth:—

   First, It is certain that there is one, and but one true, divine, infallible faith, without which none can please God or attain salvation. [Ephes. iv. Heb. xi.]

[p.2.]   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 human sciences bred by a clear sight or evident demonstration, and from human opinion proceeding from probable arguments or conjectures, and from human faith built upon the authority of Pythagoras’ 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 [p. 3.] 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 human fallible faith is grounded upon the authority of the word of man.

[xxiv]   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 [p. 4.] 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 and commission to teach, saying "Teach all nations;" [Matt. xxviii., John xvi., Luke x.] promising that Himself would he with them all days, unto the end of the world; and that His Holy Spirit should assist them and teach them, and consequently make them able to teach others, all truth, in such sort as whosoever should hear them should hear Christ Himself, and so should be made docibiles Dei, and as the prophet foretold, docti a 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 [p. 5.] 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, but by the appointment of God, "who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knoivledge of the truth," [I Tim. ii.] was to be derived to posterity; not by new [p. 6.] 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 hell-gates, which, according to Christ’s promise, shall never prevail 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 shall be, the true word of God preached by visible doctors, pastors, and lawfully sent preachers, so guided by Christ and [p. 7.] his Holy Spirit, that by them people of every age were, are, and shall be sufficiently instructed in true, divine, infallible faith, in all things [xxv] necessary to salvation; to the intent that they may not be little ones, wavering, nor carried about "with every wind of new doctrine," [Ephes. iv.] 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 more fully 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 and continued, without change, in one or other continued succession of visible pastors, doctors, and [p. 8.] 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,

   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, [p. 9.] 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 witli 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 major cannot with reason be denied, and if it be, it shall be proved.

   The minor hath two parts. The first whereof is plain, by that which is already said, and if need be, it shall be 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.

   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 Protestants, so far as they disagree with it, have not the right soul-saving faith.

[xxvi]   The major is evident.

   The minor hath two parts. The first is clear out of S. Paul, Rom. i., and is confessed by Protestants.

   The second part I prove thus: If the Roman Church changed any substantial part of faith, then there may be showed the point changed, [p. 11.] the person which was the author of that change, the time when and place where the change was made; and others may be name 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 Calvin’s change.

   But these circumstances cannot be showed. Ergo, No change.

   If my adversaries 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. [p. 12.]   2. These points, which they say were changed after the first hundred 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.

  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 and 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 appointed 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 below 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., and 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, and if it be a true copy I will defend it."

[p. 14.]   Then D. White read the first point of the said paper, in which was said, "There is one, and but one true divine faith," &c. "This," saith D. White, "is true, if faith be understood explicit or implicit." Which to be the true sense, M. Fisher assented.

[xxvii]   Then D. White read the second point, in which was said, "That this true divine faith was wholly grounded upon the word of God," &c. This also D. White yielded to be true.

   Then D. White read the third point, in which was said, "That this word of God, 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 outward preaching, partly by the Holy Ghost’s inward inspiration in the hearts of the Apostles," &c.

   This point also D. White allowed, but knowing what followed in the fourth point, he asked M. Fisher whether he thought that the Holy Ghost was equally in others as in the Apostles? M. Fisher said, that the inspiration of the Holy Ghost was promised and given both to the Apostles and others, yet not in the same degree, nor in the same full 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 et nobis, "It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and us." The people also had a measure of the same [p. 15.] Spirit sufficient to enable them to conceive rightly and to believe stedfastly 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 and 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. bade 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." Secondly, he made these two ensuing arguments, to prove that more is to be believed by divine faith than 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, &c.

   Moreover, Protestants hold and believe this proposition: Nothing is to be believed by Christian faith, but what is contained in Scripture.

[xxviii]   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 [p. 16.] 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, nor cannot prove, especially out of any part of the written word.

   D. White alleged this text, Omnis scriptura divinitus 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 wainscoat, 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 not say 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 anything to this instance, seemed [p. 17.] to be weary, and giving the paper to M. Fisher, bade him read on.

   M. Fisher, taking the paper, read the fourth point, in which was said, "That 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," &c. 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 and 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.

[xxix]   But there must be such a visible succession, and 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.

   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. Fisher’s demand was both reasonable and most necessary; for since 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 [p. 19.] 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 while 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? [xxx] 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 divers 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.

[p. 20.]   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 sense? If only the words, then the Arians and other condemned heretics may be said to have held all the fundamental points sufficient to salvation; which is contrary to the judgment 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, the Holy Ghost was promised to the Catholic Church, [John xiv. and xvi.] (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 councils, 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" (inteqram inviolatamque) "entire and inviolate, without doubt he [p. 21.] 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 he fundamental?

   To which question D. White answered, That all was fundamental.

   M. Fisher asked, Whether the article of Christ’s descending into hell were fundamental?

[xxxi]   D. White said, Yes.

   M. Fisher, not thinking it necessary to press this difference, returned again to D. White’s 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, [p. 22.] which at least himself held to be fundamental, or necessary to salvation. Whereupon M. Fisher bade 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 controversialist, 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, [xxxii] [p. 23.] until the Catholic Church by full aiuthority 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. Cyprian’s 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 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 Protestants.

   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 to be true, which he knew in his conscience to be an error.

   D. White answered, That by perversity of will be 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 explicate. 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. marvelling at D. White’s answer, asked him again the same [xxxiv] 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, saith M. B., who, suffering for conscience, hold error in faith against their conscience, are worthy to be damned.

   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 judgment and 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 judgment and conscience of any private man; as appeareth 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 and not fundamental, absolutely affirmeth, "He that will not hear" (that is, believe and obey) "the Church, let him be to thee as an heathen and publican." [Matt. xviii.]

   Hence Protestants, who prefer their private judgment and conscience before the judgment 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 judgment of S. Augustine, insolently "mad," [p. 28.] 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 would reconcile, pertaineth to him to declare.

[xxxv]   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 men might not be saved?"

   M. Fisher answered to L. K.’s 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, [p. 29.] heresy, and 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 and 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 too many in all, especially infidel, heretical, or schismatical countries. But hence doth not follow, neither did M. Fisher ever mean to affirm, 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 God’s 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 sin, 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 [p. 30.] paper, in which was said, "That the Roman Church had still held unchanged doctrine of faith in all points,"&c. And for instances of change made, he objected "transubstantiation, images, communion under one kind, sacrament of penance," &c. 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, and yet you cannot show when, and by whom this change was made.

[xxxvi]   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 Protestants 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 t 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 to 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 usually noted in other [p. 31.] 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 grievously her, which confessedly 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 such changes 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 hereafter humbly to hear, believe, obey, and follow her doctrine and [p. 32.] 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 and 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 1 have gathered out [of] M. Fisher’s [xxxvii] first Relation, which he showed to D. White with an intent that he should put him in mind if anything were not remembered or misremembered: but the Doctor at that time did not, nor could truly say, that anything was falsely 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 than is related; which M. Fisher did not deny, but was willing to add anything 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, and 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.

[p. 33.]   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 councils might err in the premises, they might likewise err in their conclusion and definitive sentence. But this supposition is false, infallibility in defining coming from 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 so 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. vii. 19, which M. Fisher deferred to make answer unto, until he might see the author himself, having had experience enough how falsely many ministers cite authors, and how false their note-books 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; and that the whole discourse of Abulensis in that place showeth, that even that part which seemeth contrary to M. Fisher, doth nothing prejudice 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 [p. 34.] 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 [xxxviii] Church had not then so clearly defined them to be canonical, as it hath done since Abulensis wrote that passage: as there are divers 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 it 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 answered, 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 prototypon’s 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 [p. 35.] 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 it is capable of an inferior degree of respect, as to be set in a more worthy and eminent place, &c., than 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 inquiring the truth of this matter, as I have no doubt but for substance I have not omitted anything 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 anything 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 sorts must learn true, divine, infallible faith, necessary to salvation.

A Relation of the Conference between a certain B. and M. FISHER,

defended against the said B. his Chaplain.

   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 [p. 38.] is, that the Jesuit did not at all, so much as in speech, and 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 [p. 39.] relate partially to his cause, and calumniously against the B. I say "relate," in regard I do not at this present promise to examine exactly all doctrines insinuated in the Jesuit’s 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 Jesuit’s Relation (for the most part as I find it in the Chaplain’s printed copy) in greater letters, and in a lesser letter the Chaplain’s 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 [p. 40.] 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’s Apostles, "who rejoiced that they were thought 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 Chaplain’s 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 [xl] 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 and Church; and 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, &c.

1:  xxix/a  [S. Augustin. Serm. ccxciv. olim Serm. xiv. de verbis Apostoli, cap. 21. in fin. Op., tom. v. col. 1194. A.]

2:  xxxi/b  Rogers in his Doctrine of the Church of England, Art, 3. [vide infra, Sect. xii. No. 1. p. 51, &c.]

3:  xxxiii/c  Aug. de verb. Apost. Ser. 14. [vide infra, Sect. x. No. 1. p. 31, &c.]

4:  xxxiii/d   Calvin. 1. Ep. epibt. 141. [vide infra, p. 358. note q.]

5:  xxxiv/e   Bern. Serm. de Resurrect. [vide supra, Sect. xxi. No. 4. p. 153.]